# Old Sargent Planes



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

*The type 1 #409 Pre lateral*

I picked up a type 1 #409. I thought it was a Stanley when I first picked it up because it had a Stanley Iron of the correct vintage. A quickly noticed some markings behind the frog that shouldn't be there. A little rubbing and a number 409 immerged. At that point I knew the plane was coming home with me.

The day before I bought this 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. The iron is a type 2, but it will fit nicely on this type one plane until I stumble across a true type 1.

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

The type information came from 2 locations basically, Dave Heckel's guide, and HMike's Blog.

Type 1 is 1887-1901

So here it is, with some notes about the type as I understand it.



















Note the round headed screws.










The japanning is close to 100%. Other than the chip in the tote, this plane is in excellent condition.










According to the type information, the type 1 lever caps had a period along with the numbers. Types 1, 2 and 3 have the number plus a dot cast into the lever cap. Type 2 may have just number. Is it possible this got changes, or is it possible that some of the type 1's made it out without the dot as well?



















And after the clean up


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

donwilwol said:


> *The type 1 #409 Pre lateral*
> 
> I picked up a type 1 #409. I thought it was a Stanley when I first picked it up because it had a Stanley Iron of the correct vintage. A quickly noticed some markings behind the frog that shouldn't be there. A little rubbing and a number 409 immerged. At that point I knew the plane was coming home with me.
> 
> ...


I have a type 1 407 - they work really nice. Good catch.


----------



## WayneC (Mar 8, 2007)

donwilwol said:


> *The type 1 #409 Pre lateral*
> 
> I picked up a type 1 #409. I thought it was a Stanley when I first picked it up because it had a Stanley Iron of the correct vintage. A quickly noticed some markings behind the frog that shouldn't be there. A little rubbing and a number 409 immerged. At that point I knew the plane was coming home with me.
> 
> ...


Beautiful plane. Are you planning to try to repair the horn or leave as is?


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *The type 1 #409 Pre lateral*
> 
> I picked up a type 1 #409. I thought it was a Stanley when I first picked it up because it had a Stanley Iron of the correct vintage. A quickly noticed some markings behind the frog that shouldn't be there. A little rubbing and a number 409 immerged. At that point I knew the plane was coming home with me.
> 
> ...


I think I'm going to leave it Wayne.


----------



## mochoa (Oct 9, 2009)

donwilwol said:


> *The type 1 #409 Pre lateral*
> 
> I picked up a type 1 #409. I thought it was a Stanley when I first picked it up because it had a Stanley Iron of the correct vintage. A quickly noticed some markings behind the frog that shouldn't be there. A little rubbing and a number 409 immerged. At that point I knew the plane was coming home with me.
> 
> ...


Great luck Don, nice score.


----------



## chrisstef (Mar 3, 2010)

donwilwol said:


> *The type 1 #409 Pre lateral*
> 
> I picked up a type 1 #409. I thought it was a Stanley when I first picked it up because it had a Stanley Iron of the correct vintage. A quickly noticed some markings behind the frog that shouldn't be there. A little rubbing and a number 409 immerged. At that point I knew the plane was coming home with me.
> 
> ...


Youuuuu suck.


----------



## grizzman (May 10, 2009)

donwilwol said:


> *The type 1 #409 Pre lateral*
> 
> I picked up a type 1 #409. I thought it was a Stanley when I first picked it up because it had a Stanley Iron of the correct vintage. A quickly noticed some markings behind the frog that shouldn't be there. A little rubbing and a number 409 immerged. At that point I knew the plane was coming home with me.
> 
> ...


a beautiful restoration don, i can really see how aquiring these would become a sought out hobby and the use of them when needed, thanks for showing these beautiful tools…


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

donwilwol said:


> *The type 1 #409 Pre lateral*
> 
> I picked up a type 1 #409. I thought it was a Stanley when I first picked it up because it had a Stanley Iron of the correct vintage. A quickly noticed some markings behind the frog that shouldn't be there. A little rubbing and a number 409 immerged. At that point I knew the plane was coming home with me.
> 
> ...


I am green with envy Don! That is for sure. That is a fantastic find!

BTW, I missed/lost a bid for a Type1 408 on fleaBay a few months back, but still think about it. Got out bid at $75.

*}:^(*


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *The type 1 #409 Pre lateral*
> 
> I picked up a type 1 #409. I thought it was a Stanley when I first picked it up because it had a Stanley Iron of the correct vintage. A quickly noticed some markings behind the frog that shouldn't be there. A little rubbing and a number 409 immerged. At that point I knew the plane was coming home with me.
> 
> ...


So you're saying $10 was a good deal? {I'm still smiling }


----------



## Tim457 (Jan 11, 2013)

donwilwol said:


> *The type 1 #409 Pre lateral*
> 
> I picked up a type 1 #409. I thought it was a Stanley when I first picked it up because it had a Stanley Iron of the correct vintage. A quickly noticed some markings behind the frog that shouldn't be there. A little rubbing and a number 409 immerged. At that point I knew the plane was coming home with me.
> 
> ...


$10? There's a giant hoover sound coming from your way. The japanning on that is amazing too, what a find.


