# Sargent Planes-Information NOT in Heckel's 2nd Ed. Guide



## HorizontalMike

I have been sitting on this information over the past two years, and after re-reading my personal emails, I realized that what Charles shared with me was NOT published and was thus copyright free. Charles authored the Shaw's Patent Type Study in David Heckel's ID Guide. His full name is in that guide, for those seeking that information, I am not including it here.

Anyway, here are some personal email exchanges (NOT LJs PMs), with identity links removed, concerning identifying characteristics of some of the earliest Sargent Planes from ~1880s through the 1920s or so. I think fellow hand plane enthusiasts will enjoy the added details/information on their Sargent Plane collection:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[FROM ME]
Hi Charles,
I am hoping you might be able to help me nail down some dates on a Sargent #418 plane passed down to me from my great-grandfather. This plane has never been on the market and was used by my GGF to make a living. He was born 18xx, sired #x kids from 18xx-1890s, and eventually died in 19xx. My grandfather and father were both machinists (never carpenters) but saved this #418 and my GGF's 22" Auburn Tool Co. wooden jointer and passed them on to me some 50 years ago.
Please take a look if you can, and possibly head me in the right direction for dating this thing.
http://www.horizontalheavens.com/418vs418VBM%20Comparison.htm 
http://www.horizontalheavens.com/sargent_418_fore_plane.htm 
Michael

*
[FROM CHARLES]
Thanks for the email, It looks like you done most of your research quite well. But your plane is more likely around 1909-1910 era. Not to say anything bad about Dave Heckel but he did the research that he wanted to & I let him put the Type Study of the Shaws Patent in the book. Quite a few people overlook that Sargent Started using Rosewood, Then East India Mahogany, & then in 1925 or so they just used any Mahogany that they could get. Yours looks to have East India Mahogany . A simple way to check it is if you have a user Stanley handle or knob, & the one off of your plane. On the bottom side of the handle or knob in a area not to damage it put it to a bench grinder for just a touch & then smell it. Rosewood will have a sweet smell & Mahogany will not. The proper blade would have helped in finding the year it was made. Also the pads that the frog screws into are round up to 1906 & squared off after that. Dave said that I over researched the Shaws patent & He left out a good bit in the book. But If you would use both the 400 series info. & the Shaws Patent Type Study it mite help in dating them. Good luck with the 418, The earlier Sargent planes were just as good as the Stanley planes , So since it belonged to your GGF you should find the proper cutter for it & let it retire on a shelf. There are a lot of users out there to use as a roughing plane. If I can be of any other help please let me know. Thanks Charles*

[FROM ME]
Charles,
I've got a bug in my ear that keeps reminding me that Dave only used part of your Shaw's Patent study. I keep wondering what I am missing…
Have you thought about publishing the full Shaw's Patent study and/or making it available in some form or fashion? I really liked finding out about how the pad shapes changing in 1906. I am now wondering about how the "tote placement" has changed over time as my GGF's 418 tote is ~5/8" closer to the frog than the 418VBM's tote. Also the base of my GGF's 418 has NO identifying marks (plain) just as some early Type 1 and 2 planes I have seen posted on eBay on occasion. Any ideas on tote placement and plain bases?
Michael

*
[FROM CHARLES]
Thanks for the email, I also added a couple photos of the basic 3 types of bodies. I didn't have a pre-lateral at this time so we will call them Type 2,3 & 4. The one with the round post for mounting the frog has a very thin area behind the mouth & the leading edge of the frog doesn't touch it 1891-06 ,The Type 3 has square post for mounting the frog & a thicker area behind the mouth.1907-09. The lateral lever will be twisted on these types & could have the hores shoe lateral or the standard lateral on the No.418 Type 2 & 3 the body is 2 7/8 in. to under 3 in. wide, On the Type 4 It still has the square pads for the frog but now has a raised machined area for the leading edge of the frog to sit on.the lateral lever will be the folded type on the type 4 to the end of production. No.418 will be 3 in. -3 1/8 in. wide. 1910 & later. Also this type had the handle in a differnt pos. It would take quite a while to do a complete type study since every size was a little differnt. On the No.414 they also moved the handle , The type 2 & 3 No.414 was 13 1/2 in. long & about 2 5/8 in. wide & the later ones were 14 in. long & 2 3/4 wide. The dates that I used are just aprox. they could very a year or two. On the Shaw's patent Type Study in Daves book he changed a few words here & there & I had about 7 types. One main thing is on the type 1 Dave has " The area behind the throat is very small" It should have read " The area behind the throat is very thin where the leading edge of the frog sits". I hope this helps you a little, I wish I had the time to complete this type study & a few more but I just don't have the time, If you are ever down this way I'll let you go through all of my Sargents & do it yourself. Thanks Chuck *

















[FROM ME]
Chuck,
Boy this Sargent plane stuff is addictive! I just picked up another off eBay for $50. I found a #422 jointer that looks to be Type 2-ish. It has the twisted lever, Wright's Patent date stamp, but has the second standard lateral working end that you say dates from 1907-09. This one is cleaning up real well and has much japanning left:
http://www.horizontalheavens.com/sargent_422_22in.htm 
I added some side-by-side comparisons of the #422 with the two 418s here:
http://www.horizontalheavens.com/418vs418VBM%20Comparison.htm 
Boy! I could not believe just how thin the entire casting is on this 422, especially the sides of the body where it looks like half as thick as those on the 418s (even though it has the squared frog mounting holes). This thing feels like a toy compared to my other planes! Again, NO emblems or plane numbers on the cast base (plain). 
As always, any additional advice or shared knowledge is always welcome. Got any more tidbits on these early castings? Ever get an image of the pre-lateral casting? 
Thanks, Michael

*
[FROM CHARLES]
Michael, Thats how I got hooked on SARGENT. It is a wide open research area. If you use the Shaws Patent Type Study & the other imfo. in Daves Book It should guide you in the right direction. I don't know if I added in the last email but I have noticed that Sargent started not useing the plane numbers on the planes after they started the corragated bottom planes. & were useing the 5400 seris . As they couldn'd use the No.402 etc. numbers when they were corragated. So that is why you find the earlier ones marked & unmarked , I hope this helps you & just don't confuse you that much more. Thanks Chuck*

[FROM ME]
Well that at least gives me another explanation for the unmarked castings. I guy off eBay was insisting (dismissingly) that ALL the unmarked plane castings were only for Sargent's off-brand production/business.

