Stanley Bailey or Record?
mainspring
Record planes really better? If so, in what respects? William Alden catalog
lists a Stanley Bailey #5 for $45.99, the Record #5 is $67.99.
TIA,
rog
stev
mains...@email.msn.com says...
Seriously, dont buy a new plane. You can get an old one for no more
than a new one, probably less, and it will be a far superior tool.
You can buy a new one, and it will be usable with some tuning. But
sooner or later you'll find yourself pushing its limitations. Thats
when you will end up buying an old plane or maybe even a LN. So you
may as well buy an old plane to begin with.
And besides, new planes dont even have wood totes and knobs! Sorry,
but plastic just dont have a place on any respectable hand plane.
So heres a guy who can fix you up. Certainly not the only old tool
dealer on the net, but I see nothing wrong in putting in a plug
here and there. <le...@supertool.com>
steve k
--
stev_ix_netcom_com
J.F. Horobin
does use a more resilient plastic knob and tote (ABS). Against this they
have a larger mouth which is less suitable for fine work. I've seen some
reports that the base casting is flatter on the Record but I have seen very
little difference in my examples. The Stanley's are the better buy when you
consider the price and the spare parts are also cheaper. Stanley have the
larger range too 3-7, including 5-1/2 and 4-1/2. Record used to make all
these as well but now only seem to make the 4, 5 and 7 unfortunately.
John
mainspring wrote in message <70sir8$lp$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Rev Chuck
>
> Rob Weaver wrote:
> >
> > John, the best reason I can think of to buy old planes is that I can get
> > a Stanley #5 used for about $15 instead of $45, and go buy $30 worth of
> > wood.
Look also at other vintage brands. Sargent planes are nice. My 714
jack is very well balanced because the straight blade adjuster gives it
a lower center of gravity than a comparable Bailey. The additional cap
adjuster knob looks nifty, too.
> LOL! Excellent point Rob! As I'm embarassingly new at aquiring
> and using bench planes and such, but here's what I've learned
> so far on this subject, primarily from others in this forum.
>
> Stanley bench planes are going to have to be tuned up
> somewhat, regardless if they are new or old to maximize their
> purrformance. Among the many, many things that can be done,
> generally these are standouts... the flatness of the sole, the
> keeness of the iron, and the fit of the iron with the chip
> breaker. Oh yeah, and rosewood knobs.
While plastic gives all the tactile appeal of a cold, dead fish,
the knobs can be just as well carved from maple. It's the flatness
of a new plane's sole that WILL give you fits. 1/64" out of true
doesn't sound like much until you try to fix it. The time and labor
spent makes a Lie Nielson cheap by comparison.
> When an old plane can be found for $15-$20 it represents a
> bargain, as Rob said. The sole is more than likely not going
> to be too out of flat, you'll already have a set of wooden
> knobs, and you can put the $30 towards a replacement iron,
> such as a Hock. The result being that you have a plane for the
> same price as a new one, but with much better perfomance. IOW,
> to identically equip a spanking new plane you'd have to spend
> $90-$100.
>
> OMT, the styles of old planes vary within models, a notable
> feature being the lower front knob. I just like the way they
> feel compared to the taller style common today. YMMV.
>
> > That used Stanley will never be worth less than it is the day I buy it,
> > and the new Stanley will never be worth more than the day I buy it. I'm
> > going to have to put the same amount of work into the used one that I
> > will a new one to get it cutting, and then I'll have a plane with real
> > wood tote and handle, and will prolly appreciate rather than depreciate.
>
> I'll agree with that completely and add that old planes with
> rust can be 'tanked' for almost no cost and little effort,
> making them fucntionally as good as new.
>
> > But that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.
>
> Ditto that!
>
> Cheers, Bob
--
Creationism -- because the words are easier to spell.
Rev Chuck, Alt.Atheism #203, Ordained Reverend, ULC, 17 March, 1997.
Remove -REMOVE_THIS- from address to respond.
