Fay and Egan Shaper, Oliver Jointer and Other Old Machines Available

[duckfarmer27]

I put up a post of a jointer I got this past weekend. It came out of a cabinet shop in the Pittsburgh, PA area. Owner worked up until a couple of years ago, second generation owner. He is now in a nursing home and the tools are being sold. I took some pictures and have some descriptions. However, I am going to apologize up front for not doing a complete inspection. It was going to be a 6+ hour return trip for us, and as we were second in line we did not get loaded and tied down until early afternoon. So I rushed some pictures.

First item is an Oliver jointer - a big one, with a power feeder. I did not measure, believe it to be 20". I had to squeeze in to read the shop number - I could clearly read 1_777 - but I don't know if there is a faint numver between the 1 and the 7s. It is typical Oliver double pedestal.

There is a Fay and Egan 552 'Lightning' shaper and what looks like a fair amount of tooling, think I saw a spare spindle.

The old lathe is just marked as an Egan - it has an 8' wooden bed with what appears to be angle iron ways. Lots of lathe tools.

Other machines in pictures are a Multiplex 60 radial arm saw, what I think is a mortiser (no name I could find) that was converted to do doweling it seems. Also some sanders, small table saws, etc. I did screw up by not taking a picture of the drill press. Not a camel back, what I would call a column drill (?) with some of a down feed mechanism. It had a build tag from Hartford, CT but I can't remember the maker.

I have no relationship with the owner, nor the lady who is selling the items for him. I offered to help her out by letting people on this board know as to date she has only been trying Craigs List and wants to get the stuff moving. She was great to deal with, and if you have questions she and her husband try to get an answer. Figured this part of PM was best to post as it is all wood working machinery. The owner did some fantastic inlay work, and built beautiful furniture - pictures I saw made me wish I could have known him as I would have learned something.

I will put pictures in the next couple of posts.

If you have interest PM me or post - I will give the lady's email.

Thanks.

Dale

 

[duckfarmer27]

Pictures

Pictures of Oliver jointer and Fay and Egan 552 shaper

 

[duckfarmer27]

More Pictures



Lathe, mortising machine, shop built (?) sanders and radial arm saw

 

[northernsinger]

Thanks, duckfarmer.

 

[Chris Hall]

Planning to use the Oliver jointer on a wooden floor? If so, I warn you in advance..

 

[northernsinger]

Wooden floors can 1), support and 2), keep level as necessary heavy machinery. There were no concrete floors during the beginning of the heyday of American manufacturing, so the first couple of generations of wood and metal working machinery were laregely installed in wooden mills.

I would guess that concrete floors were never seen (except for odd examples) before 1910 or so, that there might have been a run up in using them before WW I, that the early twenties had well capaitalized plants using them regularly.

I took a 20 inch jointer out of the second floor--a wooden floor--of a Philadelphia pattren shop when I was young, along with other comensurate sized machinery, all of which had done fine work in that place since about 1890.

Wooden mill flooring, the standard, was plenty sturdy. As to reuse in one man shops and hobby shops--what I do now--one does have to think about how to spread the load and keep the machines level enough.

 

[duckfarmer27]

Chris -

I did not buy the Oliver. And as northernsinger notes, it is all in the floor design as to the loading.

Matter of fact, all the machinery in this note - plus LOTS of wood and other tooling has been used in the wooden floored shop since the 30s. And nothing was falling through the floor. Now admitedly, the floor was buckled in a couple of places due to a leaky roof this winter. But that was the only floor problem I saw.

Dale

 

[Chris Hall]

Wooden floors can 1), support and 2), keep level as necessary heavy machinery. There were no concrete floors during the beginning of the heyday of American manufacturing, so the first couple of generations of wood and metal working machinery were laregely installed in wooden mills.

I would guess that concrete floors were never seen (except for odd examples) before 1910 or so, that there might have been a run up in using them before WW I, that the early twenties had well capaitalized plants using them regularly.

I took a 20 inch jointer out of the second floor--a wooden floor--of a Philadelphia pattren shop when I was young, along with other comensurate sized machinery, all of which had done fine work in that place since about 1890.

Wooden mill flooring, the standard, was plenty sturdy. As to reuse in one man shops and hobby shops--what I do now--one does have to think about how to spread the load and keep the machines level enough.