BTW, I use your Shaw's Patent Type Study information quite a bit, but any additional images you might have of the frog mounting areas on earlier and later planes would be an added bonus. I am trying to build a graphic image library of the general changes made to these bases over time. I am amazed that David chose to leave such information out of the 2nd Ed. book, especially after you shared your research with him. Maybe he was/is afraid of the effect it would have on his own plane collection when trying to "establish" value after acknowledging the existence of additional "Types" in the early years.

QUESTION: How long did the production last for the twisted Wright's Patent lever with the standard lateral (beyond the 1907-09 timeframe)? Was it used on other models later? It seems to me that that short 3 year period may make this particular lateral MORE scarce than the highly touted "Horseshoe" lateral that was apparently produced for a longer period of time (1891-1901). Just a thought…hmm…
Thanks, Michael

*
[FROM CHARLES]
Michael, That would be hard to say, I would say that any of the Sargent planes with the twisted lat. 1st. or 2 nd. type are quite scarce. Also if you take into the fact that Sargent more than likely started useing the horseshoe lateral while they were waiting on the patent, & when they came out with the later type they more than likely used up any old stock. Then the same thing when they came out with the folded lateral they used up any remaining old stock of the twisted laterals. Chuck
*


----------



## donwilwol

Excellent Mike. Thanks for sharing this information.


----------



## CharlieM1958

Thanks for sharing that, Mike.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Thanks guys, I have always wondered what else in the "Sargent" world is out there waiting to be discovered. Anyway, I now have a Type2 and Type 3 #414 that I am refurbishing. I aslo have a later #414 that has mismatched parts…

The Horseshoe Type2 had much pitting on the blade, chipper, cap lever, and most importantly the twisted knob. There was just enough detail left on the blade to make out that it was a Type 2 or 3 (Oval). I was obvious that all went together. The toe&knob were alien and I happened to have a period set in rosewood so that was cool. I found a Type2 blade and chipper, and a cap elsewhere. That being said, I now have a period accurate Type2 Sargent #414 that I have restored. And yes I re-japanned and ground the base square. Looks quite nice, though the only thing lacking is a clear stamp of the Feb. 1891 patent date on the horseshoe adjustment lever. Never the less, IT IS A HORSESHOE.

Fun stuff for sure… **


----------



## Tim457

Mike that's awesome stuff, thanks. Do you mind posting some or links to some comparison pictures of your Type 2 vs Type 3 414 showing those differences you mentioned? Don mentioned the horseshoe a type two would have but I haven't seen it. The comparison would be very interesting in general I think.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Here you go. I had to add a #418 to show you a folded Lateral Adjuster for comparison.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Here is some additional visual information concerning the evolution of Sargent Castings in the early years. Neither Charles nor I have/had a pre-lateral casting to compare (as that one would have been a Type 1). So here is what I have with regards to what Charles calls "Types 2, 3, and 4" castings.

The third plane is one I have had my entire life and before I re-japanned it, the original Asphalt Japanning showed that this 'milling' took place at the time this plane was manufactured. Below the comparison image I have included an image of the original japanning on this particular plane to show how the milling occurred at the manufacturer, in order to match the mated frog. Planes were fitted to their own parts, one at a time, prior to the moving assembly line production popularized by Henry Ford.



















Early Frog Bottoms. Look at the right, The 424 Type2, and just how big that foot is! And it DOES NOT touch the sole when in use.


----------



## Tim457

Great information and pictures. Thanks, Mike.


----------



## donwilwol

When you writing *your* book Mike? Great info and thanks for sharing it.


----------



## racerglen

Now that's attention to detail !
Great stuff Mike, now if I could find a VBM 15-C frog WITHOUT breaking the bank, I'd actualy
have one Sargent plane.
;-(
They seem to be VERY scarce this side of the 49th..
(Sargents in general )


----------



## HorizontalMike

OK, I just received a very interesting FleaBay plane. It is a Sargent 409C that *pre-dates* the VBM moniker that most WWrs (including David Heckel's ID Guide) assumes to "start" the all Sargent Corrugated Plane series by 4 years. It has a thin casting, round frog posts, clearly marked "409", is corrugated, has a "Horseshoe Lateral" adjustment, and has a "pure" brass adjusting knob that is indicative of very early Sargents (Sargent switched to steel sleeves inside the brass adjuster knobs, and then finally switched to brass coated/plated steel adjuster knobs). Having spoken with "Charles xxx" above about these very soles/bases, this plane could NOT have been made any later than 1906. That being the case, valuations escalate accordingly.

*Charles: "... [Plane soles/bases] Also the pads that the frog screws into are round up to 1906 & squared off after that. ..."*

Please note the 409VBM directly next/above the plane in question, as a reference of the massive difference in manufacturer sophistication with the *"VBM"* line of planes. This very early plane looks like an aluminum mock up by comparison. Just saying… *;-)*


----------



## donwilwol

I don't know Mike. We may not live long enough to figure it all out.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Just thinking,... maybe this is why Stanley actually gained market shared way back when… who knows…? All I know is that it is a hell of a difference in the thickness of the soles and frog nuts…


----------



## HorizontalMike

UPDATE: The corrugated #409 Sargent I shared above, is actually a *Sargent #5409* (pp. 76-77 in Heckels's 2nd Ed. Guide). Sargent only manufacture this plane for 3-years 1907-09, though this one, with its round frog posts, dates to 1906 or so. So this example must have been one of the very first in the 5400 Series to be produced.


----------



## donwilwol

that's a rare find Mike.


----------



## donwilwol

I got a Sargent type 2 #422 and a Sargent type 2 #414 this week end

Needs some work, but don't they all.


















>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.


















Along with a type 2 #306 (I already had a type 2 #307)


----------



## HorizontalMike

Very nice Don. The sole #422 I have is a twist lever Type3 with the thin casting(as is yours). Well done!


----------



## donwilwol

I just picked up a type 1 409. I thought it was a Stanley because it had a Stanley Iron of the correct vintage. The day before I bought the plane I was fishing through a tool box and came across an old 2" Sargent iron. I thought, I may need that someday, so I asked the guy what he wanted for it. He said $5. I said I was thinking more like $3. No go so I headed back to throw the iron back in the box when he said, I'll give you the whole box for $8. Sold. The box has at least 10 nice file handles, a broken distton but brass nuts, files and other goodies.

What luck to buy a type 1 Sargent with a Stanley iron when I just bought the Sargent iron the day before!


----------



## HorizontalMike

OK Don, I am missing something… can you show me the specific image? You definitely have my interest peaked.

*8^O*


----------



## donwilwol

I got home late Sunday and hit the road again Monday Mike. Pictures this weekend.


