Millers Falls Type 1 Bench Planes

In 1928 Charles Fox of the Millers Falls Company submitted a patent for "improvements in means for clamping the cutting blade or plane iron in operative position". This innovation, the so-called 'double-jointed' lever cap, was featured on a new line of planes offered by the company in 1928. In both appearance and functionality, the Millers Falls bench planes are worthy alternatives to Stanley's Bailey line of planes. With the advent of Randy Roeder's type study for Millers Falls bench planes we now have a way to sort out the various types. While several of the types are closely related, the Type 1's are distinctive and easily recognized due to a combination of features. I hope that the following information will serve as a resource for both the user and collector so that these handsome and useful tools will be rescued from the anonymity of garages, basements, and flea markets and accorded the recognition that they deserve.


The Type 1's can be identified by five unique features:

  1. The lack of a patent number on the face of the lever cap
  2. The lack of ridges in the casting at the base of the knob
  3. A cast, not stamped, Y-lever
  4. "Millers Falls" cast into the body of the plane around the base of the knob
  5. Model number cast into the bed of the plane

The Type 1's also had the well machined Millers Falls frog and a rather shapely tote.


Figure 1. Features unique to the Type 1: Lack of a patent number on the face of the lever cap and the lack of ridges in the casting at the base of the knob.

Millers Falls did not wait for the patent to issue in 1931 but began producing planes shortly after submitting the application. One distinctive feature of the Type 1 planes is the presence of the 'double-jointed' lever cap but without the patent number which was present on the Type 2 and later planes. The plane on the left is a Type 3 and has the patent number stamped into the lever cap between the lever and the 'Millers Falls' logo. The Type 1 plane on the right lacks the patent date. The Type 1 has traces of red paint in the background of the logo although this is not readily seen in the photograph.

A second distinctive feature is the absence of ridges cast into the depression into which the base of the knob seats (above). I believe this feature to be unique to the Type 1 planes. The Type 1's also had 'Millers Falls' cast into the bed of the plane around the base of the knob.

Back to top of page


Figure 2. Closeup of patent date on lever cap of a Type 3 plane.

This is a closer view of the lever cap of a Type 3 (left). The location of the patent number is consistent throughout the Type 2 and later planes. This Type 3 has a chrome plated lever cap whereas the lever caps on the older planes were nickel plated.

Back to top of page


Figure 3. Features unique to the Type 1: A cast, not stamped, Y-lever.

A third feature believed to be unique to the Type 1 planes is the use of a cast Y-lever as shown in this Type 1 #9. This Y-lever is nearly identical to the type used on Stanley planes. Both the frog and the Y-lever are painted red. The adjuster knob is brass as are the nuts used to secure the knob and tote.

Back to top of page


Figure 4. Stamped Y-Lever on a Type 2 plane.

In contrast to the Type 1 planes, later Millers Falls planes were equipped with Y-levers of stamped steel. Some of the types, such as this Type 2, #9C had blued steel adjuster knobs. Type 2 and later planes had the model number stamped into the side of the plane as shown in the lower left corner of this photograph. Unlike Stanley, Millers Falls identified corrugated planes as such by use of the letter C after the model number in the Type 2 and later planes. This particular plane is an excellent user with a very smooth and positive action when adjusting the blade depth.

Back to top of page


Figure 6. Location of model numbers on the Type 1 plane.

The Type 1 planes had the model number cast into the upper surface of the bed. As shown in this photo, the number was placed behind the tote in the #14 or larger planes. "Made in USA" was cast between the tote and the frog. The model number on the #9 and smaller planes (not shown) was cast between the "Made in USA" and the frog.

Back to top of page


Figure 7. The upper surface of the Type 1 frog. Figure 8. Comparison of frogs between the Type 4 Millers Falls and the Type 19 Stanley planes.

Millers Falls copied the design of the Stanley frog for their planes and used it on the Type 1 planes (above, left photo). To its credit the company recognized a good thing and the design varied only slightly over the years. The quality of the machining on the Millers Falls bench plane frogs was equal to that of the Stanley Bailey line at any given point in in time and eventually exceeded the Stanley Type 19 planes. Stanley changed the design of their frogs with the Type 16 planes. As shown in the above/right photograph, Stanley reduced the area to be machined by casting depressions in the frog and apparently finished the upper surface of the frog on a coarse belt sander. The plane to the right of the Stanley in the same photograph is a Type 4 (Orange period) Millers Falls #9, the last of the Millers Falls high quality planes, and was manufactured in the same time frame as the later Stanley Type 19's. The design of the frog had not changed significantly since the Type 1 and the frog was still being milled with a rotary cutter. The frog on this Millers Falls Type 4 is flat and true.

Back to top of page


Figure 9. Comparison of totes between Type 1 and Type 2 #9 planes.

Type 1 and Type 2 planes had knobs and totes of rosewood. Type 3 planes had hardwood (maple? birch?) totes and Type 4 planes had distinctive totes made of cocobolo. This photograph illustrates the differences between a tote on the Type 1 #9 (left) and a Type 2 #9C (right). The tote on the earlier plane is similar to the Stanley totes of that era. The tote on the later plane has a thicker horn as well as a sharper junction between the horn and the main body of the tote. The older tote appears to have slightly more room for the hand to grip. Those with larger hands may find the more acute angle between the horn and the tote on the later type to be slightly less comfortable than the tote of the Type 1.

Back to top of page


Back to The Galoots Progress

Copyright 1997, 1998 Thomas Price - All rights reserved

Last revised 10/22/2000