# Sargent Planes - Type 2 #407 Refurb



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*Well, I finally came across a Type 2 Sargent #407 so I snatched it up. This was rare enough that, yes, I had to pay a pretty penny for it. It looked a bit beat up on fleaBay but had all the parts, so I dug out my electrolysis bath and went to work.*



























.
.

*It originally looked like this:*








.
.

*While the metal was in the electrolysis bath, I worked on the Tote and Knob. I decided not to completely strip them, and instead buffed them up and added a couple coats of semi-gloss lacquer. Beautiful Rosewood! And both had never been broken, just some minor scratches!*

















.
.

*The metal was now out of the bath, so I started cleaning them up and working on the brass, cap, blade and chipper:*













































.
.
.
*After taping the base and frog up, I sprayed the japanning on with Rust-Oleum Painter's Touch 2X semi-gloss. I found this to be the most durable, and it can be built up rather thick and really matches that old asphaltum look.*

















.
.
*In the end, this refurb turned out well, all things considered. One very surprising thing about this plane, behind the mouth on the base, it was ground down very thin to allow for the frog to mount. AND BY THIN, I MEAN 21-THOUSANDTHS OF AN INCH THIN! That was behind the cutter, so that area never gets any trauma so that works, but wow is that thin!*


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

That looks great Mike.


----------



## TravisH (Feb 6, 2013)

That turned out very nice. Always good to see the labor pay off with a nice tool in the end.


----------



## EugdOT (Nov 17, 2016)

Looks brand new off the assembly line, great work


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

COOL find…

COOL restoration…

COOL TOOL…


----------



## Druid (Sep 30, 2010)

Hope it performs as nice as it looks.


----------



## corelz125 (Sep 23, 2015)

Mike is there much of a difference in outcome with the electrolysis bath compared to using evapo rust?


----------



## canadianchips (Mar 12, 2010)

Nice save.
I personally like sargent over stanley. They feel beefier to me !


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

> Mike is there much of a difference in outcome with the electrolysis bath compared to using evapo rust?
> - corelz125


Here you go, just follow the link…

Electrolysis is a technique for returning surface rust to iron. It uses the effect of a small low voltage electric current and a suitable electrolyte (solution). It has advantages over the old standbys like vinegar, Coke, muriatic acid, naval jelly, wire brushing, sand blasting, etc. Those methods all remove material to remove the rust, including un-rusted surfaces. With many, the metal is left with a 'pickled' look or a characteristic color and texture. The electrolytic method removes nothing: by returning surface rust to metallic iron, rust scale is loosened and can be easily removed. Un-rusted metal is not affected in any way.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

Mike, that's a great article on electrolysis. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## Ken90712 (Sep 2, 2009)

Nice work Mike, fun project.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Thanks folks!

FWIW, I just posted on my website a Sargent Frog Comparison Type Study. I am of the opinion that the early Types 2 and 3 Frogs actually have a half-brother, AKA Type 2-1/2.

The Type 2-1/2, as I call it, is a hybrid between the Horseshoe with the Patent Date twisted lever, AND the Type 3 that has the folded lever and newer working end. I have at least three examples with the twisted Patent Date lever and the NEWER working end.

Any ideas Don? I will post to LJs once we come to an agreement on this. Thanks.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

What a coincidence. I was looking at this this morning. I think it may have to do with size


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

> What a coincidence. I was looking at this this morning. I think it may have to do with size
> - Don W


Don,
I'm not real sure. Just double-checked and I actually have four "T2-1/2" as I call them. One "Type 2-1/2" on the linked image is on a #5408, two are #5414, and one a #414. FWIW, one #5408 has round frog nuts and all the others have square frog nuts on the bases. If it were not for the #5408 sized frog/plane, I would totally agree with you on the frogs.

As far as the bases, *my examples* of the #5400 series planes (I think size DOES matter here):

#5408 and smaller have round frog nuts
Starting with #5410 and larger, all of mine have square frog nuts on their bases.

Checking my Sargent catalogs for lateral types, the illustrations show:

1894 catalog shows Horseshoe laterals
1910 catalog shows Folded lateral
1922 catalog " " " 
1928 catalog " " "

I guess the bottom line is that what I am calling a "Type 2-1/2" frog, occurred between or at the same time as both the Horseshoe and Folded laterals patented in 1891.

While trying NOT to completely re-write Heckel's Type Study of planes, IMO using the "2-1/2" moniker keeps Heckel's original Plane Types relevant, as shown on his ID and Value Guide, but still allows for this anomaly.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

Mike, here is how I see it.
A type 1 is pre-lat.
A type 2 is a horseshoe with a twisted end.
A type 3 is twisted on one end and a simple folded to make contact with the iron on the other end.
A type 4 is folded in a U shape on one end and simple folded to make contact with the iron on the other end.

A type 2 or horseshoe has the has a rounded topped frog like this









A type 3 will have an ogee shaped frog like this









So I'm a little confused. I though you were referring to something different. The Ogee shape seems to be slightly different from size to size.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

OK, good. That actually makes more sense, with both of Wright's patents have the same twisted '1991 lever' and different working ends. And then, the folded 'U' (Type4) lever came in with the advent of the VBM (in the 1910 Catalog). Got it! Geez, I was always thinking about the lever end and not the working end, hence my ongoing confusion.

SOooo, with all that being said, then all of the #5400 series would need to have Types 2 or 3 frogs on thin bodies. This works!

Just corrected my web page, just remember to refresh.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

Heckel makes this very very confusing.
On page 39 it states "TYPE 2 and 3 have the horseshoe style lateral adjuster. which has a horeshoe style pivot…....

The only thing that makes sense there is if it said
"TYPE 2 and 3 have the *twisted *style lateral adjuster. which has a horseshoe style pivot…....

The other things you want to look at are the two patents. I really don't think the second lateral is patented at all. The second patent for Feb 3 1891 is for a lateral very similar to the horseshoe, that uses the adjuster fork mechanism for a pivot, with the disk above the pivot. The disk could still be bent (like the Unions) but its not like the type 3 lateral.

Heckel also only mentions 2 types of laterals for the transitional planes, which would lead me to the same conclusion you originally had, but then mentions a type 1, 2 and 3!

And it's obvious that VBM started at the same time as the third (or type 3) lateral.


----------



## bandit571 (Jan 20, 2011)

kept looking at the plane at the top of this thread…..seems I had something that looked a bit like it…









except this plane ( now in the hands of fellow LJer BEKA) is a #3 sized, marked as a Fulton. 









View of the frog, and..









The frog's seats. Rear handle is a replacement, as the OEM one was moldy, and crumbled apart. A "Before" 
( since DonW won't allow it on HIS threads)









I had already shot it with some PB Blaster…...thought it could also kill the yellow fuzz growing out of the wood…


----------

