# Sargent VBM 418 plane markings



## macmurf (Aug 13, 2010)

I have 18" plane with Sargent VBM stamped on the plane cap, the number 418 (no dot) stamped on the frog directly and Sargent VBM 418 New Haven CT stamped on blade but I can't find any markings of any kind on the plane body. Does this make sense? Also, the pattern on base of the frog most closely resembles that identified as:
Pre VBM 1910?, Sargent 414C however it has a folded lateral (most like the 418) and is stamped 418. Thanks to Lumberjocks pics & HorizontalMike (www.Lumberjocks.com/topix/47190), they helped a lot! I'm going to upload a couple of pics of the frog base pattern, stampings, etc. (probably upside down?, sideways?, who knows?, sorry) but clear.
It sounds to me, who knows nothing about the subject, that I may have some combination of Sargent parts with a questionable base. Thanks in advance for any help.


----------



## corelz125 (Sep 23, 2015)

Did you check timetestedtools ? Don has some info on sargents


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

it's an early type 4. In my new type study it'll be a type 4a, its basically a left over type 3 frog with a folded lat. Would you post a picture of the base, I just want to compare it to what I think it should be.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Not a problem. You indeed have a Sargent #418VBM. All parts shown are correct for this plane. The frog would make it a very early VBM, after all, Sargent was known for using up old stock parts when transitioning to newer models. The Sargent plane that I have had the longest, is a pre-VBM #418 with a plane lever cap.

http://horizontalheavens.com/418vs418VBM%20Comparison.htm 
All planes are in the same order.

BTW, I recently came across a Type #1 418 (pre-lateral) off of fleaBay, for less than $40. I have not had time to post this because of having picked up several Sargents over that past couple months.




































Still got some work to do on this one, but the wood is all perfect and is East India Rosewood (no cracks or breaks). BTW, I am now up to 40+ Sargents in my collection, so far…


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

Mike, a type 1 should be rosewood and wouldn't be flat sided. Even type 2 and 3 were rosewood.

I should have this in hand on saturday. A first run type 1 #409.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Nice early tote Don, though you know that not all came with that "unusual rear handle" as Heckel noted in his guide(p38). Looks great.

My Type1 418 matches Heckel's illustration (p42) as far as shape and size, and the wood is correct. Type 1s of these larger planes actually do have flatter sided totes. Types 2 and later were more rounded/molded for the hand:














































At this point the #418 is the only Sargent that I have Types 1-5 for comparison. I will eventually get around to developing comparison images and post them.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

From what I've seen, all of the first runs (the ones with the stamped size before it was cast in the base) had the funky tote. I think the regular type 1s went to a more normal tote. That's just my theory, it's not like you can line 15 up and check it out.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Well, I took the time to figure how to determine East Indian Rosewood and Brazilian Rosewood. Brazilian Rosewood has much fewer pores when compared to the East Indian Rosewood:

Brazilian Rosewood (endgrain 10x):









East Indian Rosewood (endgrain 10x)









That said, it appears that my Type1 418 has Brazilian Rosewood rather than East Indian Rosewood. As always,fun to learn new details/stuff ;-)

...Endgrain: Pay close attention to the endgrain, as it's one of the best ways to separate the two woods. Each sample above represents approximately a 3/8″ square section of endgrain. The key is in the pore density: East Indian Rosewood has about twice as many pores per square inch as Brazilian Rosewood. This can be difficult to gauge if you don't have any known samples to compare, but Brazilian Rosewood should have fairly sparsely spaced pores, while East Indian Rosewood should be almost riddled with pores...


----------



## macmurf (Aug 13, 2010)

Really appreciate all the come back. I'll post a couple more pics (orientation catch-us-catch-can, sorry, I'll work on it). I looked at timetestedtools and read HorizontalMike's info, all very helpful. I could not seem to find pic of exact combination of frog base pattern with same folded lateral and NO base markings as I have. It doesn't take much to confuse me and that did it.


----------



## macmurf (Aug 13, 2010)

Here are few more pics of my 418. I bought this as one of 4 planes but have no use for it, especially now with rotator cuff going south. I'm thinking of listing for sale, not looking for pricing advice, just want to know if I represent it as original Sargent 418, am I being accurate/honest? If I'm reading things right this plane could be 100 yrs old? Sure looks to be in great shape for that age. Tried to get end grain. Judging from HorizontalMike's pics above I'm guessing Brazilian Rosewood. Thanks again, never realized planes could be so interesting.