----------



## AnthonyReed (Sep 20, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *The type 1 #409 Pre lateral*
> 
> I picked up a type 1 #409. I thought it was a Stanley when I first picked it up because it had a Stanley Iron of the correct vintage. A quickly noticed some markings behind the frog that shouldn't be there. A little rubbing and a number 409 immerged. At that point I knew the plane was coming home with me.
> 
> ...


Very nice Don, congrats. You have the touch.


----------



## stefang (Apr 9, 2009)

donwilwol said:


> *The type 1 #409 Pre lateral*
> 
> I picked up a type 1 #409. I thought it was a Stanley when I first picked it up because it had a Stanley Iron of the correct vintage. A quickly noticed some markings behind the frog that shouldn't be there. A little rubbing and a number 409 immerged. At that point I knew the plane was coming home with me.
> 
> ...


Beautiful plane and nicely restored.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

*Typing the type 2 or 3 409c (or maybe 5409)*

So again I find myself engrossed in the type information found in Dave Heckel's guide, and HMike's Blog.

I bought this because real early corrugated planes are not as common place as some others. And as usually dating them can be a bit of a challenge.

The lever cap has the number and the cap, which means it could be a type 1, 2 or 3.










The frog puts it around a type 3, assuming all type 2's had the horseshoe lateral.










The base also put it at a type 3. The thin casting and squared post seem to correspond to type 3 as well.










The adjuster however puts it at a type 2, with the steel insert. The steel insert however is on ALL 5400 series.










The iron is also a clear type 2 iron with the oval logo and USA in the center. For some reason though, Heckel did a separate study on the irons, so you'll need to match date, not types, so you have a type 1 iron, that's typically on a type 1 and type 2 plane.

So here it is in all its glory.




























My guess at this point is I found one of the Sargent enthusiast well sought after 5409, but a least a very early 409c, with Sargent using up some of the parts. Of course there is also the possibility that its a very late 5409, with sargent using some of the new 409C inventory on the plane. Further investigation may be needed.

EDIT:
Here is another which is pretty much identical.




























EDIT **

I now believe the first is a 5409, the second a #409, here is why.

Working through the criteria for a 5400 series.
Here is what they both have.
- corrugated
- a blank cap
- Cutter marked with Oval Trademark with U.S.A. in center
- Two-piece cutter adjusting nut, brass with a steel insert for the threads
- PAT. FEB. 3 -91 on lateral lever (this is for both type 2 and type 3 laterals. They were issued the same day)
- They can have either the horseshoe or 2nd pivot lateral style to be a 5400 series. These both have the second.
- # 400 series plane number might or might not be on plane body. usually not, neither of these have it
- Rosewood knob and tote

Here is where they are different.

To be a 5400 series it must have the thin casting. So determining the thin casting isn't as straight forward. Here are my 2.










So look not only at the side walls, but the back of the mouth. The difference in the casting is evident. I believe the one on the right is the thick casting, and the one on the left is thin.

So I weighed them as well. The one on the right was 25.6 oz, where the one on the left was 21.6 oz.


----------



## Handtooler (Jul 24, 2012)

donwilwol said:


> *Typing the type 2 or 3 409c (or maybe 5409)*
> 
> So again I find myself engrossed in the type information found in Dave Heckel's guide, and HMike's Blog.
> 
> ...


What ever the vintage she's a real beauty. Collector or user for you; of the Ft Knox of hand planes?


----------



## WayneC (Mar 8, 2007)

donwilwol said:


> *Typing the type 2 or 3 409c (or maybe 5409)*
> 
> So again I find myself engrossed in the type information found in Dave Heckel's guide, and HMike's Blog.
> 
> ...


Pretty plane. Did you find it this way or did you restore?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

donwilwol said:


> *Typing the type 2 or 3 409c (or maybe 5409)*
> 
> So again I find myself engrossed in the type information found in Dave Heckel's guide, and HMike's Blog.
> 
> ...


Well done Don! I think you are probably right about it being a late #5409 (even though these were only produced for 3-years). The lack of a number on the base combined with the thin casting and corrugation, pretty much boxes it into that 1908-9 time frame for sure. Definitely Pre-VBM.

The way I understand things is that when Sargent corrugated planes came out, they needed to change/modify their numbering system so they started making the corrugated bases "without" a number. What confuses me is that I see/own smooth base planes without numbers in their bases as well. Hmm…

I am jealous!


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *Typing the type 2 or 3 409c (or maybe 5409)*
> 
> So again I find myself engrossed in the type information found in Dave Heckel's guide, and HMike's Blog.
> 
> ...


Thanks Mike.

Wayne, this is exactly how I bought it. I wheeled and dealed with for 3 or 4 plane, so this was about $25.


----------



## AnthonyReed (Sep 20, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *Typing the type 2 or 3 409c (or maybe 5409)*
> 
> So again I find myself engrossed in the type information found in Dave Heckel's guide, and HMike's Blog.
> 
> ...


You are on a roll. Congrats.