----------



## donwilwol

Here is the type 1.


----------



## donwilwol

and would appreciate you opinion over here to Mike {and all}


----------



## HorizontalMike

Dang nam'it! TWO, two new early Sargent planes! Life is not fair sometimes! Don, you sure hit the mother load on these two, that is for sure. Very well done!


----------



## donwilwol

One more to go. I think its a type 3 414. Folded and riveted lat, pre vbm. I usually pass on the folded lat, but it was $5.

Edit: its got a type 10 Stanley iron.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Yeah, I am thinking that David H. grouped both the twisted/newer Lateral and the folded/newer Lateral BOTH as Type3s, however Chuck H.(Shaw's Patent) would probably split them out into Type3 and Type4, with the Type4 being the folded Lateral. Case in point, the VBM Lever Cap changing over to the plain "Sargent" Lever Cap, a small change but declared another "Type" that David H. quit and never addressed from there on. And then there were the "S"s and the "Hercules" Types as well…

Just my 2-cents worth…


----------



## donwilwol

I kind of like the idea of splitting them out as well. It make sense. I agree something as defining as the folded lateral should be split into a new group, even if everything else is the same.


----------



## donwilwol

But here is probably why he lumped them together. Here is the latest 414. No marking on the bed.

A type 3 style frog bed









But a later style lat with a type 3 style frog.










The cap has nothing on it. Were any of the Sargent cap not marked, or maybe the cap got replaced with a Stanley when the iron did??


----------



## HorizontalMike

Early Sargent caps were NOT marked on the outside surface, though they would have the plane number on the underside and sometimes a DOT as well. Stanley plane caps tended to have a letter, like a "B" on the underside, or maybe left blank. I think the gussets varied between brands as well.

BTW, since lever caps were so interchangeable, they are the LEAST reliable means of dating a plane. The base, by and large, is the definitive test/definition of the type of plane one has/owns. The blank ones give the hardest times and that may explain why David H. avoided even attempting to ID them in the first place. At least that is MY opinion… *;-)*


----------



## donwilwol

It was the plan number was wondering about. As you see more and more it becomes easier to see the difference between the sargent and the Stanley. They were just cast slightly different.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Did you measure the tote position distance behind the frog screws? You know that they also vary, right? Yours appears to be closer.

http://www.horizontalheavens.com/GarageWorkshop/Tools/Sargent%20No418%20Fore%20Plane/VBM%20Comparison%20Folder/Full-Length-Bases.jpg


----------



## donwilwol

Here are the three X14's I have









.......









The top one is the type 3/4 I listed last.
The center one is what I presume to be a 1906 5414 just like the 5409 you posted above.
The bottom one is a type 3.


----------



## theoldfart

Mike and Don, been eavesdropping on your conversations. I've picked up a sargent 14" jack and I think its a bit of a mutt:









There are no markings on the body









The frog is marked 409 and the lever cap says 9


















I'm guessing the body is much older than the frog. any ideas?


----------



## donwilwol

If you look at Mikes comparison, it looks like you have an early Type3/4? VBM.

The cap is a type 3 (according to Dave Heckle). The base could be an early type 4.

I guess it could also be a Something else branded Sargent. I just figured out the last one I posted had a DE iron, so it could have been manufactured for Diamond Edge. I know the iron isn't a good way to type a plane, but it can add some evidence to help lean one way or another.

There seems to be a lot more inter mixed parts than Stanley had. It wasn't uncommon to see it with Stanley planes, but with Sargent its seem much more prevalent.


----------



## theoldfart

All I can see on the iron is the word New on the left backside. New Britain?


----------



## donwilwol

Sargent was New Haven.


----------



## theoldfart

Don, thanks


----------



## HorizontalMike

Yeah, I agree with Don, that the base is a Type4. As you measured, the tote location has been shifted aft on this base (to ~2 1/4in from the frog pads). The pre-VBM/earlier totes were ~1 1/2in from the pads. The frog step pad, behind the mouth of the base, started being used somewhere around 1909-10 as best that I can tell. Maybe a year or so earlier, but I have no evidence to that effect.


----------



## theoldfart

Thanks Mike, BTW what's the going price on David's book?


----------



## HorizontalMike

David's out-of-print book comes up on eBay on a regular basis and if I recall correctly, you can usually get a copy for ~$30. Just make sure it is the 2nd Edition, and even that is from 2004 and quite dated.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/SARGENT-PLANE-BOOK-D-Heckel-IDENT-VALUE-GUIDE-/261211914736?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cd17181f0


----------



## theoldfart

Thanks Mike


----------



## HorizontalMike

I just picked up another eBay deal and it arrived today. It is a Sargent #5408 (#3 size), my second in the #5400s series. This one cost me a whopping $14.09 +sh. Heckel's 2004 Value Guide puts it at $200-$400, so I am gloating a bit *;-)* These planes were only produced for three short years, 1907, 1908, 1909, and are probably the shortest production run of any of the Sargent planes and rare.

Below: This plane has only been buffed with a wire brush. No refinishing of the Tote or knob, just buffed. This is probably the "best" condition plane I have been fortunate to get off of eBay.


















Above and Below: Both frog and lever cap are stamped "408" with a DOT, that indicates a very early version of this plane. The frog has a "Twisted Patent Date" lateral but has the "second" lateral working end. David H. Guide indicates that these should be "Horseshoe" with a steel insert brass adjusting screw. This 5408 has the brass w/steel insert adjusting nut, however my #5409 (see post #10) has the Horseshoe lateral but with a "pure" brass adjusting nut. I am finding that the "pure" brass and "horseshoe" lateral are always found together, at least in my experience.



















Notice (above and below): 

 There is NO PLANE NUMBER on the casting
 Thin Casting
 Round frog posts (pre-1906 typically)










Below: Here is the Tote & Knob before any cleaning/buffing. They came very solid and hefty, yet with much heavy caked on grime that was hard to remove. That said, I believe that the entire original finish is intact, and not someone else's restoration. Even the casting's japanning, while poorly done, appears to be original. Not seen, is the right inner wall where the frog sits, where it was machined after the japanning was in place.


----------



## donwilwol

that's another sweet find Mike.


----------



## racerglen

Oh Mike..
SCORE !


----------



## HorizontalMike

Thanks guys.

BTW, here is a better image that shows the lower quality japanning on this early plane. It looks like the asphaltum bubbled up along the inside corners when baked, if you ask me. Also notice the drip line in front of the frog posts heading toward the mouth. I am amazed, however, at how well the japanning along the floor of the casting has stayed on while the walls, with mush thinner japanning, do show many scratches/wear.