J.F. Horobin
not changed that much over the years and if anything are now better
constructed than the last made US ones. Why then do the older ones work
better? Is it the iron? Admittedly one might need to flatten the sole of a
new plane as with an old one - but if this is done do the new ones really
work any worse? I've got new and old Stanley's and I'm not really convinced
they work any differently, given a good sharp iron on both. The plastic
handles are a definite minus point but they do not affect the operation of
the plane.
Thoughts anyone? Why do people think the old ones are better?
John
stev wrote in message <70v3pj$3...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>...
>In article <70sir8$lp$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>mains...@email.msn.com says...
>>
>>I Notice a big difference in prices between Record and Stanley Bailey. Are
>>Record planes really better? If so, in what respects? William Alden
catalog
>>lists a Stanley Bailey #5 for $45.99, the Record #5 is $67.99.
>>
>>TIA,
>>rog
>
hht...@swbell.net
perception that the earlier Stanley planes were better than the
contemporary ones. First, people are often comparing old planes
discovered in flea markets and such to new ones still in the box. What
do you want to bet that those old planes were once tuned up by some
carpenter? I mean even if the item is now whomper-jawed to some degree,
it should still be easier to get back into working condition than a new
Stanley that has not been tuned up at all.
On the other hand, perhaps Stanley used to practice greater quality
control. I mean a contempory disgruntled buyer will only yell at them
and return the product for a refund. In earlier and less regulated
days, a disgruntled buyer might also return the tool but with a great
deal more display of dissatisfaction -- like whomping a company
representative up side the head with the darn thing! Personally, as
long as one knows how to flatten a sole and sharpen a blade, I don't
think there's much to choose from between old Stanleys and new Stanleys
-- plastic knobs aside, that is. Happy Woodworking -- Ronnie Henry
Rob Weaver
a Stanley #5 used for about $15 instead of $45, and go buy $30 worth of
wood.
That used Stanley will never be worth less than it is the day I buy it,
and the new Stanley will never be worth more than the day I buy it. I'm
going to have to put the same amount of work into the used one that I
will a new one to get it cutting, and then I'll have a plane with real
wood tote and handle, and will prolly appreciate rather than depreciate.
But that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.
All the best,
Rob Weaver
MKepke
On 'old' planes, the castings are finer, the machining better, the steel
in the blade can take a sharper set, and the handles are usually rosewood
instead of plastic.
The machining (such as a wide mouth or cheap feeling adjustments) is
definitely a drawback. The steel, well, it won't be any worse than the
chrome vanadium steel in my modern chisels - which work fine. Plastic on
the handles is just nasty, but you can make your own or buy rosewood
replacements ($20).
Now to Steve's comments, I don't think you'll pitch a modern plane for
it's older bretheren unless you upgrade at the same time. Simply isn't
worth it unless you become a closet collector (I know/have met several
cabinetmakers that bought and use 'new planes').
If you talk about 'upgrading' to something like a L-N, it's a different
kettle of fish. Buying a L-N is like buying a Unisaw over a Contractor's
saw - it's a finer quality, but you definitely pay for it. Or you could
buy an old Bedrock, but I think that's more $$ than a L-N these days.
As for price of old versus new, I got some serious sticker shock when I
priced out a #93 tenon plane. I need to do some more looking but an 'old'
#93 was MORE THAN 2x the cost of a new one. The 'value' is just not there
for a user.
For the same price (if you find them at the same price), I'd buy an old
plane just to get the wood handles. Some of the dealers also send 'em to
you tuned up which is a nice plus for the novice.
-Mark
In article <909556872.27824.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, "J.F.
Horobin" <JohnH...@jhorobin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
}Interesting this new v. old. If one takes Stanley planes they really have
}not changed that much over the years and if anything are now better
}constructed than the last made US ones. Why then do the older ones work
}better? Is it the iron? Admittedly one might need to flatten the sole of a
}new plane as with an old one - but if this is done do the new ones really
}work any worse? I've got new and old Stanley's and I'm not really convinced
}they work any differently, given a good sharp iron on both. The plastic
}handles are a definite minus point but they do not affect the operation of
}the plane.
}
}Thoughts anyone? Why do people think the old ones are better?