----------



## mochoa (Oct 9, 2009)

donwilwol said:


> *Typing the type 2 or 3 409c (or maybe 5409)*
> 
> So again I find myself engrossed in the type information found in Dave Heckel's guide, and HMike's Blog.
> 
> ...


Very nice!


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *Typing the type 2 or 3 409c (or maybe 5409)*
> 
> So again I find myself engrossed in the type information found in Dave Heckel's guide, and HMike's Blog.
> 
> ...


I took a risk a snagged another one of these. Cost was $15 to my door on ebay.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *Typing the type 2 or 3 409c (or maybe 5409)*
> 
> So again I find myself engrossed in the type information found in Dave Heckel's guide, and HMike's Blog.
> 
> ...


I believe I've found one more but a 5408.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *Typing the type 2 or 3 409c (or maybe 5409)*
> 
> So again I find myself engrossed in the type information found in Dave Heckel's guide, and HMike's Blog.
> 
> ...


After an email exchange with Dave Heckel, I no longer believe any of these are of the 5400 series. All 5400's should have the horseshoe lateral. Just old #400's.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *Typing the type 2 or 3 409c (or maybe 5409)*
> 
> So again I find myself engrossed in the type information found in Dave Heckel's guide, and HMike's Blog.
> 
> ...


So the above statement is wrong. (#9)

see original post edit.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

donwilwol said:


> *Typing the type 2 or 3 409c (or maybe 5409)*
> 
> So again I find myself engrossed in the type information found in Dave Heckel's guide, and HMike's Blog.
> 
> ...


OK Don,
I've been reading old posts and just came across this, some 4 months later.

Quite literally, I think David Heckel has some explaining to do.

 On one hand he publishes that all #5400 series have Horseshoe laterals


 On the other hand, he also published that those Horseshoe laterals on the #5400 series all have the "two-piece" steel sleeve adjuster nut.

*IMO, he/it cannot be both ways.* I say that because of:

 EVERY Horseshoe lateral plane I have ever picked up, they ALL HAD PURE BRASS adjuster nuts.


 Every Twisted 2nd Lateral plane I have ever picked up, they ALL HAD STEEL SLEEVE INSERTS on the adjusting nut.


 Every such plane I have seen on fleaBay, and I constantly puruse for deals, has followed the above criteria.


 A major flaw in David's interpretation, IMO, is that he failed to include a plane casting study in his last book. Charles (who authored the Shaw's Patent insert in the book) offered such information to David at the time, but David chose not include that information. While I understand directly from Charles that his casting information was not a complete study (nor is David's), Charles' information could have been very useful in making the distinctions between the #5400s series and the #400s series.

Bottom line is that, directly from David's same 2004 2nd Ed. book, all *TEN* of the #400 *"C"* series iron planes DID NOT have any instances of "thin castings". A typo happens once, and not repeated 10 times! Thus the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the thin casting corrugated planes *have* to be part of the #5400 series.

I understand that your mileage may vary and you may not agree with my assessment. All I can say is that while David has given us a great tool in publishing his 2004 Sargent 2nd Ed. Value Guide, that we should not close our eyes to additional pertinent information about Sargent planes, in particular the castings. After all, only the casting cannot be swapped out without changing the entire plane's identity.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *Typing the type 2 or 3 409c (or maybe 5409)*
> 
> So again I find myself engrossed in the type information found in Dave Heckel's guide, and HMike's Blog.
> 
> ...


David's article for mwtca, he states that the 5400 could have either the horseshoe or 2nd lateral type. He also mentions he left out the 5415, so add 1 more.

I don't disagree with you at all Mike. I have flip flopped back and forth on this a dozen times.

I agree the determining factor (assuming either lateral on a 5400 is true) would be the base. The base changed in 1906-7 and that's also when the 5400 came out. So if we can determine exactly what the base for a 1907-1910 400 series should look like, differentiate it with everything else, and add the other criteria, we can identify the 5400 series. It sounds clear in the text you posted from Charles, but when you start looking at the different configurations of the time period, they tend to melt together somewhat.

And I hope I don't jinx myself, but I'm pretty sure I have a type 1 #414 coming, and another 5409. All in the $20 range. We'll see.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

donwilwol said:


> *Typing the type 2 or 3 409c (or maybe 5409)*
> 
> So again I find myself engrossed in the type information found in Dave Heckel's guide, and HMike's Blog.
> 
> ...


*Don: "...And I hope I don't jinx myself, but I'm pretty sure I have a type 1 #414 coming, and another 5409. All in the $20 range. We'll see…."*

Just to compete with the Dons of the World ;-) I just received TODAY another #5408! And I also have a #5414 on the way as well. *We are lookin' gooood!*

Newer #5408 has #408 on thin casting. Blank on older 5408 in back (still thin casting). Both have original Rosewood totes & knobs in very nice shape.









My newest #5408 in front. Older one in back.









(below) Steel sleeved Brass LEFT and Pure Brass on right.









