# No. 85 Cabinet Maker's Scraper Plane Hewn Tool Library · https://hewn.build/tools/no-85-cabinet-maker-s-scraper-plane Reviewed: An independent reviewer read this entry and found corrections. None of them is a way for a person to get hurt, so it is published now. The corrections are listed at the end and are not yet applied to the text: read it with them in hand. Cite as: "No. 85 Cabinet Maker's Scraper Plane." Hewn Tool Library, hewn.build/tools/no-85-cabinet-maker-s-scraper-plane. Reviewed 2026-08-02. --- ## identity - **name:** **Stanley No. 85** — also **No. 85 Cabinet Maker's Scraper Plane** (this entry's working name), **"Cabinet Maker's Scraper"** (Lie-Nielsen's current product name) [N1][N7]. - **family / category:** Surfacing tools → the **SCRAPING branch** → the **HOLDER sub-branch** → the **PLANE-BODY (rigid-blade) sub-branch** — the same broad mechanism family as the [[No. 112 Scraper Plane]] and [[No. 212 Small Scraping Plane]] (a blade held rigid rather than bowed like the [[No. 80 Cabinet Scraper]]) — but its own distinct branch within it, as the No. 112 entry already flags on an honest-edge basis. This run confirms and sharpens that call: the No. 85 gives up cutting-geometry adjustment entirely (fixed pitch, no bow) in exchange for a tool built around one specific access problem [N9-research; see *anatomy*]. - **one-line:** An 8-inch plane body whose blade runs the full width of the sole — like a rabbet plane's iron, not recessed within the casting like its scraper-plane siblings — so it can register flush against a vertical wall (a box interior, a deep rabbet, a fielded panel's edge); its knob and tote each independently tilt sideways to give the user's hand clearance from that same wall. - **not to be confused with:** the **[[No. 112 Scraper Plane]]**, which tilts its blade's PITCH (45°–95°, via two brass nuts) but has a fixed, in-line knob-and-tote grip — the mirror image of the No. 85, which fixes its pitch but tilts its GRIP [N10, HIGH]; the **[[No. 212 Small Scraping Plane]]**, the family's small one-handed member, mechanically closer to the No. 112 (same adjustable-pitch mechanism, no tilting handle) than to the No. 85; the **[[No. 80 Cabinet Scraper]]**, mechanically unrelated (thin blade bowed by a center thumbscrew, fixed ~70° pitch, no tilting grip at all). --- ## ✦ how NOT to use it *Lightest at DANGEROUS (an inherited manufacturer instruction, no distinct incident found) and heaviest at LINEAGE-MISUSE — the tool's fixed frog makes it the easiest member of this family to set up wrong by assuming it behaves like either sibling.* - **not-for:** - pitch or cutting-angle tuning by frog adjustment — there is none; the frog is fixed (see *anatomy*). - open, flat, fully accessible surfaces — the No. 112's and Veritas Scraping Plane's job, done with a longer sole built for exactly that. - curved or concave shaping (chair seats, cabriole legs) — no sourced basis connects this tool to that work. - **dangerous (inherited, not distinct to this tool):** - **Burnisher slip against the upright blade.** The identical manufacturer warning already documented word-for-word in the No. 80 and No. 112 entries: *"Be very careful not to cut yourself on the upright blade"* [N7, HIGH]. No No. 85-specific injury account beyond this manufacturer caution was located. - **damaging:** - **Too aggressive a cut, or too much downward pressure, causing chatter** — the same warning language already documented across the whole scraper-plane branch [N7, HIGH]. - **Over-tightening the tilting-handle pivot nuts.** Lie-Nielsen's own caution ("being careful not to overtighten") implies risk to the pivot/nut assembly, but no forum account of this actually happening was found this run — a manufacturer-caution-only item, not corroborated by a documented failure. - **Rob Millard's "nearly useless… blade far too thick" account** functions as a documented, named performance-disappointment story — thinner than the paper trail this corpus has for the No. 80's and No. 112's own damaging-class findings (one account, not a converging thread), but real and worth carrying [N10]. - **beginner-trap:** - **★ Assuming this is simply a smaller or plainer version of the No. 112 or No. 212, and expecting to tune its pitch.** There is nothing to tune — the frog is fixed. A user reaching for the No. 112's "match the frog angle to the hook by trial" technique on the No. 85 is solving a problem the tool doesn't have and missing the one adjustment (the tilting grip) it does have. - **The tool's thin paper trail is itself worth naming as a finding, not just an absence.