----------



## corelz125 (Sep 23, 2015)

Is there a difference in the front tote between the type 1 - 4?


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

Mike was correct, the type 1 has kind of flat sides like he shows, then they rounded of to normal after that.

The funky tote was only on very early and they're extremely rare.


----------



## macmurf (Aug 13, 2010)

Sorry, I'm ignorant of different nuances (ie: type 1 - 4) between styles. I will measure tote (which I have always called the handle). Do I understand that my tote (flat sides) may be the "funky tote" referred to by Don? This plane came to me years ago as part of buyout of the home shop of a man who was retiring. He basically threw it in since I was taking 3 planes I thought I could use: Bailey #3, Sargent 407 & Stanley 100 (stamped 342) Squirrel Tail block plane (great for model ship building), the 418 was the only one left so he just "threw it in". A rare day! If this plane is as special as it's reputation seems to indicate, and judging by its condition and the quality of the other pieces I bought, it should be put to work by someone who can appreciate and utilize it, or maybe a collector. I just don't like good tools going to waste, I feel responsible. I just gave two of my three ratcheting braces (perfect condition) to two recently retired friends who can use them (wooden boat building and musical instrument repair). Just couldn't keep them when they could actually use them. Can post pics, markings, info of other planes if anyone is interested.
The Sargent 407 has some ugly chips on the blade edge. I could slow wet grind it down to new edge (in a couple of hours) but I have brand new Hock blade & breaker. Since I do use this plane would you change to the Hock or just keep the orig. for orig. sake and re-sharpen (I'll keep the origs. regardless)?
Thanks again. Time to go make a few wood chips. Need sawdust therapy, now!
Made the mistake of turning the news on too early this morning.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

> ...[snip]...
> The Sargent 407 has some ugly chips on the blade edge. I could slow wet grind it down to new edge (in a couple of hours) but I have brand new Hock blade & breaker. Since I do use this plane would you change to the Hock or just keep the orig. for orig. sake and re-sharpen (I ll keep the origs. regardless)?
> Thanks again. Time to go make a few wood chips. Need sawdust therapy, now!
> Made the mistake of turning the news on too early this morning.
> - macmurf


 
 What generation is the #407? Plain, VBM, [Sargent], other? 
 What stamp on blade/cutter?
 Most blades can be sharpened without an issue. 
Your answer and images will help determine any advice given.


















FWIW, I ended up putting a HOCK blade on my original #418 (pre-VBM) and it makes a great user.


----------



## macmurf (Aug 13, 2010)

What can you decipher?
Sargent 407 (no VBM markings) pics:


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

macmurf, 
What you have is a Type 5, post-VBM and pre-WWII. The types 4 & 5 make the best users, IMO. Anything earlier should probably be considered a collector only. FYI, the lateral adjusters on the earlier ones are more rare, and the base castings are thin and less durable. Your proposed idea of adding a HOCK blade and breaker to the above T-5 #407 should/would be fine.


----------



## macmurf (Aug 13, 2010)

Thanks again HMike and everybody. Knowing more about 'em makes me want to use 'em again. Gotta get re-located, need a shop again, bad. Is there a marking that indicates it's a Type 5 or is just your knowledge of the differences through experience?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

The blade has [SARGENT] with a box around the name, and nothing else inside that box. The same goes for the lever cap, only has [SARGENT]. Both of these are without any VBM marking, nor with any part of an extended box where the "VBM" used to go.

*Most* of this information is available in the David Heckel Sargent Value Guide. I have tried to add to the knowledge base with information not found in David's book. If you do an LJs search for Sargent information, much of this comes up, though I admit that I still need to do more updating to make it easier to find. Don also is a good source of Sargent information, though Don's interest covers many other brands of hand planes/tools. I restrict MY interests to Sargent #400 Series Types 1-5 pre-WWII. The post-WWII Sargent quality declined too much for me, so I try not to go there.

You really should consider picking up a copy of David's book off of fleaBay, they seem to come up frequently.


----------



## macmurf (Aug 13, 2010)

Have to admit. I received so much info, all new to me, that I'm still trying to get it organized in my head. Looking back at some of the replies, particularly your pics and explanations, I can see that only real study and long exposure get's you far enough. I'll scour them all a bit more closely. Thanks again everyone.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

I've recently been trying to do a better job at obtaining and organizing further type study data and one thing I'm finding (which I suspected) is Sargents "features" were all over the board. Stanley's definitely used older pieces in newer planes, but Sargent didn't even seem to have a consistent"style" for the pieces themselves.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Also worthy of note, is the matching brand cross-over parts. In particular, in my observations, the use of Stanley blades/cutters and the use of Stanley chip breakers on Sargent planes. I now have inadvertently collected a number of Stanley blades and chip-breakers because of the cross-brand usage during the +100yr lives of these Sargent planes.