NOTE: Both my 5409 and 5408 with Horseshoe Laterals have round posts and pure brass adjusting nuts. The 5408 with the twisted 2nd Lateral has the steel sleeve. I ALSO have a #5414 on its way and that has the 2nd twisted Lateral, and I just bet that it will have square posts and steel sleeved adjuster. And just like the other unmarked casting.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *Typing the type 2 or 3 409c (or maybe 5409)*
> 
> So again I find myself engrossed in the type information found in Dave Heckel's guide, and HMike's Blog.
> 
> ...


That's in nice shape Mike.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *Typing the type 2 or 3 409c (or maybe 5409)*
> 
> So again I find myself engrossed in the type information found in Dave Heckel's guide, and HMike's Blog.
> 
> ...


not nearly as pretty as yours Mike, but a complete type 1, including the original type 1 cutter. Its got a fresh coat of dupli drying and parts soaking in citric.

What I thought might be a 540x turned out to not even be a Sargent. Its got a twisted lat but the Stanley washer type engagement ring on the lat. Union maybe? I'd be bummed, but the type 1 was enough for me.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

donwilwol said:


> *Typing the type 2 or 3 409c (or maybe 5409)*
> 
> So again I find myself engrossed in the type information found in Dave Heckel's guide, and HMike's Blog.
> 
> ...


Does the chipper hole have straight edges distinct from the curves at the end? (Stanley) Or very smooth transition from edges to round ends (Sargent).

Anyway, got my 5414 in yesterday. It has thin casting, square frog nuts, twist secondary lateral, steel insert in Brass adjuster, Rosewood knob, but I think an East India Mahogany tote that looks original to the plane.














































This plane looks well used and in original condition, or at least nothing changed in at least 60-80yr or more. The unpainted parts of the plane are rusted, HOWEVER, it is a very dark and flat, black metal rust that I associate with a well oiled and used plane after decades of use. In other words you cannot get rust on your hands if you handle the plane. The chipper and blade had very old sawdust between them and the rust marks between them indicate that they have not been separated since new, or nearly so.

The crack you see on the back of the tote is a tight crack that does not go through the handle. I have since sanded/stripped the tote to reveal all of the wood grain. Used sandpaper and wire wheel to avoid bleeding the natural oils in the wood that would make the wood very dark and without character. Tote is very red when raw. I have refinished naturally, yet it still looks quite reddish.

My take on this, since the square frog, thin casting, is that this is a later/last version of the 5414s (latter 1909-ish) as things are changing. BTW, that is an early 414 (smooth) behind in the image, that has the twisted secondary, thin casting, and square frog nuts. I would venture from the same time frame, or shortly there after.










Almost forgot! These early planes are 13-1/2" long and it was not until the VBMs came out that they were actually 14" long.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

*Determining a 408 versus 5408*

I bought this hoping it was a 5408, but knowing I would love to add it to my collection even as a type 3 #408. If you look at my last blog, in this series I compared what I believe to be a 409 and a 5409. So lets look at this new 408.

Working through the criteria for a 5400 series.
Here is what this 408 has.
- corrugated sole
- a blank cap (should have the number and a dot on the back though)
- Cutter marked with Oval Trademark with U.S.A. in center (type 2 Iron)
- Two-piece cutter adjusting nut, brass with a steel insert for the threads
- PAT. FEB. 3-91 on lateral lever (this is for both type 2 and type 3 laterals. They were issued patents the same day)
- They can have either the horseshoe or 2nd pivot lateral style to be a 5400 series. This has the second.
- # 400 series plane number might or might not be on plane body. usually not, no number on the 408.



















Here is where I'm not sure.
Tote is mahogany. OK, I'm sure its mahogany and not rosewood, so that make its a 408 instead of a 5408, in theory anyhow.

To be a 5400 series it must have the thin casting. So determining the thin casting isn't as straight forward. Here it is.










I think its the thin casting. But until I find a 408 to compare. I can't be sure.

Here it is, just as I bought it. Not much for me to do but enjoy it.


----------



## Deycart (Mar 21, 2012)

donwilwol said:


> *Determining a 408 versus 5408*
> 
> I bought this hoping it was a 5408, but knowing I would love to add it to my collection even as a type 3 #408. If you look at my last blog, in this series I compared what I believe to be a 409 and a 5409. So lets look at this new 408.
> 
> ...


Are you sure thats mahogany? It looks a lot like a darker rosewood. Although I can see a bit of porus grain on the tote.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *Determining a 408 versus 5408*
> 
> I bought this hoping it was a 5408, but knowing I would love to add it to my collection even as a type 3 #408. If you look at my last blog, in this series I compared what I believe to be a 409 and a 5409. So lets look at this new 408.
> 
> ...


I think (actually I know) its been stained. I hit the bottom on the grinder. Its lighter and smells like NOT rosewood.

Although a further look at the knob and that's probably rosewood. Its a good possibility the tote has been replaced.


----------



## Deycart (Mar 21, 2012)

donwilwol said:


> *Determining a 408 versus 5408*
> 
> I bought this hoping it was a 5408, but knowing I would love to add it to my collection even as a type 3 #408. If you look at my last blog, in this series I compared what I believe to be a 409 and a 5409. So lets look at this new 408.
> 
> ...