** Unlike the No. 80's "Dusty Cabinet" failure story or the No. 112's year-long documented defeat, no rich forum failure-narrative for the No. 85 was found. Plausibly, this reflects the tool's small production run, high collector price, and a fixed-pitch design that removes the single variable (frog-to-hook matching) that most defeats No. 112 owners — **this is an inference, not a sourced claim**, flagged as such. - **lineage-misuse (the entry's heaviest class):** - **★ Treating the No. 85 like the No. 112** — assuming an adjustable pitch and trying to match the frog angle to a burnished hook. Wrong; the frog is fixed, and there is no angle to match [N7][N8]. - **★ Treating the No. 85 like the No. 80** — assuming the blade bows via a center thumbscrew. Wrong; the No. 85's blade is bedded rigidly at a fixed 70° with no bow mechanism at all; the only thumbscrew sets depth, not curvature [N7]. - **Treating it as a general-purpose flat-surface scraper.** Its whole design case is corner and vertical-wall access; used on an open, flat panel it does the No. 112's or Veritas Scraping Plane's job with a smaller, pricier, harder-to-source tool and no advantage — **inferred directly from the anatomy and the confirmed use-case sourcing, not from a single forum quote naming this exact mistake**, flagged as an honest inference rather than a directly sourced incident. --- ## correct use *Brief by design — the workbench holds the deep operation; this is the boundary, not the manual.* - **what it's genuinely good at:** scraping a clean, tear-out-free finish flush into a corner or against an adjacent vertical wall — a fielded panel's shoulder, a box or cabinet interior corner, the wall of a wide, deep rabbet — where a conventional scraper plane's own body would collide with the obstruction before the blade ever reached it [N5][N7]. - **how to use it well (the short version):** hone the 45° bevel like a plane iron, with an optional 5° micro-bevel; the frog is fixed, so there is no pitch to tune — set depth by pressing the blade down by hand and retightening the single thumbscrew without over-tightening; tilt the knob and/or handle sideways only as far as needed to clear the adjacent wall, retightening carefully rather than cranking the pivot nuts down hard [N7]. As with the whole scraper-plane branch, too aggressive a cut or too much downward pressure causes chatter. Reed carries the operation as tool-anchored heuristics (see tickets). --- ## ✦ matching *The workbench's first read.* - **does:** scrapes a clean, glassy finish flush against a vertical obstruction — a fielded-panel shoulder, a box or cabinet interior wall, the side of a deep rabbet — using a full-width blade that registers directly on the wall, with a tilting knob and handle that swing clear of the same wall to preserve the user's grip and knuckles [N5][N7]. - **suits:** raised-panel door edges, cabinet and box interior corners, wide deep rabbets — anywhere a conventional scraper plane's own body geometry can't get the blade flush to a perpendicular surface. **Not confirmed for chair seats, cabriole legs, or other curved/concave shaping work** — no source located extends the tool that far; the travisher and [[Compass Plane (Circular Plane)|compass plane]] are the named tools for that job instead. Held as an honest boundary, not an assumption. - **kit-fit:** - **pairs with:** a burnisher and standard sharpening stones for the 45° bevel plus optional 5° micro-bevel — the same prep as its scraper-plane siblings. - **substitutes for:** a hand-held card scraper worked awkwardly into the same corner — removing the hand-fatigue and heat-buildup problem of a bare card while still reaching where a normal scraper-plane body's side casting would collide with the obstruction. - **cannot replace:** the [[No. 112 Scraper Plane]] or the Veritas Scraping Plane on large, fully open flat panels or long glue-line leveling — those tools' longer soles are built for that job, and community discussion treats the No. 85 as the narrower specialist of the two ("for something large like a table top, the longer sole of the #112 is better" [N10]). Also not sourced as a substitute for a spokeshave or rasp on shaped, curved stock — those remove material by slicing, a different job entirely. - **not-for (project-keyed):** - open, flat, fully accessible surfaces where the No. 112 or Veritas Scraping Plane already do the job, per community consensus, more reliably. - heavy stock removal — the same finish-only boundary shared across the whole scraper-plane branch. - curved or concave shaping (chair seats, cabriole legs) — no sourced basis for this use; reach for a travisher, [[Compass Plane (Circular Plane)|compass plane]], or spokeshave instead. - **access:** genuinely thin and mixed — held honestly rather than resolved. James Price, an experienced restorer, reports a clean first success tuning up an antique original ("passed the test with perfection") [N8]; Rob Millard, an experienced named furniture maker, found the modern Lie-Nielsen revival "nearly useless" with a blade "far too thick" and sold it [N10]. **Neither account is from a first-time hand-tool user**, so this entry cannot honestly report a beginner-specific verdict either way — a real, disclosed gap, not a smoothed-over "it's easy" or "it's hard" claim. What can be said: the tool's fixed frog removes one whole axis of