----------



## upchuck

Mike,
This forum seems to be the place and you seem to be the person to ask about old Sargent planes. I posted a few questions on Handplanes of your dreams (#36291). I have a Sargent plane with a broken frog. This plane's main casting has a few markings on it. They are: A) "SARGENT" enclosed in a box behind the knob and in front of the cross rib. The rib is in front of the mouth, B) "9" in a recess that the frog would sit on, C) "SARGENT & CO" 
"PAT 7-3-06" in two lines behind the frog and in front of the tote. The frog has three screws that mount it to the main casting and an adjusting screw to move the frog fore and aft. One screw below the blade and two below the depth adjusting nut/knob. The frog is broken and the piece with the lateral adjusting lever is missing. Where can I get more information about this plane? None of the photos in the posts above show what I have. I had thought that my plane was the Shaw's Patent?
Thanks,
chuck


----------



## HorizontalMike

Chuck,
Obviously IMAGES would help here!

That sounds like a "Shaw's Patent" #9 (equal a size #4 Stanley).

From David Heckel's 2004 Value Guide:


----------



## donwilwol

There are some pictures of a #9 here http://lumberjocks.com/topics/54790 I've got the same plane with the same problem.

I have a picture of a #15 on my blog as well.


----------



## Texcaster

Well done! I'm constantly gobsmacked how deep you guys dig.


----------



## upchuck

Mike,
Thank you for the information. Also thank you for your indulge with the lack of photos. You and Don W both hit it right on the head. I am grateful for the information you both provided. 
Don W,
Thanks to you also. The photos from your blog posts duplicate what I have, I found a frog for sale at $90. But that's not going to happen with me. I also saw a #8, a #9, and a couple of #14's for sale for $400 and $300 each. Don is your #15 the same size as a Stanley #5 1/2?
chuck


----------



## donwilwol

I would have posted this earlier but was on my phone. Here is the link to the #15.

Yes its the same size as a #5 1/2. Also, If you don't mind me asking, were was the $90 frog?


----------



## donwilwol

I received a question through my blog. This appears to be off a type 2 sargent, 15" long (which would make it a 415) no marks on the body.



















Now, I'd say the cap just got changed, but I don't know of a #416. Foundry mark? It could be, but its pretty similar to the sargent number stamps. I've requested more pictures from the owner.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Don,
I would love to see what *the tang* of the lever looks like, on the front of the cap. A skinny lever tang would add evidence of very early production. But then again, I suspect that the *front* of this cap is patterned and came off of a #3416 Transitional plane. It does look like the lever cap is japanned, though who knows if that is original or added later… (but that also leads me to believe in it being off of a #3416)

Keep me posted.

Fun stuff… *8^)*


----------



## chrisstef

Picked up the 710 autoset a few weeks back. In the box, original booklet, and it looks like it was used very very little. 45 clams.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Wow Chris! Well done indeed!


----------



## chrisstef

Yea but you know what happens when you buy a new brand of plane and like it. There's always more to come. Like I needed a new addiction. I followed up the 710 with a 409 that needs the works. Its in queue. Ill have to pull some pics of it tonight for posterity.

BTW - If you need any info from that little booklet or would like me to scan it to pdf I can make that happen.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*"...Yea but you know what happens when you buy a new brand of plane and like it. There's always more to come. Like I needed a new addiction…."*

OK Chris, but just don't bid on the planes that *I* want… *;-)*


----------



## chrisstef

Wont step on the ebay toes Mike … im a hunter in the wild, caged sargents scare me.


----------



## donwilwol

that one I have Mike. Not a tranny.


----------



## donwilwol

and I already told Stef how bad he sucked elsewhere.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Wow Don, very perplexing for sure.

Consider this:

 Since the #3416 was produced 1891-1918, and the #415 was produced 1910-1943, there is an 8yr span of time that production of BOTH planes overlapped.
 We have seen other times that Sargent had/has used existing/mixed over-supplies of parts when making model changes.
 Plain lever caps were used right up until the VBM (1918) models came out.

I would suggest that this plane was probably produced around the ending years of the #3416 production, immediately preceding the VBM transition or at least during that 8yr overlap. Just speculation on my part…


----------



## alohafromberkeley

Mike, am I mistaken to think that the VBM lever caps were on the 408 and 408c Sargents from 1910 to 1918? I've seen both recently with them with type 3 frogs…...


----------



## bandit571

Recently picked up a Sargent 414. Levrcap and the frog have #409 cast into them. There is the number 414 stamped on the iron. Base looks like a T4 one.


----------



## donwilwol

according to Heckel, vbm was used on hand plane line starting in 1907 and ended in 1918. Type 3 ended in 1909. I wonder if they used up some type 3 base and frogs into the vbm production.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Boy what a brain fart! You are correct! Geez what was I thinking, YES VBM = 1910-18. Doah!


----------



## donwilwol

There still could be enough of an overlap, I just don't think that's it. The transitional caps are totally different. And I can't find a reference to any plane manufacturer with a #416.


----------



## alohafromberkeley

Mike & Don, looking closer at pics, it is a type 4 not 3 frog and bed….sorry for any confusion.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Don,
1907? Boy, p.10, second paragraph of Heckel's Guide sure sounds confusing to me.


 J.B. dies in 1907 and yet the VBM slogan was in the "1901" catalog? A typo?


 *"This slogan was used from 1908 until it was phased out after 1918, following the death of George Sargent in 1917.* This is in conflict with Heckel's later statement that VBM cutters were 1910-18. (pp.87)


 The 5400 series planes, while corrugated, were not VBM, and the #5409 and #5408 that I possess are not VBM. Plus these planes did NOT have the #5 on the plane, only in the catalog.


 Heckel didn't take advantage of the research by "Charles" in the OP regarding the casting types.

Bottom line is that Heckel's Guide has multiple weaknesses, hence the need for this LJs Thread/Forum. Don, do you think that we could put together either collection or sequence of frogs and their stamps? Plus, do you have an image of a Type1 casting that I can add to my webpage on Types?


----------



## donwilwol

I'd like to put together a decent timeline. I've thought about trying that on my blog, but anywhere accessible is good for me, and I do have a type 1 409.

I can take some better ones, but here is what I have,










There are more posted here to.


