Understanding ‘Transitional’
The term “transitional” in reference to Stanley planes is somewhat of a modern misnomer. Stanley marketed these planes as “Bailey wood planes,” and they were not simply a transition from all-wood planes to all-metal planes. Instead, they represented a hybrid design, combining elements from both types and were manufactured alongside metal planes for many decades.
Historical Context
Stanley’s transitional planes were introduced in the mid-1860s and were produced throughout the latter part of the 19th century. These planes were designed to provide the smooth movement of wood against wood, combined with the ease of blade adjustment characteristic of metal planes. The unique design featured boat-shaped iron castings, and the blade was secured and adjusted using the Bailey mechanism, similar to that of all-metal planes.
Marketing and Appeal
Stanley promoted these planes by claiming that “Every Carpenter needs two or more wood planes in his kit, for rough outside work” and “wood planes push easier.” Some users preferred the tactile feel of wood against wood, reminiscent of traditional wooden bench planes, but also appreciated the patented adjustment features of the metal planes. As a result, transitional planes were offered as a practical alternative to fully metallic planes.
Design and Construction
Basic Design: The transitional planes featured a cast iron frame attached to a wooden body. The frog was positioned over a bridge within the frame, with the knob secured to the front and the tote fastened to a raised boss at the rear of the frame. The wooden components, including the knob, tote, and body, were made of beech.
Knob and Tote: The knob was attached directly to the wooden body with a regular wood screw, and the tote was fastened with a single bolt. Unlike metallic planes, these wooden planes did not have additional measures to prevent lateral twisting of the tote. Metallic planes often had a small machine screw or a raised nib in the casting for extra stability, which was not present in the wooden planes.
Frog Adjustment: The frog on transitional planes was adjustable and resembled those on iron planes, but it was shorter in length. Due to the wooden body, the cutter could be unsupported over a considerable length when the frog was moved forward, leading to potential flexing and chattering of the cutter. Stanley acknowledged this issue and recommended placing a shim of cardboard or veneer on the bed to align it with the face of the frog, especially as the sole wore down and the mouth widened.
Lever Cap: The lever cap on transitional planes had a distinctive appearance, operating like those on metallic bench planes but with unique finishes and castings. It featured a stippled surface and was japanned on top. The rivet for the lever cap spring was not machined flat but left rounded. The lower edge of the lever cap, which contacted the cap iron, had a decorative motif similar to two opposing reverse ogees, which was machined smooth rather than japanned.
No.29 Plane Details
The No.29 fore plane is 20″ long, 2 3/8″ wide and weighs 6 1/4lbs. They were produced from 1870 until 1918.
My plane is assumed to be a shortened No.29 at 18 ¾ in. long. (A No.28 is 18 in. long and a No.29 is 20 in. long) One aspect of these planes is that the user could trim the length to suit themselves. A hint that mine has been trimmed is that there is no ‘Stanley’ identification stamp on the toe.
Based on the various characteristics mine is a Type 14 and was produced in the period 1912 to 1918.
It shows little sign of wear, but the original blade has been replaced with one made by Berg of Sweden.
With thanks to the following sites for their detailed information:
Hi Geoff, Ran across your blog page from May 2024 on “transitional” planes, I agree emphatically your assertion that back in the day when these planes were produced, they were not referred to as transitional at all, seems to be a product of people owning/collecting these planes seeing one or two references on the internet being named as such, and now another non necessary term is now ingrained in web users’ conciousness. Being a carpenter myself, I would have purchased a plane by the description the manufacturer gave, like a smooth/smoothing plane, or a jack plane. etc. Stanley gets too much credit in the history of tools as well, for example I have a Union Mfg. Co. #35 plane, Union calls it an adjustable iron top Bailey pattern plane in their 1901 Catalog. No mention anywhere in that catalog about being transitional. It resembles Stanley’s #35 also, but Stanley spent years and years of acquiring every tool company competitor they could get their hands on…. would be regarded as monopolistic to an extreme degree in my view. Stanley purchased Union {they were both in New Britain, CT} in 1920. Another case in proving the internet dilution of correct terminology is the term “dovetail” is applied to any wood box joined by some means at the corners. Recipe and file boxes are sold on EBay and other sites which claimto have dovetailed joints when in fact they are actually describing a box which has box jointed corners. There isn;t a dovetail within a mile! But non trades people do not make such a careful distinction anymore, someone else called out a box with dovetailed corners on the internet and now it’s practically gospel. As carpenters we had to learn proper techniques of contruction and proper terminology as well.
Hi Michael, thanks for your comments. I agree with you that all too often we take shortcuts with how we name things. I don’t consider this as necessarily an internet created issue because here in Australia we have for a long time used the brand name of a particular product and applied it across the whole segment (eg. ESKY for a cooler box, HOOVER for a vacuum cleaner & THERMOS for a hot/cold flask). However the internet can take these ‘local’ conventions and quickly spread them globally.
I don’t have a background of formalised carpentry training so am probably guilty of not always referring to things by their correct name, but when I research information about my wood planes I try to go past the superficial and get to the right information source.