}
}John
}
}stev wrote in message <70v3pj$3...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>...
}>In article <70sir8$lp$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
}>mains...@email.msn.com says...
}>>
}>>I Notice a big difference in prices between Record and Stanley Bailey. Are
}>>Record planes really better? If so, in what respects? William Alden
}catalog
}>>lists a Stanley Bailey #5 for $45.99, the Record #5 is $67.99.
}>>
}>>TIA,
}>>rog
}>
}>Seriously, dont buy a new plane. You can get an old one for no more
}>than a new one, probably less, and it will be a far superior tool.
}>You can buy a new one, and it will be usable with some tuning. But
}>sooner or later you'll find yourself pushing its limitations. Thats
}>when you will end up buying an old plane or maybe even a LN. So you
}>may as well buy an old plane to begin with.
}>And besides, new planes dont even have wood totes and knobs! Sorry,
}>but plastic just dont have a place on any respectable hand plane.
}>
}>So heres a guy who can fix you up. Certainly not the only old tool
}>dealer on the net, but I see nothing wrong in putting in a plug
}>here and there. <le...@supertool.com>
}>
}>steve k
}>
}>--
}>stev_ix_netcom_com
}>
--
-M.Kepke
My opinions, etc.
To send email, replace nojunk with mkepke and nortel respectively.
Conan The Librarian
In article <363745...@swbell.net>, hht...@swbell.net
writes:
> Excellent points John. I have also begun to wonder about this general
> perception that the earlier Stanley planes were better than the
> contemporary ones.
>
> [snip]
>
> Personally, as
> long as one knows how to flatten a sole and sharpen a blade, I don't
> think there's much to choose from between old Stanleys and new Stanleys
> -- plastic knobs aside, that is. Happy Woodworking -- Ronnie Henry
Let's see if I can remember all the differences that were mentioned
when I asked a similar question:
Besides the plastic "knobs", there's the steel of the iron
(laminated high carbon vs. chrome vanadium), the frog (machined vs.
stamped), the lateral adjustment lever has less play on the old plane,
and the casting of the body is thicker and heavier on the old plane.
In my personal experience, I've also noticed that the fit between
the cap iron and iron is better, and the frog is sturdier and smoother.
Then there's the price. You can buy a vintage plane for less than
its new counterpart.
Trust me, I bought a new "contractor grade" #4 and spent a *lot* of
time flattening the sole, working on the lever cap where it contacts
the iron, smoothing the frog's bedding surface, and squaring up the
mouth.
I also acquired a Hock iron to replace the standard issue S*t*nl*y
one. Even after all that, I wasn't satisfied. Being a newbie at the
time, I thought it might have been related to my own shortcomings, but
I sent a call for help to a certain old-tool merchant, and within a
week I had a pre-WWII #4 for less than $40.
Straight out of the box I popped the Hock iron in it, made a minor
adjustment to the frog, and was making curlies. No fuss, no muss.
BTW, I still have the "contractor grade" #4, and it did nothing but
collect dust while I tried to figure out how to turn it into something
useful. At one time I thought about making a scrub plane out of it.
More recently I considered trying to turn it into a poorman's infill.
But, I finally bought the Veritas scraper insert, and now it finally
serves a purpose other than that of a paperweight. (Even at that, the
lateral adjusment lever is so loose that it causes problems.)
Chuck Vance
Just say (tmPL) And I haven't even touched on the aesthetics of
old-tools vs. new.
Bob Zajicek
>
> John, the best reason I can think of to buy old planes is that I can get
> a Stanley #5 used for about $15 instead of $45, and go buy $30 worth of
> wood.
LOL! Excellent point Rob! As I'm embarassingly new at aquiring
and using bench planes and such, but here's what I've learned
so far on this subject, primarily from others in this forum.
Stanley bench planes are going to have to be tuned up
somewhat, regardless if they are new or old to maximize their
purrformance. Among the many, many things that can be done,
generally these are standouts... the flatness of the sole, the
keeness of the iron, and the fit of the iron with the chip
breaker. Oh yeah, and rosewood knobs.