----------



## donwilwol

Here is the rest of the pictures of the mystery #416. It turns out to be a later type. The frog base seems to be a type 4. the lat adjuster a type 3. It has a type 2 iron. Original iron? Who knows.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Don,
You have a very interesting casting on that #416. I do NOT see the bench just behind the mouth, that the frog would sit on and this is obviously a thin casting. If what I am seeing is the original japanning, that would also indicate an early 1900s production date.

What puzzles me is the possible mismatch of the frog with this particular casting. The bottom of the toe of the frog should be painted, as it was never intended to rest on the casting. The milled toe I find puzzling, though the casting also shows much more milling than other early castings that I have seen as well.

Below is and early frog in original condition that shows the painted frog toe.









The below right one has been refinished, from my #424 Type2


----------



## terryR

You guys mind if I ask a Sargent transitional question? It's probably an easy one?

Is this the hoseshoe lateral adjuster that denotes a Type1?










and this curly lever?










and this iron?










...if so, I just discovered I have FIVE of them! Two are missing the horseshoe itself, so maybe I can correct that.

I realize they aren't nearly as rare as the Type1's you guys usually go for, but a plane collector has to start somewhere. LOL. Just hoping I figured this one out?


----------



## donwilwol

Terry, type 1 is prelateral. The horseshoe is type 2 (what you show). *BUT*, this is for bench planes, so it may or may not translate to transitionals.

For some reason Heckel did a separate study on the irons, so you'll need to match dates, not types, so you have a type 1 iron, that's typically on a type 1 and type 2 plane.

Also note the patent date is the same for both the first and second type lateral. They were issued the same day. So Heckel believes they were used in tandem, which gets confusing. For example, even though they went to 1909, the 5400 series had all horseshoe laterals, even though the 400 series went from a type 2 (horseshoe lateral) to a type 3 (pivot lateral).


----------



## terryR

Thanks, Don. Just as confusing as I thought! 

What peaked my interest are those photos I posted above from an aBay seller; he claims it's a Type1 tranny. On the small 3407 none the less. $$$. And I don't think I've seen a Sargent 34xx without lateral adjuster. Back to the books to research…


----------



## HorizontalMike

Terry, 
I'm sorry, I know that I will have to plead ignorance to any of the Sargent "transitional" planes. I only pay attention to the Iron bench planes. Adding "transitional" planes would require much deeper pockets than I have… *;-)*

BTW, Don has it nailed on your questions, IMO.


----------



## terryR

Thanks, Mike. I think I decided to collect all the Sargent trannys since no one else has to my knowledge. 

I only had a short time for internet yesterday, but so far I don't see a pre-lateral tranny. Heckel points to the horseshoe as the Type1 indicator, and a simple pivot as Type2, and I have a few simple pivots, too.

Thanks to Everyone for input! Maybe we need a Sargent Transitional ID forum, too!!! LOL


----------



## CFrye

Thanks for all the useful information, Mike! I originally posted this on HPOYD thread and Don suggested I post it here to get your input. 
I picked up this beast at a flea market as a kind of joke. Bandit said he needed victims for his rehab dungeon. Did some research and found your comparison of the 418 and VBM (although I didn't realize it was your site until Don linked to it as well!). Had to soak the frog screws for a while in penetrating oil to get them to release. Pleae correct me if I'm wrong. I think it's an early type 4 as there are no words or numbers on the body and the tote is close to the frog as you indicate. 
I'm in the process of cleaning it as I'm too … frugal to mail it to Bandit!


----------



## donwilwol

Ahh Candy, the fun your about to embark on. Welcome to the slippery slippery slope. I agree, its a type 4 frog and a type 3 base. Bandit has his way of finding his own treasures. Yours will make a fine jointer after hours and hours (just kidding of course) work.

The cap is sitting here on my desk if you want it. It's even the correct vintage (for a type 4).


----------



## HorizontalMike

What Don says. I walked away and missed being the first to reply… *;-)*

Looks like you need a knob, blade, chipper, and lever cap to complete this baby. As Don says, welcome to the slippery slope. A word of advice for the long run,... is to try to buy "complete" planes as often as possible, because buying plane "parts" will always, but always add up to way more than a complete plane, even one that is trashed out.

The good thing is that you have the mounting screws, as even those could be $10-$20 each after adding shipping off of eBay. FWIW, I have a couple of "Stanley" parts… blade and chipper for this size plane, and yes I indeed bought "Sargent" parts to replace these errant "off-brand" pieces on Sargent planes I bought.

The #418 is a good size to have and use. One of the three that I have, I put a Hock blade on it and is very useful as a user. The second, I put a Lee Valley "scraper" blade on it. I also have a TYPE2 #418 as a collection piece, but that is another story… *;-)*

My suggestion is to NOT be in a rush to complete this plane. Take your time. Clean up what you have and patiently watch eBay for select items/parts to come up for sale. The parts that you need are often in demand, so be patient.


----------



## CFrye

Thanks Don, I think. PM sent.
Mike, right on all missing parts. Got on this slope with the plane swap and have managed to maintain traction…so far. LOL This is the first incomplete plane I've purchased so maybe I'm not doing as well as I let on. I am in no rush to gather missing parts. Don also recommended a hock blade.
I failed to mention that it has a corrugated base. Any tips on de-rusting *that* would be greatly appreciated as well!


----------



## donwilwol

Candy, if you haven't done so, go through my restoration guide, http://www.timetestedtools.com/how-to---bench-plane-restoration.html there are several derusting processes listed. Chose the one you can easily obtain. They all work.

as for the incomplete planes, I buy every one I can get cheap. A $5 parts plane with nothing more then a usable rosewood tote is still a bargain in my book. I hate to have to buy parts off eBay. Its almost always cheaper to buy another parts plane if you can wait.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Again! What Don says. I swear that Don and I are identical brothers from different mothers!... what ever I think, he says…

My problem is that no matter "how bad" a shape that a plane is in, I STILL want to try and refurb it totally! In other words… 'Bring ALL planes home alive!' *;-)*

FWIW, I like/prefer using electrolysis for de-rusting planes and their assorted parts. That said, I just picked up some phosphoric acid (de-rusting chemical) to de-rust a #8 Pre-lateral Stanley (thought it might be a Sargent Pre-lateral). The #8/#424 castings are just too long to fit in my 16gal tub electrolysis bath. I did manage a #422 casting once, though it really took a long time even at 10amps.


