The Great No. 2 Knock Off Showdown - Part II - Castings and Frogs

Yesterday was Part I of this review of non-Stanley #2 shaped planes. I introduced the planes I have, and compared the totes. If you don't want to read that long post, essentially I have two Fulton 3708s, one made by Sargent and the other Millers Falls, I have a Sargent VBM 407, and a Sargent 409 as a control and something known that I can compare the little ones to.

L to R - Fulton 3708 BB, 3708 BL, Sargent VBM 407, and Sargent 409

Today what I would like to examine is the main plane castings and frog mechanisms

I would like to first examine the above photo, a head on look at all four planes together. Please ignore the sawdust on #4 size 409 on the right - I use this plane. I rehabbed it a while back with the intention of practicing fixing an old plane up before I did it to a more valuable Stanley type 11. This plane works so well, I have yet to get to that type 11, it sits sadly in a corner of my shop while this Sargent gets the snot used out of it. I probably should have cleaned it up a bit for this photo shoot, but I didn't have much time on my lunch hour that day.  :o)

Anyway, what you can see with the castings in this photo pretty much sums up my entire impressions of these planes. Starting from the right, the 409 has a nice, heavy casting which is even, but a bit on the rough side. I can attest that in use this plane isn't lacking anything other than aesthetics.

The 409. The casting has a grey tinge partly because I de-rusted it in citric acid.

Second from the right is the Sargent VBM 407. The casting on this one looks to my eye substantial, yet a bit more refined. Holding this plane you can feel it is smoother on the edges and obvious a little more care was taken on the fit and finish of this plane during construction. I think I could get the edges of the 409 to look like this relatively easy with successively finer grits of sandpaper, but that is purely cosmetic. Still, it is nice to hold and I'm glad that someone at some point in it's manufacture took the time to do it. There is some evidence that this plane was cleaned  up before I got it, but happily the dark patina of time is still all over the casting. I don't think it was sanded down after leaving the factory.

The VBM 407. At some point, someone "polished" up the lever cap grinding down the letters a bit. I imagine new the printing here was a bit crisper looking.

Next up is the third-from-the-right Sargent made Fulton 3708 BL. Actually, I have no idea if this plane really is a model 3708, as that number is nowhere on the casting. No numbers at all. There is a "BL" on the blade, but that is it. BL is Sears' code for being manufactured by Sargent. Since it is so close in appearance to the 3708 BB, we'll go with that as a designator.

You can see in the first picture, that compared to the others this plane has the thinnest casting. It is also a bit uneven - some parts of the casting are visibly thicker than others. My impression is that this is cosmetic, and only shows that this plane went through the assembly line a little faster than the rest of the planes in this test. We will see, but so far I haven't found anything on this casting that will prevent the plane from functioning well. It's just a bit ugly.

3708 BL - in this photo the uneven tapering of the thickness of the casting can be seen.

Last but not least, the Millers Falls manufactured Fulton 3708 BB. The differences are subtle, but to my eye this casting is the best looking of the lot. Not too thick and clunky looking, yet also substantial enough to not be considered too thin. The thickness looks even all around, and the sharp edges are all polished and pleasingly rounded from the factory. The standard at the MF plant was obviously a little higher than they were a the Sargent plant when the other one was made.

Proportions on the 3708 BB look perfect to my eye.

Let's take a peek now at the frogs, and how they are mated to the castings:

The dust isn't original to this plane.

Here's where the frog beds to the casting on the 409. Sargent used these three bits of metal in the casting that they ground flat(ish) for the frog to rest on. One could file these flat, but to get them all in line and perfect would take a bit of care, I decided to see how the plane worked without doing that, and I notice no deficiencies in perfromance.

A close up of the bed.

The frog itself has three ground places where it meets the raised bits in the bed. Sargent stamped the model number of the plane on the underside of the frog.

Underside of frog.

The adjuster uses a regular threaded bolt. This means that to advance the blade, you have to turn the adjuster knob to the left, which is backwards of what most of us are used to. This plane is old enough to where the knob itself is what we would consider small.

Also, in this photo the yoke is one solid piece.

The great part of this frog is the surface of the frog is ground flat, and has a lot of bearing surface for the blade. I really like frogs like this.

A nice, old-style frog.

Let's now look at the VBM 407:

Is this a different picture?

Looking at the close-ups of this plane, you would be forgiven for thinking you might be looking at the 409 again, just without all the dust. Nearly all the same features as it's bigger brother.