FWIW, I am seeing boat-loads of Stanley chippers on Sargent planes while perusing the fleaBay. And these Stanley chippers are outnumbering the number of Stanley blades, on Sargent planes, by far.

I am afraid that the only true way to determine "proper" parts for the various Sargent planes, is through all of the Sargent Technical Illustrations in their catalogs and advertisements. And yes, those drawings are THAT accurate. If you can get hold of the original dated documents, the drawings have a greater grey scale value. Reprints often have too much contrast, making hard to see those details.

BTW, the way to tell if you have a true Sargent chipper:

Sargent chippers have a true/smooth oval hole where the cap screw fits/slides
Stanley chipper hole has long flat sides on their cap screw "oval" hole.


----------



## macmurf (Aug 13, 2010)

Thanks again all around, obviously there's a library's worth of info out there. I was just glad to have some nice tools that work well, now I need to know how to properly care for them.
Any good reference info for best/safest way to remove surface rust? The planes are not in bad shape at all but they deserve to be cleaned up a bit.
One final question on the 418. Should there be ANY "belly" in the sole of this plane? Engineer's square shows 90 degree edge and not a glimmer of light between square's blade and sole over entire 18" length. But. Steel yard stick stood on edge along sole shows a "belly" (+/-1/64" or less?) at slot where cutter protrudes through sole. Seems to act like a fulcrum for the stick, allows glimmer of light between stick and sole at one end or other (see-saw).
Should this be?
I'll check again with rigid straight edge, it could well be my measuring or flex in yard stick.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

The "flatness" of the sole on a plane is a hotly contested issue, with many arguing for perfect flatness into ever smaller fractions. My personal take on this is that your "1/64in" concavity can actually help the plane slide/cut better, in that there is less possibility of stiction/suction on hard smooth woods. After all THAT was the very justification for the development of corrugated planes in the first place. That said, a large difference of 1/16 to an 1/8in would be an entirely different matter.

Also remember that it is the "length" of a plane that keeps your planing flat. Longer planes plane flatter than shorter ones.


----------



## macmurf (Aug 13, 2010)

The space is minuscule, if it's there at all. Like I say, it could be the measurer not the measurement. Does make sense though. Reducing surface tension even a little could go a long way on the long sole. Really won't have use for this plane in my future but I'd like to make certain it's as good as it appears to be if I sell it. I've certainly never noticed any problems the few times I've used it.
I actually use the smaller planes, including a Stanley low angle block plane w/adjustable throat that I picked up at a flea mkt., to work contours mostly. My first box (below) shows hand tapering of edges of the lid & base (3/4" maple down to 1/8" at edge). I like fluidity. Hard angles for cabinetry and curves when it's for fun. I also find a lot of use for tools like my scorp, spoon plane, drawknife, carving chisels, scrapers, files, whatever works.
Sometimes it's better not to know, what you're not supposed to be doing.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

Not only is the flatness of the sole a bit of an opinion, it also depends on what you use the plane for and how you use it.

A plane flexes and cast iron moves with age. So how you hold and push your plane can influence it's ability.

Cast iron moves and wears. I've heard old time craftsman would say a metallic plane should be flatten every 20 years. Both due to wear and cast iron movement.

So my advice is always, if the plane works, it's flat enough. If you search "how flat does your bench plane need to be" on Timetestedtools you'll find my article.


----------



## macmurf (Aug 13, 2010)

All the great info on these planes sorta' set a hook in me. I've put several hours and considerable armstrong & elbow-grease into "sprucing up" the 418 and the 407. HMike, it took 2hrs.+ to sharpen the ragged edge of the 407 blade but now it shaves my forearm. I've got an old hand-made wooden plane which the Hock blade fits, I'm going to try it but first I'll see how clean I can get the remaining Bailey #3. Somehow I feel responsible for them. Thanks again everyone.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

Excellent work!


----------



## macmurf (Aug 13, 2010)

Lot's of good info guys, thanks. I have a couple of old Disston saws I'll have to get after when I'm done with the planes. Never used the saws but they should be freshened too, just out of respect I guess.
Have a good one!


----------