setup difficulty the No. 112 struggles with (there is no pitch to mismatch against a hook), which Lee Laird notes directly ("can be a bit easier to set up") [N5]. - **revival:** the structural case is that this is currently the only production mechanism that solves "I need a scraped, tear-out-free finish flush into a corner or against a vertical shoulder, and a bare card scraper burns my hand or won't reach, and a normal-bodied scraper plane physically can't get flush to the wall." **This is Haft's own structural inference from the anatomy and the confirmed market gap, not a claim any named source made about the No. 85 specifically** — flagged honestly, since the equivalent argument IS made directly by named sources for the No. 80 and No. 112 siblings, and this entry should not borrow that sourcing by association. --- ## anatomy *Named parts and specs, drawn from Lie-Nielsen's own current spec language and a directly-fetched restorer's description of the antique mechanism. The single most important anatomical fact: the frog is fixed — this tool adjusts nothing about its own cutting geometry, only its grip.* - **body** — Ductile Iron (modern LN) / japanned cast iron (antique Stanley). Length 8-⅜" (LN) / ~8" (antique, Leach); width 2"; weight 3 lb (LN) / ~2⅝ lb (antique, Leach). One outlier figure — a UK restorer's site gives body width as "70mm (2¾")," inconsistent with Leach's and Lie-Nielsen's 2" blade-width figure — likely a different measurement point (overall casting vs. blade), unresolved this run, flagged rather than silently reconciled [N1][N4][N7]. - **the blade / cutter — full sole width**, 2" wide, described as "shaped somewhat like an upside-down T" [N5, HIGH]. Antique original: measured at roughly 1mm thick, tapering from 2" at the cutting edge to 1¼" at the top [N4, HIGH, directly fetched, measured example]. Modern LN blade: A2 tool steel, ⅛" (0.125") thick, cryogenically treated, double-tempered, ground and honed with a 45° bevel, **held in the tool at 70°** with the bevel facing away from the front knob [N7, HIGH]. **Hardness spec discrepancy in Lie-Nielsen's own documentation, reported honestly rather than resolved:** a 2011 instruction manual states Rc 50–55; the current product page states Rc 60–62 — plausibly a genuine manufacturing change over roughly 15 years, not an error, but not confirmed either way this run. - **★ the frog is FIXED — no pitch adjustment at all.** Lie-Nielsen's own current copy, via a UK dealer's directly-fetched mirrored spec: *"bronze non-adjustable frog."* On the antique, a directly-fetched restorer's account describes a minor exception worth reporting precisely rather than flattened: *"The rear frog screw is used to adjust the angle of the scraper blade, but not lots"* [N8, HIGH, directly fetched] — a small, bounded adjustment on the original tool that the modern revival appears to have simplified away entirely. Either way, this is a materially different mechanism from both siblings: **no bow** (unlike the No. 80's center thumbscrew flexing a thin blade) and **no pitch-tilt** (unlike the No. 112's and No. 212's two-brass-nut adjustable frog, 45°–95°). The No. 85 gives up both forms of cutting-geometry adjustment the family otherwise offers. - **cap** — Manganese Bronze (modern LN); japanned cast iron with a thumbscrew-activated cap (antique), rather than a cammed bench-plane-style lever cap. - **depth-of-cut setting** — the same family gesture as the No. 80 and No. 112: lay the sole flat, loosen the single depth thumbscrew, press the blade down with a thumb, retighten; fine-tune with a paper shim under the toe or a light tap on the blade's top edge. - **★ the tilting knob and handle — the tool's one unique mechanism.** Loosen the nut atop the knob or the handle, tilt it left or right, retighten "being careful not to overtighten"; lubricate the pivot bar occasionally [N7, HIGH]. This is the US 787,054 mechanism (see *history*), and it is the only adjustable geometry anywhere on the tool. - **markings on an original** (directly-fetched, measured example): "Stanley No 85" (top face, front, between knob and mouth); "US PAT, 4-11-05" (top face, rear, between frog and handle) — matching the verified DATAMP patent-grant date exactly; "Stanley, New Britain, Conn, USA" (on the knurled cap screw) [N4, HIGH]. --- ## variations (living) *Prices and stock status confirmed live during this research pass, 2026-07-26.