One piece yoke, small knob with "backwards" threads.

This one also needs to be turned to the left to advance the blade. It's something you can get used to, but it is weird at first.

407 once again stamped on the underside of the frog. Strangely, it is upside down as compared to how the 409 is stamped. I wonder why?

A good, robust, functional design. Having used this plane, I can say it takes shavings and performs well.

Ribbit.

Now, how about the Sargent made Fulton? What do you think this will look like?

Same picture again?

I've reversed the order of how we'll look at this one to make it easier for you to scroll between the two to see the differences.

The guts of this plane look awfully close to the same as the VBM 407. The frog looks very, VERY similar. It wouldn't surprise me if the frog was cast in the exact same form.

This one just looks newer.

It looks the same to me, just perhaps done a bit faster. The only significant difference in the frog is the knob is big on this one, and made of stainless steel. Also, the threads are left-handed resulting in advancing the blade achieved by turning the knob to the right. In addition, the yoke is two separate pieces. No idea what the advantage of that is. It probably was easier to manufacture.

Two piece yoke and stainless knob.

The big difference in the bed casting is the center isn't raised, and the paint is left on. I suspect leaving the center of the frog unsupported makes it easier for the frog to feel firmly seated, as there are only two bearing surfaces rather than three to align. We'll have to see how this performs. There could be room for super-tuning here.

Paint.

By the way, this plane hasn't always looked so shiny and new:

Here is the 3708 BL before rehab.

Finally, the Fulton 3708 BB made by Millers Falls:

I've only noticed this on Millers Falls planes.

Like most Millers Falls planes, the maker and number of the plane is engraved on the side. I like this about Millers falls planes, it leaves no questions.

The frog on this plane once again has a lot of bearing surface to support the blade, but the design is obviously different.

What is going on down by the mouth?

The design of this frog mechanism is far superior, in my mind. We'll have to see how it works in practice, but the clever mechanism ensures square alignment of the frog is maintained, and moves the load of the bearing surface down close to the mouth, where it can ensure stability of the cutting surface.

It's a good theory in my mind, we'll have to wait to see if it works as I think it will.

By the way, if you haven't noticed, I got a new pair of Crocs in the mail and am using the wrapper to protect my dining table.

The frog's casting looks like a little more care was taken in it's manufacturing. Like the BL, this one has a two piece yoke and a stainless large knob that turns right to advance the blade.

"2." Not sure what that means. Maybe because the Stanley equivalent is a #2? I doubt it.

There was one more detail in this casting which made me smile. Look at the part that supports the front knob:

Solid front knob.

When I tried to take off the front knob, I first twisted on the knob itself as sometimes this will loosen a front knob so a screwdriver isn't needed. This knob was rock-solid and wouldn't budge. Once I got it off, I realized that these little teeth in the casting were holding the knob in place. This is an awesome feature in my mind. I hate when I am planing and the front knob moves by unscrewing. This feature eliminates that problem.

I don't know about you, but what I am seeing is making me think the Millers Falls designed Fulton 3708 BB might be the best of the bunch. I am seeing enough little details that are in there not to be noticed, but with a function that this plane is setting itself up to be a great little user.

In my mind, the Sargent 409 works so well that it will be tough to beat in performance, so we will have to see during the test coming up in Part IV.

Before that, though, we need to look at blades, chipbreakers and levercaps in the upcoming Part III of this series.

Stay tuned...

The Great No. 2 Knock Off Showdown - Part I - Introduction and Totes

At HandWorks last year, I bought a type 9 Stanley #3. I was on the lookout for a small smoother. That plane turned out great, but I really wanted something like a #2 - the only problem being they are a lot more expensive. I think the reason for this is they are cute, resulting in them being collectible.

I was discussing this dilemma with Jonas one day and we both decided that we were determined to get one. I got lucky a coupla months back and found on eBay a Sargent VBM 407. Then last week I found two more that were affordable - both Fulton 3708s. One is going to Jonas on the condition that I get to do this review first.

The two on the left are Fultons, the two on the right, Sargents. The right one is a 409, the size of a #4 included for scale.

It is always amazing to me how two planes made by the same company can looks so different.

Another view. The top one is the number 4 sized plane.

Stanley #2s can go for insane amounts on eBay. Even in poor shape with obvious rust and broken or missing parts. I decided to broaden my search to include planes that looked like Stanley #2s, which is how I wound up with these.

