Sargent Shaw’s patent plane

[ac445ab]

Ciao,
I have got one of these Sargent planes and I need some info about from anyone has and uses them.
After a restoration job I was disappointed looking at its performance: well on soft wood, bad on harder ones.
I noticed (at least on my plane) that the frog, even if in its further back position, cannot be aligned with the bevel situated on the sole, in the posterior part of mouth.
This bevel is particularly long, more or less 1 cm, much more that of Bailey planes. The result is that the blade is unsupported for a cospicue space behind the cutting edge and may be this could be a reason for chattering with harder woods.
In the third pic is what I mean with frog alignment. Is a Stanley Bailey type 11 frog: not only the alignment with the bevel is possible, moreover if the frog is moved forward, the blade unsupported area is definitely smaller.







Any suggestion?
Thanks
Giuliano

[Bibliophile 13]

File back the two slots in the frog (the ones the two screws go into) until you can get it where you want it.

[bandit571]

Timetestedtools.....has a very big section on all things Sargent....Might look it up?    Don Wilwol runs the site.

[Tony Z]

Epoxy a piece of cardstock on the frog.

[bandit571]

Looks like you have a late model Stanley frog sitting in a Sargent #414.......

   

   

   

   

   
The way I used was to lay a straight edge from the opening... up along the face of the frog.    iron is supported at both the ramp's edge, and frog's face...


Now, I just go by feel, or just sight .    Lay the iron on the ramp, bring the frog up or back until there is no gap under the iron on the face of the frog as the iron rests on the ramp.  

As the sole wears ( and some people file or grind it flat again) iron will still contact both the ramp and the bottom edge of the frog.
  Iron does not HAVE to lay on the entire ramp, just at the edge.  No filing of holes needed, no shims needed.  

[WJB]

Bandit, I don't agree with the mismatch of parts. Based on the first two photos that is legit Shaw's patent, probably a #14. The website you referred to has a good explanation on the Shaw's patent. The frog and plane body on a Shaw's are not interchangeable with a Stanley or even other Sargents.

Giuliano, I have a #14 and 15 and I can move the frogs to obtain alignment with the bevel on the bed. I would say yours was one that was not machined properly and slipped by any inspection Sargent may have had.

You could do like the two previous suggestions to try to make it a better performer, but the Shaws are so rare I would not modify it. If you don't collect patent planes, you can sell this one and be well on your way to owning a new LN with the proceeds.

I have not used mine so I cannot comment on performance - I park the Shaws and use my Bedrocks. I have only ever seen three Shaws in the wild in the last 25 years. I ended up with two of them and the third went for about what three 604 Bedrocks go for. The guy who bought it drove a couple hundred miles one way just to bid on that one plane. I probably see 100 to 200 Bedrocks for every Shaw.

[ac445ab]

Thank you all for replies.
So, this afternoon I spent some hours to play whit my Sargent. It is a #14 Shaw’s patent, although it came without a blade and I tried to fit another Sargent blade taken off from a Sargent VBM #409
I examined it closer and I think this plane must have something wrong. The frog cannot align to the ramp because its bottom structure does not permit to draw back further even without any screw. Moreover, in that position the mouth opening is circa 3 mm, too much I think even for a jack plane, although I read that Shaw’s patent planes had thicker iron and lightly tapered also. But how much thicker I don’t know...







Already yesterday, I thought of resolve the unsupported blade issue by using a much thicker blade as those used in woodies.
For this purpose I sharpened a 2” wooden plane blade, much thicker than Sargent blade I was using:





The plane performance has changed dramatically. Even if not plenty supported, the thick blade does not chatter when used on a piece of beech with irregular grain. The mouth is close, may be even too much for thicker shavings.







Now, the problem is resolved for my plane (I have to fix the poor length of Y lever), but I am curious of know how much the mouth is opened in WJB Shaw’s patent planes when the frog bed is aligned with ramp and how much thicker is an original blade for these planes.
May be I was particularly unlucky with this Shaw’s patent plane (never seen others) or the type I have isn’t the better one as well as could be come out from factory with construction defects.
But....the scarce presence of these plane respect to Bedrocks makes me suspicious: may be people did not love it for poor mechanic features.
I hope of being widely denied.
Ciao
Giuliano