----------



## donwilwol

> My problem is that no matter "how bad" a shape that a plane is in, I STILL want to try and refurb it totally! In other words… Bring ALL planes home alive! *;-)*
> 
> - HorizontalMike


Which of course is the primary sign of a serous sickness, somewhat contagious, and doesn't seem to have a cure.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Yep. I understand this Don, as you ex-plane this it just makes "plane" sense…


----------



## upchuck

I think that Candy's #418 went from a joke for Bandit to a restoration project/lesson for herself.
I think that we can all agree that that #418 will *never* be *the* prize of a serious collection.
I think that most of us agree that that #418 is restorable into a very useful and highly functional hand plane that can be set up to do a at least a couple of different tasks (small jointer and large fore/jack plane).

It's a user. No need to hunt for the "correct" parts that are type specific and accurate to the degree of wear to match the "bones".

"I still want to try and refurb it totally! In other words…Bring ALL planes home alive!"

That is an honorable sentiment…but unrealistic and impossible. I think that there is also honor in taking wounded veterans and rehabilitate them to lead useful and highly productive lives. Rehab beats the landfill.

I'm with DonW about the benefits of cheapo parts planes. If you are careful parts from two or even three broken planes can be combined for less than the cost of one complete plane. Especially if your target is user planes. Mistakes will be made. Lessons will be learned. Tuition will be paid. Patience will be required.

Good Luck, Candy


----------



## HorizontalMike

*upchuck: "...I think that we can all agree that that #418 will never be the prize of a serious collection…."*

Believe as you will Chuck, though I just picked up a very early corrugated #418, that is actually a #5418, valued in Heckel's 2004 book at $150-$300, and as mentioned earlier my Type2 #418, and that is valued at #250-$500. I picked BOTH of them up at ~$20-25 EACH at different times from eBay.

In other words a Sargent #418, depending on age, type, and condition, CAN be a prize piece in a "serious" hand plane collection.


----------



## HorizontalMike

I thought that showing the relationship between Leonard Bailey and Sargent & Co. would be important information to add to this forum/thread, since so many folks ONLY think of the Bailey/Stanley connection. What is clear, is the direct and personal influence that Leonard Bailey had on Sargent & Co.'s metal plane business.

This basically puts Sargent on par with Stanley, and today Sargent planes are much more RARE than Stanley planes. And as I understand the World, rarity translates into increased value for similar items. Thus Sargent planes can and will increase in value faster than similar Stanley planes.


----------



## bandit571

Ok, enough with the Bandit stuff. Here is a few views of a Sargent i have been using in the Dungeon Shop









The back porch









the "409" lever cap.









A later lateral lever?









cast into a raised platform behind the knob, SARGENT inside a box. behind the frog, almost buried in the black japanning is "414"

Wheel was a brass plated thing, rust had removed most of that. Handles use brass nuts on the steel shafts.

This is a c model









The iron is stamped with a SARGENT inside a "T" shaped box. there is also a "No." and a "414" stamped into it. Below that is what LOOKS like "NEW HAVEN CT USA" On the other face of the iron is a "B" stamp.

Ring any bells?


----------



## donwilwol

I think it all depends on your definition of a *Serious Collector*. I consider myself a serious collector. But does that mean I have the disposable income to go out and buy the pristine type 1 707 type planes? absolutely not. I'll be happy to find the old rusted piece like Candy's #418 and bring it back to life.

I tend to get a bit annoyed when I hear, "No serious collector would want a restored plane". So maybe I'm not a serous collector. Maybe I just can't afford to be. But if you ask, the answer will still be, "Yes, I'm a serious collector".


----------



## Deycart

The only think I consider off limits when it comes to my collection is if the japanning is original or a paint job. Plus if you can't tell it was a fixer upper what's the difference?


----------



## upchuck

HMike-
Good for you! It's always nice to find some overlooked and underpriced treasure. The Sargent planes I have and have used have been quality tools.
I had thought that I had included enough qualifiers in my sentence ("that that" referring only to Candy's plane, "the prize" meaning the best item is a group of items, and "serious collection" was about the collector who searched for planes in the original box, all original parts, 100% japanning, factory finish on the wood, tooled surfaces on bed, frog, and cutter straight from the machine, in other words: Mint). Maybe "obsessive" would have been a clearer word than "serious". I'll change that now.

Edit:Too much time has expired and I'm not allowed to edit my original post. I hope this explanation will unruffled any feathers


----------



## upchuck

Candy-
I clean out the corrugations by wrapping sandpaper around a toothpick or bamboo skew to get into the grooves.


----------



## CFrye

I have nothing against a Frankenplane. However, I am just anal enough to want to return it to original, eventually. 
Don, I'm taking notes on the blog. My back was turned yesterday and hubby got hold of it and started sand blasting the body! Thanks for the tip, Chuck.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Candy,
A wire brush on a drill press is great at removing rust. Just be sure to wear safety glasses because wires do come flying off frequently. For small stuff I use a Dremel with a wire wheel, but Dremel brushes can get expensive and they don't last long.

Chuck,
Yeah, that double "that that" was easy to miss. Guilty, my addiction was showing… *;-)*


----------



## donwilwol

you have no way to know if the frog is original. It very well could be. With the cap I just sent (type 3 cap) , all that is left is the cutter and the chip breaker, and if its a user, aftermarket would be fine in my book.

sandblasting is the best!


----------



## HorizontalMike

Bandit,
Looks like a post-VBM pre-WWII #414C Type4. Surprised that the cutter doesn't have a "C" stamped next to the "414". The empty "T" box immediately followed the VBM planes. What you did not show, was the front of the lever cap. I am assuming that it had a single box [Sargent] and not the VBM cap, correct?


----------



## bandit571

A---yup.


----------



## bandit571

seems a Craftsman made by Sargent plane has touched down via air mail. Sargent made? Well, under all that Sears stuff ( Craftsman blue logo in the lever cap, RED frog) there are a few clues to consider.

Under that red frog are the numbers 408. Lever cap has a "O" cast into it, AND a small tit down near the edge. Not sure if THAT will stay, though.









Hole is at the top of the slot on the CRAFTSMAN made in US A stamped iron. Seat for the frog









Looks a lot like a Sargent made item? BOTH handle bolts are BENT, will have to work on getting the "kinks" out. Just a little #3 ( #408) sized plane









And, because this is a Craftsman, i'll do a full clean & shine on it. And, no, there isn't any grooves on the base, either in the sole, or the sides….


----------



## CFrye

I measured the mouth on this 418 and it measures 2 1/2" and the frog measures 2 3/8". I've been offered a blade and chipper that is 2 5/16" wide. Is that the correct size for this plane? If not, will it work? Showing my ignorance here…gotta learn sometime!