When an old plane can be found for $15-$20 it represents a
bargain, as Rob said. The sole is more than likely not going
to be too out of flat, you'll already have a set of wooden
knobs, and you can put the $30 towards a replacement iron,
such as a Hock. The result being that you have a plane for the
same price as a new one, but with much better perfomance. IOW,
to identically equip a spanking new plane you'd have to spend
$90-$100.
OMT, the styles of old planes vary within models, a notable
feature being the lower front knob. I just like the way they
feel compared to the taller style common today. YMMV.
> That used Stanley will never be worth less than it is the day I buy it,
> and the new Stanley will never be worth more than the day I buy it. I'm
> going to have to put the same amount of work into the used one that I
> will a new one to get it cutting, and then I'll have a plane with real
> wood tote and handle, and will prolly appreciate rather than depreciate.
I'll agree with that completely and add that old planes with
rust can be 'tanked' for almost no cost and little effort,
making them fucntionally as good as new.
> But that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.
Ditto that!
Cheers, Bob
stev
noj...@nojunk.com says...
Mark K says...
>Now to Steve's comments, I don't think you'll pitch a modern plane for
>it's older bretheren unless you upgrade at the same time. Simply isn't
>worth it unless you become a closet collector (I know/have met several
>cabinetmakers that bought and use 'new planes').
I have aquired 2 older #4's to serve the tasks that my Record #4
wouldnt do as well. One is a 604, and it works very well. The other
#4 has a smaller mouth than the Record, and that alone seems to make
the difference. So for me, pitching the Record for an older brethren
was an upgrade at the same time. Btw, I wouldnt throw away the Record.
I like the blue paint for one, and it was my 1st plane. It gets used.
>If you talk about 'upgrading' to something like a L-N, it's a different
>kettle of fish. Buying a L-N is like buying a Unisaw over a Contractor's
>saw - it's a finer quality, but you definitely pay for it. Or you could
>buy an old Bedrock, but I think that's more $$ than a L-N these days.
The LN's are something. Lemme see. I have a BT3000 ryobi, and when I
started ww'king I worked out of a shop with a Unisaw. Yes, thats an apt
comparison you make there. They are not cheap but they are worth every
penny. In fact, I would rather buy more LN's than upgrade my saw ;)
>As for price of old versus new, I got some serious sticker shock when I
>priced out a #93 tenon plane. I need to do some more looking but an 'old'
>#93 was MORE THAN 2x the cost of a new one. The 'value' is just not there
>for a user.
No kidding. Has it always been this way or was it that cover feature
in FWW where G.Hack was pictured with a whole set of shoulder planes?
Maybe its a conspiracy. I bet the guys at FWW bought a bunch of 112's
before they put that 112 on their cover. Insider trading practices
used with old tools. The Horror!
steve k
--
stev_ix_netcom_com
hht...@swbell.net
you wrote this. NOW I understand. Being chronically hardheaded though,
I'm probably going to keep experimenting with old verses new until I
also FEEL that I understand. It's one of my many failings. Your input
agrees with that of the other experts on this subject, though, and so I
don't think I'm going to prove you guys wrong! It's a pity though, when
you think about it, that Stanley doesn't have enough pride in itself to
at least try to match its old work. Obviously that would be for a
premium price, but then isn't that what L.N. sells -- quality at a
premium price? My experience has been mostly with new hand tools, and
so I expect that I shall soon undergo the same eye opening experience
that you've undergone. That's kind of exciting. I do thank you for
telling me this. Happy Woodworking -- Ronnie Henry
Conan The Librarian
In article <3637C0...@swbell.net>, hht...@swbell.net
writes:
> Thanks for the input Chuck. I consider myself humbled. I'm glad that
> you wrote this. NOW I understand.
You're welcome. I didn't intend to sound condescending,
so apologies if it came across that way. I've only been
wooddorking for a little over a year myself, so I've got
plenty to learn. I just figured I'd share a bit of the
collective wisdom I've picked up on r.ww
> Being chronically hardheaded though,
> I'm probably going to keep experimenting with old verses new until I
> also FEEL that I understand. It's one of my many failings.