I have seen a light "pinkish brown" rosewood before on a few stanleys and they were type 7-9ish. That would put them about the same time period, 1908ish. The only rosewood I am familiar with the smell is cocobolo…. terrible!


----------



## alohafromberkeley (Oct 26, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *Determining a 408 versus 5408*
> 
> I bought this hoping it was a 5408, but knowing I would love to add it to my collection even as a type 3 #408. If you look at my last blog, in this series I compared what I believe to be a 409 and a 5409. So lets look at this new 408.
> 
> ...


Don, I have a 408c. It's a VBM so yours is older. Has 408 cast behind frog and wood looks like Rosewood but no Rosewood smell. If I didn't know better it looks like Rosewood. Read one source who said the "Mahogany" they used is actually a Pterocarpus spp- Padauk and Narra is in that family. Don't have any fancy measuring devices but eyeballing with ruler it appears to be 1/8th" thick casting. Also the wings on it are flat across the top…yours seems rounded over. Sorry I don't have a camera for pics. Hoping this helps somewhat.


----------



## stefang (Apr 9, 2009)

donwilwol said:


> *Determining a 408 versus 5408*
> 
> I bought this hoping it was a 5408, but knowing I would love to add it to my collection even as a type 3 #408. If you look at my last blog, in this series I compared what I believe to be a 409 and a 5409. So lets look at this new 408.
> 
> ...


Great little plane. Good find Don.


----------



## superdav721 (Aug 16, 2010)

donwilwol said:


> *Determining a 408 versus 5408*
> 
> I bought this hoping it was a 5408, but knowing I would love to add it to my collection even as a type 3 #408. If you look at my last blog, in this series I compared what I believe to be a 409 and a 5409. So lets look at this new 408.
> 
> ...


Don I hope you find the one you are looking for. But until then the ones that are not it do make for nice users.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *Determining a 408 versus 5408*
> 
> I bought this hoping it was a 5408, but knowing I would love to add it to my collection even as a type 3 #408. If you look at my last blog, in this series I compared what I believe to be a 409 and a 5409. So lets look at this new 408.
> 
> ...


The one? There is always one more Dave. Finding one to use never seems to be an issue. Thanks for stop by.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

*Some information on typing the Sargent bench plane*

An ongoing blog on dating a 400 series Sargent bench plane

http://timetestedtools.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/determining-a-sargent-bench-plane-vintage/


----------



## superdav721 (Aug 16, 2010)

donwilwol said:


> *Some information on typing the Sargent bench plane*
> 
> An ongoing blog on dating a 400 series Sargent bench plane
> 
> http://timetestedtools.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/determining-a-sargent-bench-plane-vintage/


Glad to see someone doing this.
Great work Don.


----------



## stefang (Apr 9, 2009)

donwilwol said:


> *Some information on typing the Sargent bench plane*
> 
> An ongoing blog on dating a 400 series Sargent bench plane
> 
> http://timetestedtools.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/determining-a-sargent-bench-plane-vintage/


Great looking plane Don.


----------



## AnthonyReed (Sep 20, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *Some information on typing the Sargent bench plane*
> 
> An ongoing blog on dating a 400 series Sargent bench plane
> 
> http://timetestedtools.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/determining-a-sargent-bench-plane-vintage/


Thank you Don.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

*Fulton or Fulton Tool Company.*

You will find more information and more pictures on my blog.

The problem with being on a quest for knowledge is the endless circles you often get stuck in, and the off roads that follow. I'm always looking for information on older Sargent hand planes. So recently I bought a hand plane off ebay that is an obvious early Sargent 409. It's got Rosewood, a type 4 base, with a type 3 frog, and a "Fulton Tool Co" cutter.

The type 4 base dates it to 1911 to 1918.



















I know Sargent made most of the Fulton planes for Sears, so I wanted to see what they were.

So off I go to find out what "Fulton Tool Co" is. My original research brought me to one of 2 conclusions. The first possibility was the Fulton Tool Company was a steel manufacture that made tools and accessories along with plane irons. The second was Fulton Tool Com were early Fulton planes.

Further research showed all of the planes I could find with Fulton Tool Co cutters seemed to be early Sargent's. So could these just be Fulton? Was the Sears branded Fulton and Fulton Tool Company the same?

Even further research shows that the Craftsman brand came about in 1927, whereas Sears started selling Fulton in either 1905 or 1908. This lead me to believe it was possible that Fulton Tool Company could have been the early branding, and after Sears started to market Craftsman, Fulton became a secondary line.

This theory was further complicated when I bought a United Hardware and Tool Company catalog reprint from 1925. This shows the following photos.

The Logo










And the hand planes


















So its fairly obvious that in 1925 these planes were NOT Sargent made. But could they still be the Sears rebranded?

So do I need to start finding early Craftsman catalogs to work this out? According to this site, (http://home.comcast.net/~alloy-artifacts/craftsman-early-tools.html#fulton) In the pre-Craftsman days, Fulton appeared to be the most popular brand offered by the Sears for tools such as saws, axes, planes, chisels, hammers, pliers, and many other items. References to Fulton tools appear in Sears catalogs at least as early as 1908, with illustrations showing either "Fulton" or "Fulton Tool Co." on the tools.