* - **Lie-Nielsen Cabinet Maker's Scraper** — $275, ductile iron, 3 lb, 8-⅜"×2", manganese bronze cap and frog, A2 steel blade (⅛" thick, Rc 60–62), currently listed **out of stock**, with the manufacturer's own note: *"After a long hiatus, we have begun production on these plane[s] in small batches. If you are interested in ordering one, please sign up to be notified by email when they are available"* [N7, HIGH, directly fetched] — the same "temporarily out of production" pattern already logged for the No. 112. - **Replacement blade** — item 1-BL-85, $65, A2 tool steel, ⅛" thick, sold separately [N7, HIGH]. - **UK: Classic Hand Tools** — £319 inc. VAT, listed "coming soon"/out of stock at time of research [N14, HIGH, directly fetched]. - **US: Highland Woodworking** — carries the replacement blade (standard and a 25-tpi toothed variant); a listing for the complete tool was also found but current in-stock status could not be independently confirmed this run [N16, MEDIUM — unconfirmed stock status]. - **Woodcraft and Rockler do not carry the No. 85 or any tilting-handle equivalent** — a confirmed, sourced retail gap; the tilting-handle form factor lives only at Lie-Nielsen direct plus a thin network of specialist hand-tool dealers, not at mainstream big-box specialty retailers [N15][N16]. - **Antique Stanley originals — a genuine collector market, no cheap-user-tool path.** Unlike the No. 80 (cheap and everywhere, $10–$45 used per that entry's own findings), the No. 85 trades as a collector piece: a directly-fetched Sawmill Creek auction-results thread (2018) records sales at **$270** and **$300**, with a labeled example expected to bring more and a poster reporting a ~2013 sale at $385 in lesser condition [N13, HIGH, directly fetched]. A separate, more recent aggregation (not independently fetched this run, held at lower confidence) puts one sale as high as $895, with an average dealer price band of $600–$1,000 — a notably higher figure than the 2018 forum results, presented as an honest spread rather than adjudicated [N12, LOW-MEDIUM — search-synthesis only]. By contrast, a used modern Lie-Nielsen example was found listed at **$200** — below the tool's own $275 new price, matching the pattern already logged for the No. 80/No. 112/No. 212 revivals trading near or below retail secondhand while genuine antique originals appreciate as collectibles [N11, MEDIUM]. --- ## trades - **Cabinetmaking / fine furniture — corner and vertical-surface work specifically** — raised-panel door edges, box and cabinet interior corners, deep rabbets [N5][N7][N8]. - **No confirmed connection to chairmaking, lutherie, or curved/concave shaping** — an honest boundary, not a gap in searching; the sourced trade record for this specific tool is narrower than its siblings'. --- ## lineage - **ancestors:** - **The Stanley No. 10¼ carriage-maker's rabbet plane** — shares the No. 85's defining tilting-handle patent (US 787,054, below) and, per one retailer's own framing, may have contributed design elements to the No. 85 alongside the No. 112 [N2, MEDIUM — single-sourced, not independently corroborated this run; possibly a mix-up with the closely-numbered No. 10½, flagged rather than silently resolved]. The rabbet-plane lineage is also visible in the No. 85's own full-width, edge-registering blade — a rabbet plane's iron runs the sole's full width for exactly the same reason (to cut flush into a corner), and the No. 85 borrows that geometry for a scraping edge instead of a slicing one. - **The Bailey/Stanley scraper-plane line generally** — the No. 85 is a contemporary of the No. 112 (introduced 1885) rather than a direct descendant of it; both belong to Stanley's broader early-1900s push to put scraper mechanisms into rigid plane bodies, but the No. 85 does not share the No. 112's adjustable-pitch, two-brass-nut mechanism at all [N10, HIGH; N9-research]. - **contemporaries (siblings):** - **The [[No. 112 Scraper Plane]]** — the mirror-image tool in the family: adjustable blade pitch (45°–95°), fixed in-line grip. The No. 85 is the inverse: fixed blade pitch, adjustable (tilting) grip [N10, HIGH]. - **The [[No. 212 Small Scraping Plane]]** — mechanically the No. 112's small relative (same adjustable-pitch mechanism, no bow, no tilting handle), not the No. 85's. The two entries share a family resemblance in name and era only. - **The [[No. 80 Cabinet Scraper]]** — the branch's other holder, mechanically opposite in every respect (bowed thin blade, fixed pitch, no tilting grip). - **The Stanley No. 87** — a same-numbered-family, shorter-lived sibling: Patrick Leach's own type-study data (recovered via a machine-readable mirror of his *Blood & Gore* index, since the primary page itself is JS-gated against automated fetch) lists an "**#87 Cabinet maker's scraper plane, 8"L, 2"W, 2½lbs, 1905–1917**" — same footprint as the No. 85, but a shorter 12-year production run, with no rabbet mouth or tilting handles per collector commentary [N3, LOW-MEDIUM — the No. 87's exact relationship to the No. 85 rests on AI-search-summarized dealer commentary not independently fetched this run; flagged as a genuine sibling worth a future one-line note, not yet solidly enough sourced for more]. Held here as an honest lead, not a settled claim. - **descendants:** - **The Lie-Nielsen Cabinet Maker's Scraper** (current, item 1-85, $275) — a faithful revival, confirmed directly by the manufacturer's own product copy: *"This elegant Scraping Plane, comfortably sized between our large and small Scraping Planes, is based on the Stanley No. 85."