Nothing wrong with that attitude. When I bought my new
#4 I had already been warned about new vs. old, but I
figured the differences must have been overrated. It
wasn't until I compared them side by side that I was
convinced.
You see, it's not that you *can't* make a new Stanley
work well, it's just that the effort it takes is not
justified for the price you pay when older ones can be
had (cheaper) that will work with almost no tweaking.
> Your input
> agrees with that of the other experts on this subject, though, and so I
> don't think I'm going to prove you guys wrong! It's a pity though, when
> you think about it, that Stanley doesn't have enough pride in itself to
> at least try to match its old work.
Yep. That topic has been the subject of much discussion
in the time I've been following rec.norm. The consensus
seems to be that S*t*nl*y made the decision to appeal (pander?)
to the "weekend warrior" who thinks of a plane as something
for trimming a 1/4" of a door that's sticking, as opposed to
someone who does fine woodworking.
As a corporate decision, it's probably been good for the
bottom line, but it's created a void for those who know
the difference between a "contractor grade" and a Bedrock.
And, as you note below, it's created a market for the
L-N's of the world.
> Obviously that would be for a
> premium price, but then isn't that what L.N. sells -- quality at a
> premium price? My experience has been mostly with new hand tools, and
> so I expect that I shall soon undergo the same eye opening experience
> that you've undergone. That's kind of exciting. I do thank you for
> telling me this. Happy Woodworking -- Ronnie Henry
Hey, that's the only way to do it. It's sort of like
when you first discover the difference between the surface
you can get on a board with a well-tuned smoother vs.
220-grit.
It's not that one is bad, it's just that the other can
be so much better.
Chuck Vance
J.F. Horobin
Bailey planes have changed a lot - for example Record, whereas the basic
design of the Stanley planes really has only undergone minor modifications
and changes over the years. Given the choice there is no doubt the older
Stanley's with their rosewood handles are much nicer tools to work with -
and the old Records were just like these. The question that I was really
wondering was how much better do they work in practice? I have old and
new Records and Stanley's and still can't really answer that question. But
they all have flat soles and sharp irons. Perhaps with more use on
different woods I will be able too.
It is quite clear though that nobody really likes a plastic knob and tote!
Hope Stanley and Record are listening
John
Conan The Librarian wrote in message <1998Oct2...@tegan.swt.edu>...
Vern Wanzong
came in a cute box containing the plane with Rosewood handles. I couldn't
resist it just because of the handles.
But to contribute to your original question about new vs. old, I challenge
anyone to find any difference at all. Given that comparable planes are of
similar design (and of top of the line quality within brand), the only
difference in use would relate to how well the planes have been tuned up. I
have never bought a plane that I didn't personally flatten the sole (I even
flattened the Lie/Nielsen just to make sure), hand sharpened the irons,
deburred the frogs, etc. Once you spend that first 3 or 4 hours doing an
anal retentive tune up on a plane, new or old, it will forever sing a
perfect note for you.
But I do hate those plastic handles. I acquired all my Records before they
changed to plastic, I bought the Stanley just because they offered it with
wood handles, and the Lie/Nielsen is a no brainer. I honestly believe that
whoever goes back to Rosewood handles first will win the marketing game.
Vern
------
J.F. Horobin <JohnH...@jhorobin.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<909824336.22862.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
Conan The Librarian
In article <01be04c9$13fae560$e91990d1@home>, "Vern Wanzong"
<vernw...@pdq.net> writes:
> A couple of years ago, I bought a new "special edition" Stanley #4 that
> came in a cute box containing the plane with Rosewood handles. I couldn't
> resist it just because of the handles.
Just for curiosity's sake, what did you pay for the
"special edition"? (A ballpark figure is fine.)
> But to contribute to your original question about new vs. old, I challenge
> anyone to find any difference at all.
You may have missed it, but myself and others have done just
that earlier in this thread. For example, I posted the following:
> Besides the plastic "knobs", there's the steel of the iron
> (laminated high carbon vs. chrome vanadium), the frog (machined vs.