There is some further interesting history (http://www.searsarchives.com/history/index.htm) about Sears.

So at least for right now, I'm going to go on the assumption that either "Fulton Tool Co." or "Fulton" Branded tools where marketed rebranded tools for Sears. "Fulton Tool Co." probably existed prior to 1927. To be determined will be when Sargent stopped manufacturing them. Since later model Fulton's are made by Sargent as well, they must have won the contract back at some point.

It's known that Sears put the contract out to bid for the tools, I don't know the details or derations of the contracts, so that's some more information to be gathered.

I hope you found this interesting, and please PM me if you have ANY information regarding anything about Sargent hand planes.


----------



## AnthonyReed (Sep 20, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *Fulton or Fulton Tool Company.*
> 
> You will find more information and more pictures on my blog.
> 
> ...


Ever expanding the puzzle…

Thank you Don.


----------



## reedwood (Jan 27, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *Fulton or Fulton Tool Company.*
> 
> You will find more information and more pictures on my blog.
> 
> ...


just started reading your blogs, lots to learn! this was an interesting read.

My collection is mostly Stanley but I have several old craftsman planes, union block planes and Sargent transitionals. I come across Fulton hand planes now and then at flea markets but kept looking unless it's real cheap - first full collection first, but I never really knew their history….. might look a little closer next time.

Always neat to learn something new about this hobby. I just wish I'd started collecting sooner.

thanks for the enjoyable Saturday morning read with coffee.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *Fulton or Fulton Tool Company.*
> 
> You will find more information and more pictures on my blog.
> 
> ...


Listed on Ebay now. Who has a #22? These are the first pictures I've seen of a Fulton as shown in the United Hardware and Tool Company catalog.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

*Sargent #409 with a Brass name plate.*

I saw a posting on Ebay that looked like this:










Besides the upside down lever cap, something looked different. I thought the logo looked brass, so I contacted the seller. These Sargent planes with brass inserts were produced in limited runs sometime between 1927 and 1939. I put a max bid and won it for the exact max amount. How lucky is that? This is the first time I've seen one on eBay, and there were 3 at the same time, all different sellers. Talk about coincidence. A #407 had a starting bid of $270 (it did not sell) and a 414 that I lost the bid on. I wasn't as aggressive on the 414, but glad I got the #409. It'll fit in my collection well. The #414 had the brass inlay in the sole.

You'll note some of the inserts were rectangular and some were oval.

Here are the #407 and #414 off ebay just for documentation.





































****

And finally here is my #409


----------



## ShaneA (Apr 15, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *Sargent #409 with a Brass name plate.*
> 
> I saw a posting on Ebay that looked like this:
> 
> ...


Pretty nice looking plane Don.

Is that a stack of old plane boxes in the background of picture 2? Wow


----------



## AnthonyReed (Sep 20, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *Sargent #409 with a Brass name plate.*
> 
> I saw a posting on Ebay that looked like this:
> 
> ...


Very beautiful. Congratulations Don.


----------



## mochoa (Oct 9, 2009)

donwilwol said:


> *Sargent #409 with a Brass name plate.*
> 
> I saw a posting on Ebay that looked like this:
> 
> ...


Very cool!


----------



## BustedClock (Jun 30, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *Sargent #409 with a Brass name plate.*
> 
> I saw a posting on Ebay that looked like this:
> 
> ...


Nice looking plane, Don. As part of my addition, lately I've been looking at Sargent and Millers Falls planes. I've also looked at some Bedrocks, but they all seem out of my range. Is the 409 equivalent to Stanley No.4?

But, really, I'm commenting because I just have to know… Did the seller really think the cap iron went that way? Maybe he/she was just trying to stand out from the crowd? I dunno, seems an awfully silly thing to do, even if you don't know jack about planes (jack or otherwise).


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *Sargent #409 with a Brass name plate.*
> 
> I saw a posting on Ebay that looked like this:
> 
> ...


He really did. When I asked for a picture of the back of the lever cap, I added "the piece that's upside down" . He sent a message back asking what piece was upside down. To be honest, I wish I had just risked it and bought it. Without the additional pictures it probably would have gone for $15.


----------



## superdav721 (Aug 16, 2010)

donwilwol said:


> *Sargent #409 with a Brass name plate.*
> 
> I saw a posting on Ebay that looked like this:
> 
> ...


Don they are beautiful.
You are becoming force to be dealt with on the bay.
We might need to start a tread over here called " I'm biding on this" 
so we wont bid against each other.
Nice find mat she serve you well.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

*A type 1 #414 restored.*

This is an ebay find. I took a chance thinking it might be a type 1. This time it paid off.

The before:


















And the now:





































It's complete and all look parts are period correct.


----------



## terryR (Jan 30, 2012)

donwilwol said:


> *A type 1 #414 restored.*
> 
> This is an ebay find. I took a chance thinking it might be a type 1. This time it paid off.
> 
> ...


Awesome, as usual. Congrats on the Type1.
Love that last shot!


----------



## 33706 (Mar 5, 2008)

donwilwol said:


> *A type 1 #414 restored.*
> 
> This is an ebay find. I took a chance thinking it might be a type 1. This time it paid off.
> 
> ...