The Contenders

For the sake of full disclosure, I will divulge how much I paid and in what condition these planes came.

Sargent #409

This is a #4 sized plane, not a little #2. I am using it in this test as the control - something on which to base the other planes.

Sargent 409 right after rehab.

This is the shape it was in when it arrived.

It is now tuned and works freaking awesome.

I got this on eBay last year in a group of planes. I wanted one of the others, and this was in the group. It probably only cost a few dollars. I decided to use this plane as the control because it is reasonable a quality plane could be made to work this good.

Sargent VBM 407.

Sargent VBM 407 - I think it was built between 1910-1918 - type 4 body with type 3 blade.

This plane showed up on eBay "Buy It Now" listing for $100. I jumped on it right away. This plane was in good condition. I suspect someone cleaned it up for me, but you can't have everything. All I did to this was sharpen the blade and it now takes very fine shavings.

Fulton 3708 BB

The 3708 BB is on the right.

Like the VBM, this one came in great condition. I won the auction on this one for $117 including shipping. Unless the frog reveals that it needs work, I will do nothing to this one other than sharpen the blade.

Fulton  3708 BL

This one arrived a hot mess.

I'm happy with how it cleaned up.

This plane I won for $62. I think it was priced less than the others because it looked like it had been half laying in a puddle of water for who-knows-how-long.

Competitor In Absentia: Lie-Nielsen #2

Photo courtesy Lie-Nielsen ToolWorks.

I don't have one of these, so it is not really fair that I include it. I did see one recently at the Dictum shop, and I had a few impressions of it based on the few minutes I held it in my hands. Where appropriate, I will mention it. Brand new from Lie Nielsen they are $275. It's weird to me that if you want a Stanley user, you could easily pay the same as for a new LN.

What Little I Know About Fulton Planes

I've done a bit of online research. Fuller planes were made for Sears by proper plane making companies. It let Sears sell their own brand of tool (of quality) for a lower price. 

Sears (if you don't know) was a huge American retailer that did a lot of sales with a big-ass catalog. I remember looking through it when I was a kid to make out my Christmas list. Anyway, it looks like most of these planes were made by Sargent, but some of them were made by Millers Falls.

From what I can tell, BL is a Sargent made version, while BB denotes manufacture by Millers Falls. Of this I am 99.95763% certain. 

One guy on a forum said the handle on the BB is the only one made that fits an adult hand, and indeed, it is a bit taller and roomier than my Sargent VBM. 

Other differences between the BB, BL, and Sargent VBM are the casting is a bit more substantial and even on the BB than on the BL. Everything is nice and tight.

The BB and BL both have nice big, flat frog beds, and laminated blades (at least the BL does, I haven't yet investigated the BB). 

I think once they are both fettled, they should both work great.

I have found that some people on some of the forums (fori?) really do not think highly of Fulton planes. I think this is because the later models of these planes (which are bright red) were designed for economy above all else, by looking at them. I haven't seen one of these in person, so I will not comment about those, but these older versions, probably pre-1950, seem to be quality tools so far.

If you come across one of these older Fultons, realize that you are really looking at a Sargent, Millers Falls, or perhaps a Union plane.

Totes

All lined up.

Strangely, I am starting this review on a part I don't have many photos of. We'll work with what we've got.

I was surprised when I was given a Lie-Nielsen to hold. The handle is shaped such that an adult can't really get fingers around the grip. The only way to hold it (for me) was to wrap my fingers along the casting, similar to how I would hold a coffin smoother. I felt this a bit awkward and uncomfortable for a tool in which every other aspect looked perfect.

The first of this size that I got to hold was the VBM.

Well, I found this picture of the VBM's handle.

The handle is well shaped and allows you to put your fingers around the handle like the #4 sized 409. Only this one is just a tad undersized for my large hands.

The Fulton 3708 BL (Sargent) has a handle that feels nearly the same.

This one still has the sticker!

The 3708 BB (Millers Falls) has the world's most perfect shaped #2-sized handle. It is just a little bigger than the others, and my mitt fits around this handle like a glove. I was so impressed with it, I removed it and scanned it for your use. If you don't like the handle on your #2, print this out to scale and use it as a template to make your own. The orange pipe cleaner shows the angle of the threaded rod, so you may need to make adjustments for it to fit your plane.

It is 4" x 2 3/4".

If the most important part of a #2 user plane to you is how it feels in your hand, I think you will be happiest with the Millers Falls made Fulton 3708 BB.

Next up: Castings and Frogs