* And, on why it exists: *"Stanley's No. 85 Cabinet Maker's Scraper plane is a much sought after collectible, commanding high prices. Consequently, until now, few people had the opportunity to own one to use."* [N7, HIGH, directly fetched] — the identical revival logic already documented for the No. 112 and No. 212 in this corpus, now confirmed a third time for the same product family. - **No other current maker offers a tilting-handle scraper plane.** Veritas/Lee Valley's current "Veritas Scraping Plane" (item 05P2901, $245, directly fetched) has an adjustable frog (0°–25°) and a bow-thumbscrew blade — structurally in the No. 112/No. 80-hybrid lineage this corpus's No. 112 entry already names as a "re-convergence," not the No. 85's lineage at all: its knob and tote are fixed in-line, with no tilting mechanism [N15, HIGH, directly fetched]. WoodRiver's "#80 Cabinet Scraper" (via Woodcraft) is a bare-card holder, the No. 80's lineage entirely. **This appears to be a genuine, sourced market gap** — as far as this run's research could confirm, Lie-Nielsen's revival is currently the only tilting-handle scraper-plane mechanism in production. --- ## history *Petroski lens — "form follows failure," with a genuine wrinkle: the No. 85's own defining feature exists to fix a failure the tool's OWN design creates, not one inherited from an ancestor.* - **Introduced 1905, discontinued 1934 or 1935 — a real, honestly unreconciled one-year discrepancy.** Patrick Leach's own type-study data (recovered via a machine-readable mirror of *Blood & Gore*, since the primary descriptive page is JS-gated and could not be fetched directly this run — see *provenance*) gives **1905–1934**; Lie-Nielsen's own product page, Handplane Central, and findmytool.co.uk all independently state **1905–1935**. Held side by side rather than adjudicated — the same shape of gap the [[No. 112 Scraper Plane]] entry already carries for its own 1884-vs-1885 start date [N1][N2][N4][N7]. - **★ The problem the tool solves is one its own design creates — a genuinely different shape of "form follows failure" than this corpus has documented before.** A conventional scraper plane's body sits recessed from the blade's cutting edge on both sides, so the tool can never register flush against a wall perpendicular to the surface being worked — that's the No. 112's and No. 80's shared limitation. The No. 85 fixes this by running its blade the full width of the sole, "like an upside-down T" in cross-section [N5, HIGH], so the edge sits flush with the body's own edge and can ride directly against a fielded panel's shoulder, a rabbet's wall, or a box's interior corner. But that same full-width blade puts the user's knuckles hard against the very obstruction the tool is now flush against. **The tilting knob and handle exist to solve the problem the full-width blade just created, not a problem inherited from an earlier tool** — a self-contained, two-step design logic this corpus has not documented in quite this shape before. Both Lie-Nielsen's own product copy and an independent named practitioner confirm the pairing directly: *"The blade extends the full width of the base and allows you to work right into a corner, such as a fielded panel. The tilting knob and handle offer clearance for your knuckles when scraping inside a box or on a wide, deep rabbet"* [N7, HIGH, directly fetched]; Lee Laird (Lie-Nielsen show-staff demonstrator, writing independently for Highland Woodworking's blog): *"this plane has a full width iron, so it can work against an adjacent vertical surface. Another unique feature, which dovetails with the first, is the handle adjustability"* [N5, HIGH]. - **★ The mechanism that defines the tool's identity is not a scraper invention at all.** The single patent behind the No. 85's tilting knob and handle — **US 787,054, "Tilting Tote and Knob," granted April 11, 1905, to Albert F. Schade and Edmund A. Schade**, assigned to Stanley Rule & Level Co. — is catalogued by DATAMP under **"plane handles," not scrapers**, and DATAMP's own description states plainly: *"Tilting tote and knob used on Stanley #10¼ and #85 planes"* [N6, HIGH, directly fetched]. The mechanism Stanley used to solve the No. 85's own clearance problem is a generic plane-handle fixture it had already applied (or applied concurrently) to a rabbet plane. This is a different shape of "the patent doesn't match the tool's identity" than either sibling entry found — not a wrong invention misattributed, but the tool's whole defining feature turning out to be a repurposed part from an unrelated tool category. - **A possible combined origin, thinly sourced.** One retailer states the No. 85 "combined elements of the Stanley 10½ plane and the Stanley 112 scraper plane" [N2, MEDIUM — single-sourced, not independently corroborated; possibly a 10¼/10½ mix-up given the shared patent is confirmed with the No. 10¼, not the 10½]. Reported as a claim worth carrying, not a settled fact. --- ## ✦ human side *The thinnest human-side record of any entry in this family so far — a real, honestly reported gap, not a search failure.