Oh, floor sturdiness was not the issue I was thinking of. I had an Oliver 166 16" jointer and my shop is located in an old mill building with wooden floors. The problem with wooden floors and the Oliver jointer (and their lathes for that matter) is twofold:

- the Oliver jointer design is like that of a bridge, with a pair of 'pontoons' and a beam running between them
- wooden floors move very slightly, day to day, week to week, and depending upon the grain of the planking, arrangement of girders under the floor, etc. do not move evenly.

Combine those two factors and what you get is a jointer that will not hold its tables co-planer for any length of time. I used a Starrett Master Precision level at least twice a week to check the Oliver tables, and they were always - ALWAYS - out of whack from the previous adjustment. Jointer tables which are slightly in wind to one another will not joint a piece of wood with high accuracy. Got tedious after a while checking and readjusting. I'm certainly not the first person to point out the 'sensitivity' of the Oliver design to the surface upon which it is placed.

I could go into other issues the Oliver had with its crappy castings, crude fence mechanism, etc., but the bottom line is that a 'bridge design' of a machine, situated on a wooden floor, is a poor combo if high accuracy is to be obtained, or even hoped for. I sold the Oliver after a year of irritation and now have been fortunate in the past few months to have obtained a high quality new European jointer which has a chassis unaffected by changes in the floor. It even has a fence which stays locked at 90˚, and when you set it at 90˚ it really is 90˚. Jointed boards feel like they are attached to the outfeed table by suction - which means they are pretty darn flat. A new experience for me.

 

[Chris Hall]

Chris -

I did not buy the Oliver. And as northernsinger notes, it is all in the floor design as to the loading.

Matter of fact, all the machinery in this note - plus LOTS of wood and other tooling has been used in the wooden floored shop since the 30s. And nothing was falling through the floor. Now admitedly, the floor was buckled in a couple of places due to a leaky roof this winter. But that was the only floor problem I saw.

Dale

Thanks - see my reply to duckfarmer above.

 

[northernsinger]

Chris, thanks for the interesting reply. Yep, makes sense to me so far as the two wide spread legs Oliver design goes. And I also noted the dissatisfaction with the fence adjustments and the castings. It is refreshing to hear probabvly justified complaints about this manufacturer (as all machines have problems of some kind) as these aren't often made.

The 20" jointer that I was given--by my father--from the 2nd floor wood framed and floored building was an Atlantic Works jointer (made in the building right next door to the building I took it out of!) that did have two 'legs' but they were really much closer extensions of one pedestal and probably functioned much better than the wide spread Oliver design for this.

I have a friend whose one man shop is producing highest grade custom and reproduction furniture pieces and who expresses a great deal of admiration for his Oliver jointer (16 or 20 or 24, I can't recall, though I've stood next to it several times, must be 20 or 24) with this wide spread pedestal design which is on an old wooden barn floor. He certainly produces fine work, though without a lot of material being milled, and is careful and observant about his work methods, etc. I doubt he has trouble with his machine or its setting. This is, of course, the oposite of what you found with yours.

I sometimes counsel people without too much experience to 'just run the wood' and 'forget the levels' as I think they have been unduly influenced by reading too much and working too little. I'm not suggesting this is true in all cases and I doubt it's true for you, but I've seen it a lot. The machines can be, in my experience, far out of whack and still make good pieces.

Thanks again. Interesting.

 

[Chris Hall]

If you work with solid wood, then the initial steps of jointing and planing, if they produce pieces that are straight, square, and of consistent dimension, are critical to a smooth voyage downstream in the fabrication process. If the jointing did not produce a straight and square section, if the planer produces parts that vary slightly in dimensions, then odds are quite good that you'll be continually compensating and adjusting to suit this fact in later operations. That adds time and invariably the finished results are short of what could have been achieved otherwise. That's if the craftsperson notices whether the wood out of the jointer and planer were as they should be, which, in a lot of cases they don't notice -- until final assembly when they put that door together and the frame is in wind and the joints not quite as crisp as they could be. It's just like building a house - get the foundation set up properly and accurately, and the rest of the framing tends to go smoothly.