----------



## donwilwol

those are all the correct 


> I measured the mouth on this 418 and it measures 2 1/2" and the frog measures 2 3/8". I ve been offered a blade and chipper that is 2 5/16" wide. Is that the correct size for this plane? If not, will it work? Showing my ignorance here…gotta learn sometime!
> 
> - CFrye


those are all the correct dimensions.


----------



## Deycart

I think, Heckle is going to be at the MWTCA meeting in Madison GA. I plan on going to grab a car load of planes. If you guys have any questions you want me to ask him let me know.


----------



## donwilwol

> I think, Heckle is going to be at the MWTCA meeting in Madison GA. I plan on going to grab a car load of planes. If you guys have any questions you want me to ask him let me know.
> 
> - Deycart


I've had a few email exchanges with him, but never got a good answer to this. If a Sargent plane is a type 2 or a type 3, and its corrugated, it must be a 5400 series, no?. I don't know what else it could be. To me, it doesn't seem it would matter if it had a two piece or solid adjuster, or any other criteria other than a type 2 or 3 with corrugation.


----------



## HorizontalMike

> I think, Heckle is going to be at the MWTCA meeting in Madison GA. I plan on going to grab a car load of planes. If you guys have any questions you want me to ask him let me know.
> - Deycart
> 
> I ve had a few email exchanges with him, but never got a good answer to this. If a Sargent plane is a type 2 or a type 3, and its corrugated, it must be a 5400 series, no?. I don t know what else it could be. To me, it doesn t seem it would matter if it had a two piece or solid adjuster, or any other criteria other than a type 2 or 3 with corrugation.
> - Don W


I will have to agree with Don on this one. David has done much for the Sargent Hand Plane cause, though I believe that he may have run out of steam/energy after much attention being diverted elsewhere other than Sargent. I believe current observations are very relevant and add to the knowledge base much more than David's old incomplete observations pre-2004 and thus much is still to be learned by those of us still in the field.

I do NOT blame David for calling it a day, it will happen to all of us given time. IMO, keep the ball rolling and we will all benefit in the end.


----------



## donwilwol

Here is a different one for you Mike. A type 2 for sure, but this has the plane # cast in it.


----------



## CFrye

Don, that looks very much like the trashed 408 I picked up recently.


----------



## donwilwol

Candy, I went digging through my stuff and I found another. Its a #408 just like yours but I need to find a base for it. Somebody welded mine back together. Everything else is there and restorable.


----------



## donwilwol

Candy, did it have a type 1 iron on it or?


----------



## CFrye

Don, sorry, it had a Stanley iron and a bolt through the right wing!


----------



## donwilwol

yea, but that was corrugated. That's a real shame. A #5408!!!


----------



## HorizontalMike

> Here is a different one for you Mike. A type 2 for sure, but this has the plane # cast in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Don W


Wow! I've been missing in action and just now coming across this nearly a month later!

IMO, just finding a Type 2 #409 is an oddity in and of itself! I have been looking on occasion, but stilling looking 8-(. I only have a small collection, ~two dozen Sargent, and of those, most do have the plane number in the base (Types 2,3 4). I suspect that it may be possible that the #409 was a well used and abused size plane with very few still extant. I only have the #409s in Type 3 and 5409 and both are stamped.

As far as Candy's 5408 find, it may be worth restoring with JB-Weld and displaying (but not for use). I am suspecting the bolt is to hold a crack together, though I can't see that from the images. FWIW, I have two #5408s, one with and one without the stamp.

To me, THE MOST DIFFICULT TO FIND, is a stamped base 414 or 5414. I have just one Type 2 #414 with a stamped base, but my other two T-2 414s are NOT stamped, nor is my 5414 or T-3 414VBM stamped. I have planes from Types 2,3,4 and the "newest" NON-stamped is my #411 and it has a two-piece frog adjuster placing it near/at the 1947 end of the run production.

In other words, I have found unmarked bases in all generations of the Sargent planes. The earliest "marked" Type 2 planes have to be the rarest IMO.


----------



## donwilwol

> To me, THE MOST DIFFICULT TO FIND, is a stamped base 414 or 5414. I have just one Type 2 #414 with a stamped base, but my other two T-2 414s are NOT stamped, nor is my 5414 or T-3 414VBM stamped. I have planes from Types 2,3,4 and the "newest" NON-stamped is my #411 and it has a two-piece frog adjuster placing it near/at the 1947 end of the run production.
> 
> In other words, I have found unmarked bases in all generations of the Sargent planes. The earliest "marked" Type 2 planes have to be the rarest IMO.
> 
> - HorizontalMike


I've got both a type 2 #5414 and a type 2 #414, and both have the number cast in the heal. Since I posted the picture of the #409, I've seen a few more type 2 408 and 409 with the number in the base.


----------



## HorizontalMike

> I ve got both a type 2 #5414 and a type 2 #414, and both have the number cast in the heal. Since I posted the picture of the #409, I ve seen a few more type 2 408 and 409 with the number in the base.
> - Don W


Yeah, I just noticed a #408 on eBay, but has a cracked tote (that looks repairable), but the biggest issue I see is that it has a Stanley pure brass adjusting knob. Very odd, Other than that not too bad of shape. That said, no complete picture of the back of the frog, nor the base where the frog sets. There has to be a reason that that brass knob has been replaced on the frog. Maybe a damaged fork adjuster?

Anyway, it is reasonably priced as an "as-is". I just fear NOT being able to see everything that makes it "as-is" if you know what I mean.


----------



## HorizontalMike

> Yeah, I just noticed a #408 on eBay, but has a cracked tote (that looks repairable), but the biggest issue I see is that it has a Stanley pure brass adjusting knob. Very odd, Other than that not too bad of shape. That said, no complete picture of the back of the frog, nor the base where the frog sets. There has to be a reason that that brass knob has been replaced on the frog. Maybe a damaged fork adjuster?
> 
> Anyway, it is reasonably priced as an "as-is". I just fear NOT being able to see everything that makes it "as-is" if you know what I mean.
> - HorizontalMike


Anyway, I had missed the cracked base (too busy looking at images and not reading). I retracted my low-bid offer, and will keep looking. Glad that I took that pause, as the plane looks to a reassembly of bad parts to resemble a working plane. The sellers "other" times for sale pretty much confirmed this approach. Time for me to pay more attention while shopping!


----------



## kmcsmart

Hello,
I have been bitten by the Sargent bug and this seems like a good place to ask a question. I am looking for the ultimate Sargent 409 user. What type plane would you recommend? The #9 would be lovely but it looks like they are hard to find.

