Planes- corrugated vs smooth bottom...

**Darren Kern** · Feb-19-2006, 10:43am

I've got a line on a local Stanley jointer plane that looks to be in good shape, and I could probably get for cheaper than what's on ebay because I wouldn't have to pay shipping. However, the bottom is corrugated. Should I pass on it? What's the difference in function?

**piknleft** · Feb-19-2006, 11:00am

Corrugated soles have less bearing surface so...less drag.
In theory they should slide easier. I have one(Stanley #4) that I rarely use. A lapped sole and a lapped back iron that is razor sharp will make any plane a joy to work with. I use
a Lie-Nielsen low angle jack and block plane along with a couple of old Stanleys #5 &#7. Course if I ever built a mando
it'd probably look like a lapstrake boat with Shaker influences. My $.02 Mike

**arbarnhart** · Feb-19-2006, 11:05am

My corrugated #4 is my primary plane. I also have a flat soled one that is of lesser quality (harder to adjust). Once they are adjusted the same, they operate the same.

**woodwiz** · Feb-19-2006, 11:07am

I have both kinds. I like the corrugated bottoms just a little better for most uses. They seem to track just a little better. If I had a choice between two planes that were otherwise identical, I'd probably take the corrugated one, but I'd take a flat bottom if it were in better condition. There's that little difference, IMO.

**John Bertotti** · Feb-19-2006, 11:14am

If it is in good shape and a good price I'd grab it! John

**Bill Halsey** · Feb-19-2006, 9:12pm

For planing resinous, sticky wood like pitch pine, douse the corrugated sole with kerosene. The grooves retain some of the lubricant to help keep your plane from dragging.

**sunburst** · Feb-19-2006, 9:28pm

I have a corrugated #5, in pretty good shape. It's not set up right now, but it's a great plane when it is.
If you've ever had a plane suddenly "stick" to a board you're "shooting", you'll know what the corrugations are for. They don't easily allow the vacuum to form that can grab a flat soled plane and stop it in it's tracks on a very smooth piece of wood.
I definately wouldn't pass it up because of the corruagations.

**PaulD** · Feb-20-2006, 9:47am

If it's a good user plane and the price is right, buy it. Sometimes folks want to charge more for the corrugated planes and, as others have stated, it probably won't make a difference on narrow stock used in mandos. If you were jointing wide stock you might notice a difference, but I have two #5s... one corrugated and one not... and I haven't noticed any difference. I like the corrugated planes because they look more cool on the bench when you lay them on thier side!

Paul Doubek

**Darren Kern** · Mar-07-2006, 6:09pm

Here's the plane I was talking about, got it for $20, again no shipping charge because it was local. #It needs some TLC but it doesn't have any significant pitting, and everything works fine. #The rear handle isn't great cosmetically, but I won't be using that anyway.

**Darren Kern** · Mar-07-2006, 6:10pm

Pic #2

**Darren Kern** · Mar-07-2006, 6:12pm

Here's the #5 that just came today via UPS, I got it on ebay for $31. The pics aren't very good, but this thing is in FANTASTIC shape. What a beauty. The paint, wood, steel, blade, everything is in perfect condition. It really does look new.

**Darren Kern** · Mar-07-2006, 6:13pm

Pic #2

Mar-07-2006, 6:48pm

....whoaaaa sweet Hydrilla!

**PaulD** · Mar-08-2006, 10:36am

Great planes, Darren! It's hard to tell the details because the pics are dark, but the first one looks like a fine "user" plane, which is how I'd classify many of my planes. It looks like it's probably 1920's or '30s vintage. Those are about my favorite Stanley planes. I would have snagged it for that price in a heartbeat. The second looks like it's probably '50s or early '60s... about the same as my #5c. The quality was still very high on those planes. You got a couple good deals.

pd

**Darren Kern** · Mar-08-2006, 10:59am

Thanks guys. Paul, I think you're right about the #5, according to the Stanley plane dating flowchart, it's a Type 19 which was made from 1948-1961. I've not had as good of luck dating the #7, but it does look like the ones from the 20s and 30s. Here's a link to the plane dating flowchart I referred to, it's a handy resource- LINK

**PaulD** · Mar-08-2006, 11:23am

Cool type study resource, Darren. I've bookmarked it as a quick reference. It's probably based partially on the one in the back of John Walter's book. I was going to point out that that study is based on a Type 4 and there are subtle differences in the larger and smaller planes, but then I found this quote on their Website:

Originally Posted by

The types are listed for the #4 size bench plane. Most of the other bench planes follow the features listed below, with some minor differences. One of the most easy to spot is the location of the number designation cast into the bed of the plane. The larger ones have their numbers cast behind the tote, whereas the smaller ones have it cast at the toe (in front of the knob).

Not that it really matters what year it is, unless you're OCD about it like I tend to be!

pd

**arbarnhart** · Mar-08-2006, 1:19pm

A couple of good looking planes and a great resource. I will have to research my #4; it came in a box of tools and wasn't individually specified. My #5 came from Asia and is a lot shinier but not near the quality.