A rare jewel, brought back by a plane restorer-extraordinaire! Great work, Don!


----------



## mochoa (Oct 9, 2009)

donwilwol said:


> *A type 1 #414 restored.*
> 
> This is an ebay find. I took a chance thinking it might be a type 1. This time it paid off.
> 
> ...


turned out beautiful!


----------



## Brit (Aug 14, 2010)

donwilwol said:


> *A type 1 #414 restored.*
> 
> This is an ebay find. I took a chance thinking it might be a type 1. This time it paid off.
> 
> ...


Great work Don. My wife would have told me off if I'd photographed the before photo on a cleann white towel. How did you get away with that?


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *A type 1 #414 restored.*
> 
> This is an ebay find. I took a chance thinking it might be a type 1. This time it paid off.
> 
> ...


That's the eBay post Andy.


----------



## Brit (Aug 14, 2010)

donwilwol said:


> *A type 1 #414 restored.*
> 
> This is an ebay find. I took a chance thinking it might be a type 1. This time it paid off.
> 
> ...


I knew you had more sense than that Don )


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *A type 1 #414 restored.*
> 
> This is an ebay find. I took a chance thinking it might be a type 1. This time it paid off.
> 
> ...


Beautiful work, Don Yoda, and congrats on the pick-up. Your prowess with all things Sargent is most impressive as well.


----------



## AnthonyReed (Sep 20, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *A type 1 #414 restored.*
> 
> This is an ebay find. I took a chance thinking it might be a type 1. This time it paid off.
> 
> ...


Still amazing how marvelously you rehab these. Well done Don. Congrats.


----------



## TerryDowning (Aug 8, 2012)

donwilwol said:


> *A type 1 #414 restored.*
> 
> This is an ebay find. I took a chance thinking it might be a type 1. This time it paid off.
> 
> ...


Very Very nice Don.

Great work.


----------



## alba (Jul 31, 2010)

donwilwol said:


> *A type 1 #414 restored.*
> 
> This is an ebay find. I took a chance thinking it might be a type 1. This time it paid off.
> 
> ...


Looks real good Don

Jamie


----------



## superdav721 (Aug 16, 2010)

donwilwol said:


> *A type 1 #414 restored.*
> 
> This is an ebay find. I took a chance thinking it might be a type 1. This time it paid off.
> 
> ...


that one is very nice Don. Type 1 cool.
Have you ever thought about the typing process. If a model is discovered say between type 3 and 4. then everything after #4 moves up one #.
Just a thought.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *A type 1 #414 restored.*
> 
> This is an ebay find. I took a chance thinking it might be a type 1. This time it paid off.
> 
> ...


I think it becomes a 3a. Saves some confusion.


----------



## superdav721 (Aug 16, 2010)

donwilwol said:


> *A type 1 #414 restored.*
> 
> This is an ebay find. I took a chance thinking it might be a type 1. This time it paid off.
> 
> ...


Ahhh. Brilliant


----------



## Don2Laughs (Dec 31, 2008)

donwilwol said:


> *A type 1 #414 restored.*
> 
> This is an ebay find. I took a chance thinking it might be a type 1. This time it paid off.
> 
> ...


I found this old #5 in the dirty corner of a garage sale years ago…cleaned it up and use it, at least, as much as any plane in the shop…its tight & smooth and always does what it's asked. How does one distinguish the Type ??
https://plus.google.com/photos/100343472905934603437/albums/5899509917787671649/5899512845456470946?banner=pwa&pid=5899512845456470946&oid=100343472905934603437
I never found a Blood & Gore kinda site for SArgents.

Thanks


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *A type 1 #414 restored.*
> 
> This is an ebay find. I took a chance thinking it might be a type 1. This time it paid off.
> 
> ...


Don, I'm working on such a site. http://www.timetestedtools.com/typeing-sargent-bench-planes.html

A #5 size would be a #414.

Yours has the folded lateral so it a type 4 or later. It looks like the cap has been replaced. It should have a Sargent logo for that vintage.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *A type 1 #414 restored.*
> 
> This is an ebay find. I took a chance thinking it might be a type 1. This time it paid off.
> 
> ...


and a link that works, http://www.timetestedtools.com/typing-sargent-bench-planes.html


----------



## Don2Laughs (Dec 31, 2008)

donwilwol said:


> *A type 1 #414 restored.*
> 
> This is an ebay find. I took a chance thinking it might be a type 1. This time it paid off.
> 
> ...


Thank you, sir! I'm happy to see someone show the respect for Sargent that my little jewel suggests it deserves. I have 2 Stanley #5s and although C. Swarze, D. Charlesworth and other officienados sing praises for them…my Sargent puts them to shame in daily use.
Thanks for all you do


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

*A Sargent #5418 ready for Service.*

In between getting a bunch of new old planes ready for resale I decided to resurrect this Sargent #5418.

This was one of those impulse buys. It was just a base and frog that had already been refinished. Anything in the #5400 series is fairly scarce, so I snapped it up.