"The basics done well" - by which I mean, tables that are flat, spindles which have minimum runout, fences which are straight and reliably can be set square to the material and parallel to the cutter. A fence that when set to 5" from the cutter is actually 5" from the cutter and not 4.95" or 5.05". With woodworking machines, these 'basics' seem a very difficult standard to meet until one spends a fair amount of money on good equipment. I've been a professional woodworker for the past 15 years and only now, this month, have I at last been able to joint and plane by machine with complete surety that the parts are coming out straight, square, and to the dimensions set. And I am confident that the results will be the same tomorrow and next month. Before, I was always paranoid, as the result of so many times when a fence that had been set at 90˚, and a bunch of wood run past, then proved to have squirmed its way over to 89.5˚. One gets tired of the process of deciding afterward how much under-dimension is going to be acceptable, if you catch my drift.

It's been wonderful to take that off my mind and devote more attention to the enjoyment of the work than the endless battle against the equipment.

 

[richard newman]

Chris, what kind of jointer did you get?

 

[Chris Hall]

Chris, what kind of jointer did you get?

Thanks for asking. A Martin T-54, which has the optional long (2m.) infeed table, 4-knife Tersa head, 7.5hp, no control desk, and powered raise and lower of infeed table. I would have purchased a used one, however at the time I was looking, indeed for the past 12 months, used Martin jointers have not been available in N. America despite scouring the used machine market fairly thoroughly. So I ended up buying a new machine - no regrets.

 

[duckfarmer27]

Chris -

You raise good points, no argument with any of them. And the jointer you own is, obviously, more accurate than most anyghing else available today.

I really like your comparison of foundation to building and basics done well. I am not a professional worker in wood (retired engineer) - although in my youth did support us as a carpenter and had the pleasure of building our house with the man who taught me carpentry - was the last house he built prior to retiring - and he was a stickler for the basics done well. As I will never see a Martin in my shop I will have to compensate for inaccuracies in the old iron I run while enjoying it (and on a wood framed floor, no less - but one I framed for the loading). Were I younger and making a living at it I would be following your example.

Dale

 

[Chris Hall]

Chris -

You raise good points, no argument with any of them. And the jointer you own is, obviously, more accurate than most anyghing else available today.

I really like your comparison of foundation to building and basics done well. I am not a professional worker in wood (retired engineer) - although in my youth did support us as a carpenter and had the pleasure of building our house with the man who taught me carpentry - was the last house he built prior to retiring - and he was a stickler for the basics done well. As I will never see a Martin in my shop I will have to compensate for inaccuracies in the old iron I run while enjoying it (and on a wood framed floor, no less - but one I framed for the loading). Were I younger and making a living at it I would be following your example.

Dale

I appreciate the conversation.

There are some very nice German jointers available besides Martin, however none are sold outside of Europe. There were a few Hofmann jointers that trickled into North America about 10 years back, but you never see them on the market. Bauerle made a nice machine too, but they've gone out of business.

I was also strongly considering an SCM L'invincible jointer, but I got such a good price on the Martin that the price difference between the two was minor. The martin had the longer infeed table, which was important to me. The L'Invincible also has an overly-complicated blade guard, and some say that the polished tables make wood stick too much to the outfeed, making it a little annoying to use. Still, a nice machine, but none in stock in North America, which would have meant up to a 3-month wait, while the Martin was 'in stock'.

 

[stephen thomas]

I can see the equation.

I personally think Fay & Egan made machines about the equal of anything, so long as modern electronics are not required. And the "pork chop" style guard is standard. That said, the youngest F & E is going to be some 60 - 70 yrs old, with all the vagaries of use in an industrial facility, and will likely be a bit "tired". To me, rehabbing such is better economics. But if you have the market to support new Martins, (and why not, honestly) then your choice makes better sense.

My 12" & 16" are 506's

More pictures here: Photo Index - J. A. Fay & Egan Co. - 506 Lightning | VintageMachinery.org

Though the longer 316 model is "superior" especially on a wooden floor
Most came with the spring joint option, I think some had draft as well.

Photo Index - J. A. Fay & Egan Co. - 316 | VintageMachinery.org

smt

 

[Chris Hall]

The Oliver jointer I had needed that 'rehabbing' you mention. Both infeed and outfeed tables, along with the fence, needed regrinding. The fence was twisted almost 1/8", and that was at the 'supported' end on the outfeed. The fence was frozen and needed the fixing pins drilling out. That set of issues was $1100 out of pocket and some heavy lifting. Later I discovered that the main beam between the pontoons was twisted at the cutterhead. Left that alone as I had decided the relationship was going to end soon and another $1000 was not looking worthwhile.
I'm kinda done with the old iron scene.