* - **traditions & trades:** - **Fine cabinetmaking, on corner and vertical-surface work specifically** — fielded panels, box and cabinet interiors, deep rabbets — confirmed independently by both the manufacturer and a named practitioner (see *history*) [N5][N7]. - **No sourced connection to chairmaking, cabriole-leg work, or curved-surface shaping was found**, despite that being a natural-seeming extension of "specialist scraping tool." What the research instead surfaced is that dedicated concave-curve tools — the travisher and compass plane — are the named tools for chair-seat and cabriole-leg shaping, not this one. **Held as an honest open boundary, not assumed** — a genuine instance of this corpus's discipline of not extending a tool's reach past what its own sourced record supports. - **named hands:** - **Lee Laird** (named — Lie-Nielsen show-staff demonstrator, writing independently for Highland Woodworking's blog, 2012) — the single richest practitioner account found. Confirms the corner/vertical-surface use case independently of the manufacturer's own marketing copy, and directly compares the No. 85 to the No. 212: *"The No. 85 does not have the angle adjuster for the iron, and with the iron's angle hardwired, can be a bit easier to set up"* [N5, HIGH]. - **James Price** (named — restorer/collector, timetestedtools.net, 2019) — bought an unused original at a tool-collector meeting, tuned it, and tested it on tough walnut: *"it passed the test with perfection."* He also notes, in the same piece, that examples of the No. 85 "seem to be in collections and not used" — a direct, named observation that this tool has historically been more a shelf object than a working one [N8, HIGH]. - **Rob Millard** (named — Sawmill Creek, known for 18th-century American furniture reproduction) — the entry's one sourced negative account, and a genuine, pointed rejection of the modern revival: *"I had a LN 85, and it was nearly useless. The blade is far too thick. I bought it when they were first released, and quickly sold it on Ebay. It was the only LN tool I have been disappointed with."* He preferred the Lee Valley/Veritas large scraper plane instead [N10, MEDIUM — forum, named registered user]. - **Mike Wenzloff** (named toolmaker) and **willie sobat**, same Sawmill Creek thread — both chose the No. 112 over the No. 85 for large open areas; Wenzloff's reasoning implies doubt that an edge-registering, open-sided blade holds up as well under heavy pressure as the No. 112's more enclosed format [N10, MEDIUM — an inference from the thread, not a direct claim, held at that weight]. - **★ a genuine, notable silence, worth reporting as its own finding.** No commentary from Christopher Schwarz, Paul Sellers, or FineWoodworking (magazine or forum) specifically addressing the No. 85 was located, despite multiple targeted searches. This matters because Schwarz's well-known "sell it, get a No. 80" passage (already quoted in the No. 112 entry) names the No. 12, 12½, and 81 by number but never mentions the No. 85 at all — the corpus's most-quoted scraper-plane skeptic simply doesn't address this tool, a real silence rather than a search gap this run couldn't close. - **No r/woodworking or r/handtools thread specifically on the No. 85 was found** — a sourced negative on that channel, consistent with the tool's overall thin footprint. --- ## ✦ proof of existence *Weak on the museum axis, consistent with the whole scraping branch — not a No. 85-specific weakness. Strong on patent-to-physical-object correlation and on the manufacturer's own direct confirmation of the antique lineage.* - **manufacturer confirmation of the antique original (the entry's strongest single proof point):** Lie-Nielsen's own product copy states directly that its current tool "is based on the Stanley No. 85," and that the antique original is "a much sought after collectible, commanding high prices" [N7, HIGH, directly fetched] — a manufacturer directly attesting to an antique original it is reviving, the clearest kind of proof-of-existence this corpus recognizes short of a museum accession. - **patent-to-physical-object correlation, confirmed directly.** US 787,054 (Schade & Schade, granted April 11, 1905, assigned to Stanley Rule & Level Co.) is confirmed via DATAMP's own patent index [N6, HIGH, directly fetched], and the same grant date — "US PAT, 4-11-05" — is independently confirmed stamped on physical original examples by a directly-fetched restorer's measured description, matched on multiple dealer listings [N4][N6]. - **museum/collection records — an honest, unimproved gap, consistent with the whole branch.