This one has the 2 piece adjuster. I remade the tote from a piece of Honduras Rosewood.

Unfortunately the cutter is not the right vintage. It's a bit newer than the plane itself.


----------



## terryR (Jan 30, 2012)

donwilwol said:


> *A Sargent #5418 ready for Service.*
> 
> In between getting a bunch of new old planes ready for resale I decided to resurrect this Sargent #5418.
> 
> ...


Nice job on the tote, Don, it matches the knob very well. In fact, the entire plane shines like $500-700! 

Excellent restore. Good luck on the original cutter replacement!

So glad the 54xx series hasn't bit me yet…but after ONE more Auto-Set, and a few Sargent trannies, I may be ready for the big time!


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *A Sargent #5418 ready for Service.*
> 
> In between getting a bunch of new old planes ready for resale I decided to resurrect this Sargent #5418.
> 
> ...


Terry, is the Sargent trannie's a complete set of twisted lat's? Since I've starte4d actually looking for them, I can't find them.

The complete set of Auto sets is pretty impressive to.

The nice thing about the #5400 series is not to many people know about them and just sell them as good old Sargents. Sometimes they don't even know they are sergeants!!


----------



## terryR (Jan 30, 2012)

donwilwol said:


> *A Sargent #5418 ready for Service.*
> 
> In between getting a bunch of new old planes ready for resale I decided to resurrect this Sargent #5418.
> 
> ...


Don, I'll have to check the trannies in my shop, but 6 of 8 in the house have twisted lats and horseshoe shaped mechanism below that (type 1's?). I will try to focus on more of those as you are, too. Still need to get a copy of Excel to keep up with details…

Hmmm…maybe I'll casually look into the 5400's?


----------



## handsawgeek (Jul 31, 2014)

donwilwol said:


> *A Sargent #5418 ready for Service.*
> 
> In between getting a bunch of new old planes ready for resale I decided to resurrect this Sargent #5418.
> 
> ...


Beautiful restoration job! Kudos!


----------



## AnthonyReed (Sep 20, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *A Sargent #5418 ready for Service.*
> 
> In between getting a bunch of new old planes ready for resale I decided to resurrect this Sargent #5418.
> 
> ...


That tote is gorgeous Don.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *A Sargent #5418 ready for Service.*
> 
> In between getting a bunch of new old planes ready for resale I decided to resurrect this Sargent #5418.
> 
> ...


Thanks everyone!!!


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

*No its not a Sargent 5409, but the other one?*

More pictures on my blog

I've got a very strict rule about computers. After the 2nd cocktail, I don't return work emails and I don't buy on ebay. But, who follows rules after the 2nd cocktail?

Apparently not me. The work rule is easy. Who wants to work once the fun starts. So I made this impulse purchase. Its 2 planes. I thought one was a Sargent #5409. It was all there, the thin casting, the steel insert in the adjustment knob, the twisted lateral and a corrugated bottom.

The problem!

The problem was the corrugated bottom was on the "other plane".

A little bummed but I still had a decent type 3 Sargent 409. It's got an American Beauty cutter, so I know that's not original. I need to find out about the American Beauty part, but Sargent didn't make a cutter back then with the round hole at the bottom of the cutter.

The other surprise was I was sure the other plane was a Defiance. But it had a corrugated sole and I didn't think the Defiance came corrugated. Well come to find out, in 1939 (yep for 1 year) Defiance made a corrugated. Since the #1204 Defiance was made from 1932-1953, and the #1204C was only made in 1939 I'm going to assume it fairly rare.

But here is the Sargent type 3 #409 anyhow. Look for the Defiance in days to come.

If you know ANYTHING about the "American Beauty" Iron, I'd love to here from you. I know there is an American Beauty company in business today, I just don't know if it's the same, and they don't do planes anymore.


----------



## terryR (Jan 30, 2012)

donwilwol said:


> *No its not a Sargent 5409, but the other one?*
> 
> More pictures on my blog
> 
> ...


That's a sharp smoother, Don! Sorry, never heard of the iron…

I got one on a block named 'Best Maid'...LOL.


----------



## Deycart (Mar 21, 2012)

donwilwol said:


> *No its not a Sargent 5409, but the other one?*
> 
> More pictures on my blog
> 
> ...


Never heard of "American Beauty" and I have seen a fair amount of planes. Are you planing a post for the defiance?


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *No its not a Sargent 5409, but the other one?*
> 
> More pictures on my blog
> 
> ...





> Never heard of "American Beauty" and I have seen a fair amount of planes. Are you planing a post for the defiance?
> 
> - Deycart


I'll post it once it's cleaned up


----------



## Tugboater78 (May 26, 2012)

donwilwol said:


> *No its not a Sargent 5409, but the other one?*
> 
> More pictures on my blog
> 
> ...


Don makes some rusties into beauties..


----------



## AnthonyReed (Sep 20, 2011)

donwilwol said:


> *No its not a Sargent 5409, but the other one?*
> 
> More pictures on my blog
> 
> ...


Not a bad second cocktail purchase; not nearly as costly as could have been managed.

Wish I could help with information on the iron.

Thanks Don.


----------