Has anyone ever done a study of the weight of the planes? Are the thicker walled planes heavier than the thin walled planes? What are the advantages of a VBM from a users point of view?

Thanks for any advice you have.
Karen


----------



## donwilwol

As strictly a user, I like a type 5 http://www.timetestedtools.com/typing-sargent-bench-planes.html)

It got left handed threads on the adjuster.
Brass instead of steal.
And they work well.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Yeah, Don has done a great job delineating Sargent Types post-Heckel's Value Guide. Thanks Don!

My most used Sargent is the #618 Type 3 with a Hock cutter/blade. I also have another 618 that I converted with a scraper plane insert from Lee Valley. I do admit to using a WoodRiver #4 on occasion, because of the thicker cutter and chipper as well as beefier adjustment. New quality planes really are that much better.

As for my favorite "Type" :

for collecting = Type 2s of all sizes. Plus love the #5400 series of corrugated planes which are a cross between Type2 and Type 3, depending on whether it has a horseshoe frog adjuster or has the Type 3 adjuster. These have very thin bases and are not nearly as durable as newer types.


for best and most useful = Type 4 VBMs as they are the most stout. These are usually easy to find as well.

*Bottom line:* Adding a newer and thicker cutter (Hock, Veritas, etc.), IMO, is the key in making the plane fun to use. Sure I have honed all of the OEM Sargent blades to a fine sharpness, but having a newer thicker cutter cuts down on chatter and makes it easier to use. Just a fact.


----------



## upchuck

Would someone please direct me to a on-line visual source for Sargent plane iron logos with types or dates?
Thank you,
chuck


----------



## kmcsmart

> Would someone please direct me to a on-line visual source for Sargent plane iron logos with types or dates?
> Thank you,
> chuck
> 
> - upchuck


Try this 
http://www.sargent-planes.com/sargent-plane-type-study/


----------



## donwilwol

> Would someone please direct me to a on-line visual source for Sargent plane iron logos with types or dates?
> Thank you,
> chuck
> 
> - upchuck


or my site, http://www.timetestedtools.com/typing-sargent-bench-planes.html


----------



## upchuck

Thank you Don and Karen. Success. Your information was vital in identification of this ghost of a makers mark as Type #3 1910-1918.


----------



## donwilwol

Scored off ebay. A type 1 #418 with the early type tote.


----------



## bandit571

Been using this #414 as is, with just a bit of clean up, sharpened OEM blade









Set a bit deep, had a bit to plane down…


----------



## kmcsmart

Hi All,
I found this 409 VBM in the UK and liked its condition so I bought it as a user plane. It has cleaned up nicely but it is the worst plane I have ever used  In fact it is not usable in this state, even with my Hock iron. The frog does not sit properly and the plane chatters like crazy. I have tuned many planes and even made 2 infill planes so I know it is not something I am doing in the tuning.

You can see in the picture below that the area for mounting the frog is very rough. With the frog in place but not screwed down I can rock it back and forth. I have a machinist friend who can clean this up for me but I want to make sure I have the correct frog for the plane before I proceed.










I thought that a VBM would have a more substantial frog. I am surprised that there is so much space between the frog and the side walls of the plane. I am also surprised that the frog does not sit lower on the plane body. The plane blade and chip breaker are not well supported by the frog when I move the frog forward to tighten the mouth.

The lever cap has black japaning on it. I have never seen this before. Is this original?

I read all the VBM "Type" info and thought I was buying a type 4 but the adjuster knob is a left hand screw so I guess it is a type 5. Do you think the original frog was switched out for a newer frog? Can I buy a type 3
or 4 frog and put it on this plane? Before I do any more work on this plane I would like to have the best frog available for the plane.

Here are the pictures. Any advice would be appreciated.
Thanks
Karen


----------



## terryR

Karen, no expert here, but I think the frog is incorrect?

My 409 is a Type5 and the frog is very different.










Perhaps a newer frog would help?

...will get a better photo today…


----------



## donwilwol

welcome to typing a sargent bench plane. They went way beyond Stanley in mixing parts. Based on what I've found, I'm poretty sure they even bought different configurations during a time period.

I agree you have a type 4 base, but I think you got a type 5 frog.

No there was never japanning on the cap that I know of.

Here is a type 4 frog


----------



## donwilwol

I don't really think there is much difference in the frog from a base perspective between the type 4 and 5. I think your going to have the same issue with either frog.

It wouldn't be the first Sargent plane that I've had on the Mill. I'd have it milled to work if thats a possibility. I've seen similar issues with Stanleys as well.


----------



## kmcsmart

Thanks for all the info. Ok, I will mill the plane so the frog sits flat. I still don't want a plane with a left thread adjuster. If I buy a new frog what model should I be looking for? What type made the best frog?

I also thought about getting the machinist to turn a new right handed thread and buying a Sargent brass adjuster nut. There was one for sale on eBay for $8 or so the other day. Anyone ever tried this?
Karen


----------



## donwilwol

Just to be clear, a left hand thread is similar to the Stanley Bailey after type 6. Only the type 5 Sargent had these, the rest were right handed, or backward from a Stanley.

It takes a little getting used to, but I can use either and don't care about it.


----------



## kmcsmart

> Just to be clear, a left hand thread is similar to the Stanley Bailey after type 6. Only the type 5 Sargent had these, the rest were right handed, or backward from a Stanley.
> 
> It takes a little getting used to, but I can use either and don t care about it.
> 
> - Don W


Ok, now I get it. I thought they were all the same as the Stanley with the odd exception. I will try to get used to it. Thanks
K


----------



## HorizontalMike

I recently received a PM from a fellow LJ, asking:
"...I have a #407 around a type 6. Would you happen to know the size and thread count for the tap and die for the adjusting nut?..."

As you all know, I concentrated my Sargent collection on Types 1-5, so I have only a single example of a late Type 5-Early Type 6 plane. It is a #411 with a steel depth adjuster screw that is LEFT HAND THREADED. I used my thread gauge just to make sure I had the thread count correct.










FWIW, I have not explored the existence of left-handed 9/32-28 Taps & Dies. So if anyone can find them then please post a link to share with others. Don may also respond to this post because he did acquire the Type 6's while we were researching for our Sargent Book.


----------



## donwilwol

Here is what's in the book


----------



## corelz125

A treasure trove of information there.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Here is are a couple of better images of my Sargent Type5-6 #411 Cutter Adjuster Left Hand Threaded Rod/Bolt:



















Sorry folks! I guess we missed this typo in our book (pg.43 "Center Adjuster Threaded Rod")... 8-(


----------