** Targeted searches (Smithsonian NMAH, Colonial Williamsburg, Winterthur) turned up no accessioned No. 85 — the same recurring gap already disclosed across the Card Scraper, No. 80, No. 112, and No. 212 entries in this corpus. Named as a pattern across common shop and specialist tools that don't reach museum accession, not a surprise specific to this tool. - **dated, photographed secondary market:** Jim Bode Tools (a dated, photographed original example, "SCHADE Patent April 11, 1905," $435) [N11, MEDIUM, directly fetched]; a directly-fetched Sawmill Creek auction-results thread recording sales at $270 and $300 in 2018, with a ~2013 sale at $385 referenced [N13, HIGH, directly fetched]; Michael Rouillard Antique Tools and further dealer/auction listings not individually fetched this run, held at lower confidence. - **no dedicated design patent** (parallel to the No. 80's D45,983) was located for the No. 85's own casting shape — searched but not exhaustively ruled out; held as an open gap, not a confirmed negative. --- ## references *kind: manufacturer (fetched directly) | retailer/dealer (fetched directly) | forum (named posters, read/fetched) | collector/restorer reference (search-synthesized or directly fetched, flagged) | patent database (directly fetched) | sibling corpus entry* - **[N1]** Patrick Leach, *The Superior Works — Patrick's Blood & Gore*, No. 85 and No. 87 entries — production data recovered via a machine-readable index mirror (cs.cmu.edu/~alf/stanley/stanley.html), a direct transcription of Leach's own type-study, since the primary descriptive page (supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan10.htm) is JS-gated against automated fetch this run: "No. 85 Cabinet maker's scraper plane, 8"L, 2"W, 2⅝lbs, 1905–1934"; "No. 87 Cabinet maker's scraper plane, 8"L, 2"W, 2½lbs, 1905–1917." *(named type-study, data recovered via mirror; HIGH for the tabular dates, but Leach's own descriptive prose on the No. 85 was not obtained this run — see provenance)* - **[N2]** findmytool.co.uk, Stanley No. 85 review — directly fetched. "The Stanley 85 scraper combined elements of the Stanley 10½ plane and the Stanley 112 scraper plane"; "The design of this scraper plane unlike others means it needs a specially shaped scraper in order for the scraper blade to span the full width of the plane." *(restorer/collector review; MEDIUM — the 10½/10¼ combination claim is single-sourced, not independently corroborated)* - **[N3]** WorthPoint / Hans Brunner Tools search-summarized commentary on the No. 87's relationship to the No. 85 — not independently fetched this run. *(collector marketplace, AI-search-summarized; LOW-MEDIUM)* - **[N4]** findmytool.co.uk (same source as N2) — directly fetched, measured example: blade ~1mm thick tapering 2" to 1¼", body width figure "70mm (2¾")" (an outlier against the 2" blade-width figure, unresolved), markings ("Stanley No 85," "US PAT, 4-11-05," "Stanley, New Britain, Conn, USA"). *(retailer/restorer review; HIGH)* - **[N5]** Lee Laird, "The Plane Facts: A couple of great scraper planes," Highland Woodworking Blog, 2012 — directly fetched. Full-width blade/adjacent-vertical-surface use case; tilting knob and handle "dovetails with the first" feature; No. 85 vs. No. 212 comparison ("does not have the angle adjuster... can be a bit easier to set up"). *(named practitioner/craft-retailer blog; HIGH)* - **[N6]** DATAMP (datamp.org) — directly fetched. US Patent 787,054, "Tilting Tote and Knob," Albert F. Schade and Edmund A. Schade, granted April 11, 1905, assigned to Stanley Rule & Level Co.; category "plane handles"; DATAMP's own description: "Tilting tote and knob used on Stanley #10¼ and #85 planes." Cross-reference note (not independently verified this run): "A year later a patent issued to a non-Stanley inventor for an add-on version" (US 816,980, unread). *(patent database, primary source; HIGH)* - **[N7]** Lie-Nielsen, Cabinet Maker's Scraper product page and blade page — directly fetched. Full spec ($275, ductile iron, 3 lb, 8-⅜"×2", manganese bronze cap/frog — "bronze non-adjustable frog" per a UK dealer's mirrored copy — A2 blade 1/8" thick Rc 60–62, 45° bevel + 5° micro-bevel, held at 70°, "do not recommend using a burr," "be very careful not to cut yourself on the upright blade," currently out of stock/small-batch production); revival-confirmation quotes ("based on the Stanley No. 85," "a much sought after collectible, commanding high prices"). *(manufacturer; HIGH)* - **[N8]** James Price, "Stanley No. 85 Cabinet Scraper," timetestedtools.net, 2019-03-17 — directly fetched. Unused original bought at a tool-collector meeting; "The rear frog screw is used to adjust the angle of the scraper blade, but not lots"; tested "on some tough walnut and it passed the test with perfection"; notes originals "seem to be in collections and not used." *(named craft-press/restorer blog; HIGH)* - **[N9-research]** Haft Run 367 source-judgment notes — the No. 85 held as a distinct branch (fixed frog, tilting grip) rather than a No. 112 variant, based on anatomical evidence converging across both research legs; the self-created-clearance-problem framing named as the entry's lead organizing finding; the generic-patent