Here's a Hofmann 630mm jointer that looks fairly nice to my eyes, though I don't like the jointer fence support on the infeed side:

 

[richard newman]

Ahh... wish I was in a position to be buying new German iron. That's a beautiful looking machine Chris, and I'm sure it performs perfectly. How are the tables adjusted - parallelogram or wedges?

But if one had the inclination to go thru the rehab on an older machine, is there any reason it wouldn't cut perfectly straight and flat? Jointers are pretty simple machines, just require 2 flats and co-planer tables and a cutterhead. Should be possible to make fine adjustments with shims or those little individual wedges. Or with a big enuf grinder/planer just do both tables on the machine in one set-up.

Someone complained about the "Japanese woodworking mystique" in another thread, could it be there's a similar thing going on with German machines. What can one expect from a new Northfield jointer? Anyone had an opportunity to try one?

I agree about the problems with the Oliver type bases, I've always preferred three toe machines. I wouldn't mind if my machines stand on concrete bases, but I'm not going to - too hard on the legs. Wood floors only for me from here on!

 

[Chris Hall]

I wouldn't call it 'mystique' - it is simply well engineered, well made and generally well looked-after equipment. There is also, it seems, a rather small hobby woodworker population in Germany, as the 'typical' jointer one sees for sale there is at least 16" and probably 20" is most common. Here, a 6" jointer is most common, and machines in many furniture factories are not well looked after at all. A 20" or larger jointer is a comparative rarity in N. America.

I believe the Hofmann uses the parallelogram type of mechanism for table movement.

I absolutely agree that working on a wooden floor is wonderful - I never get tired feet or ankles like on concrete.

I've seen the 'new' Northfield jointer - looks the same as a 1945 model. They do not appear to innovate much, however the box-core tables and fence on the jointer are nice. I'm surprised they manage to stay in business, given that the price of their jointer, etc., is on a par with Martin. It's not on a par otherwise, IMO. Their designs are archaic, and I know some people do like that, just as they think 1950's cars are best. Others feel, I imagine, that horse and buggy, telegraph, pony express, etc., could not possibly be improved upon. As the Japanese would say, "10 people, 10 tastes".

I think the 'Buy American' clauses in some corporate and government procurement contracts is what keeps a company like Northfield going, but i wonder for how much longer. Many of the rest of the domestic woodworking machine manufacturers, of course, have been sued out of existence, realized 'efficiencies' through 'cost saving measures', etc. (= go offshore). General Machinery, in Quebec, just closed down their Drummondville factory, due to, how did they phrase it? - "non-performing SKU's". Looks like quite a few German machine manufacturers have likewise disappeared in recent years, but a few seem to hang on, like Martin, Zimmermann, Hofmann, etc.

 

[stephen thomas]

The way the economic equation goes for me is that if I had enough to buy a new Martin, I'd spend it instead on a shop addition. Then the next time an equal amount was saved up, I'd spend it instead on a cnc mill or router. If that much came around yet again, I'd finally get a later model better pick up truck, etc, etc. (In the old days when I actually had employees and a decent flow of cash, any excess went into aviation. The heck with buying fancy euro machines when there is always another piece of avionics gear! ) My jointers work too well and as Richard notes, the machine is too basic, to be spending a lot on one unless one is just rolling in money. Not arguing with your personal choice, just explaining why the alternatives work better for many of us.

smt

PS, in case you don't think I take jointing seriously, I have spent a career trying to optimize that process. I've spent quite a few man years just flattening and straightening lumber and always recognized it as an essential place to continually improve efficiences. I have 2 "regular" jointers. The 16" is set up with a Bilstrom feeder that can be swung in to place. There is a lumber jointer in the center of the shop that is quite fast for straightening great piles of boards (edgewise) but I don't use it for glue joints even though the machines were designed for that purpose. I even have an Oliver Facer now parked in a neighbors barn, no place to set it up in the shop. I have set them up for other shops, and have used them, but don't like them for most work. It is not easy to get truly flat work out of one on a routine basis the same way you can off a hand fed jointer unless all the wood is 6/4 and thicker and the machine is in perfect tune. Most recently bought a sanding machine set up on a jointer basis to try to improve some of the safety, if not efficiency when running piles of small floor parquets.