finding (US 787,054 shared with the No. 10¼ rabbet plane) named as the entry's second organizing finding; the chair-seat/cabriole-leg connection explicitly NOT extended past what the sourced record supports. *(provenance, internal)* - **[N10]** Sawmill Creek Woodworking Community, "LN 85 Scraper Vs LN 112" thread, 2006 — directly fetched. Named posters: Rob Millard ("nearly useless... blade far too thick... only LN tool I have been disappointed with"), Mike Wenzloff, willie sobat (both preferring the No. 112 for large areas); a mention of "small format scraper" in bamboo fly-rod production in the same thread is ambiguous and likely belongs to the [[No. 212 Small Scraping Plane]], not this tool — flagged rather than assigned here. *(forum, named posters; MEDIUM)* - **[N11]** Jim Bode Tools — directly fetched. "SCHADE Patent April 11, 1905, Stanley No. 85 Cabinet Maker's Tilt Handle Scraper Plane, Near Mint," $435; a used modern Lie-Nielsen example listed at $200 (item 93589, "Iron. Unused"). *(retailer/dealer, dated listing with photos; MEDIUM)* - **[N12]** AntiqBuyer.com past-sales aggregation — search-synthesized, not directly fetched this run: one sale at $895, "average dealer price $600–$1000," "average eBay price ~$600." *(dealer aggregate; LOW-MEDIUM — not individually verified, presented as a spread against N13's lower figures, not adjudicated)* - **[N13]** Sawmill Creek Woodworking Community — directly fetched, a 2018 auction-results thread: sales at $270 and $300 (Type 3 examples), a labeled example expected to bring more, and a poster ("Matt Day") reporting a ~2013 sale at $385 in lesser condition. *(forum, named posters, dated figures; HIGH)* - **[N14]** Classic Hand Tools (UK dealer) — directly fetched. Current price £319.00 inc. VAT, listed "coming soon"/out of stock; mirrors Lie-Nielsen's own product copy on the full-width blade and tilting-knob/handle features. *(retailer; HIGH)* - **[N15]** Lee Valley/Veritas — Veritas Scraping Plane, item 05P2901, $245 — directly fetched. Adjustable frog (0°–25°), bow-thumbscrew blade, fixed in-line knob and tote (no tilting mechanism) — confirms this is a different lineage (the No. 112/No. 80-hybrid line already named in that entry), not the No. 85's. *(manufacturer/retailer; HIGH)* - **[N16]** Highland Woodworking / Woodcraft / Rockler product listings — Highland carries the No. 85 replacement blade (standard and 25-tpi toothed) directly confirmed; a complete-tool listing was found but current stock status could not be independently confirmed this run; Woodcraft's WoodRiver line and Rockler's cabinet-scraper products are confirmed to be in the No. 80 bare-card lineage only, not this tool's. *(retailer; MEDIUM for Highland's complete-tool stock status, HIGH for the Woodcraft/Rockler negative)* --- ## images this entry needs (spec for Forge — see tickets) 1. **The three-way mechanism split.** A simple diagram of the family's three siblings side by side, each showing what actually adjusts: the [[No. 80 Cabinet Scraper]] (blade bows via center thumbscrew, fixed pitch, fixed grip) | the [[No. 112 Scraper Plane]] (blade rigid, pitch tilts 45°–95° via two brass nuts, fixed grip) | the No. 85 (blade rigid, pitch fixed, GRIP tilts) — visualizing this entry's own lead finding that the No. 85 is the family's mirror-image tool, trading cutting-geometry adjustment for grip adjustment. 2. **The self-created-problem sequence.** A simple two-panel cutaway: panel one shows the full-width blade registering flush against a vertical wall (a fielded panel's shoulder); panel two shows the same setup with the knob and handle tilted clear of the wall, captioned to make the cause-and-effect design logic visible — the blade's own advantage creates the knuckle-clearance problem the tilting grip then solves. 3. **The patent-sharing surprise.** A simple two-tool diagram: the No. 85 (scraper) and the Stanley No. 10¼ (rabbet plane) both labeled with the same patent number (US 787,054) and the same tilting-tote mechanism, captioned to make plain that this tool's signature feature originated as a plane-handle fixture, not a scraper invention. --- ## The reviewer's corrections (12) - `BLOCKER` — 1. Correct the “fixed frog means no adjustment” claim - `BLOCKER` — 2. Remove the false current-market exclusivity claim - `SHOULD-FIX` — 3. Correct the patent title and limit its scope - `SHOULD-FIX` — 4. Reframe the “self-created problem” as interpretation, not history - `SHOULD-FIX` — 5. Repair matching rules for open and curved work - `SHOULD-FIX` — 6. Distinguish cutter reach from “blade registration” - `SHOULD-FIX` — 7. Separate antique Stanley anatomy from modern Lie-Nielsen anatomy - `SHOULD-FIX` — 8. Rebuild safety around the complete operation - `SHOULD-FIX` — 9. Correct source grades and negative-search claims - `SHOULD-FIX` — 10. Tighten history and production dates - `MINOR` — 11. Refresh market data and remove unstable absolutes - `MINOR` — 12. Remove process residue from the finished entry