> stamped), the lateral adjustment lever has less play on the old plane,
> and the casting of the body is thicker and heavier on the old plane.
>
> In my personal experience, I've also noticed that the fit between
> the cap iron and iron is better, and the frog is sturdier and smoother.
Now, back to Vern:
> Given that comparable planes are of
> similar design (and of top of the line quality within brand), the only
> difference in use would relate to how well the planes have been tuned up.
Of the examples I gave above, only the lateral adjustment
play (possibly) and the cap-iron/iron fit are the sorts of
things that are effected by "tuning". But even if all of
the differences were that easily corrected, wouldn't it
make sense to pay *less* to get a tool that had already been
"tuned up"?
> I
> have never bought a plane that I didn't personally flatten the sole (I even
> flattened the Lie/Nielsen just to make sure), hand sharpened the irons,
> deburred the frogs, etc. Once you spend that first 3 or 4 hours doing an
> anal retentive tune up on a plane, new or old, it will forever sing a
> perfect note for you.
My pre-WWII #4 took beautiful curlies right out of the box
with only a minor adjustment to the frog. My new "contractor
grade" #4 took hours of "tuning" and was finally relegated to
doorstop duty. I paid less for the old #4.
(FWIW, I *take* *shavings* with a plane to see how it
performs before I submit it to the QuickLap (tm) treatment.
If it ain't broke ... )
> But I do hate those plastic handles. I acquired all my Records before they
> changed to plastic, I bought the Stanley just because they offered it with
> wood handles, and the Lie/Nielsen is a no brainer. I honestly believe that
> whoever goes back to Rosewood handles first will win the marketing game.
That's certainly possible, but the handles are a small
part of the difference between old and new. (Why do you
think Thomas L-N is able to sell his wares at such high
prices? Hint: It's not just 'cause they have purty
handles.)
Chuck Vance
Just say (tmPL) And I *still* haven't even dealt with the
esthetic issues.
MKepke
Librarian) wrote:
}In article <01be04c9$13fae560$e91990d1@home>, "Vern Wanzong"
}<vernw...@pdq.net> writes:
<snip>
}> Given that comparable planes are of
}> similar design (and of top of the line quality within brand), the only
}> difference in use would relate to how well the planes have been tuned up.
}
} Of the examples I gave above, only the lateral adjustment
}play (possibly) and the cap-iron/iron fit are the sorts of
}things that are effected by "tuning". But even if all of
}the differences were that easily corrected, wouldn't it
}make sense to pay *less* to get a tool that had already been
}"tuned up"?
Let's not imply that all "old" tools are cheaper than the "new" versions.
Some of the L-N planes - expensive tho they are - are considerably cheaper
than the plane they're based on. I've also mentioned my experience w. old
& new #93s.
<snip>
}> But I do hate those plastic handles. I acquired all my Records
before they
}> changed to plastic, I bought the Stanley just because they offered it with
}> wood handles, and the Lie/Nielsen is a no brainer. I honestly believe that
}> whoever goes back to Rosewood handles first will win the marketing game.
}
} That's certainly possible, but the handles are a small
}part of the difference between old and new. (Why do you
}think Thomas L-N is able to sell his wares at such high
}prices? Hint: It's not just 'cause they have purty
}handles.)
That would be an interesting thread all by itself. It would be cool to
see the buyer demographics, to see to what degree your claims are
supported.
Now someone like BridgeCity Tools Works...
-Mark
Conan The Librarian
In article <nojunk-0211...@nrtpi763.us.nortel.com>,
noj...@nojunk.com (MKepke) writes:
> In article <1998Nov...@tegan.swt.edu>, cv...@tegan.swt.edu (Conan The
> Librarian) wrote:
>
> }In article <01be04c9$13fae560$e91990d1@home>, "Vern Wanzong"
> }<vernw...@pdq.net> writes:
> <snip>
> }> Given that comparable planes are of
> }> similar design (and of top of the line quality within brand), the only
> }> difference in use would relate to how well the planes have been tuned up.
> }
> } Of the examples I gave above, only the lateral adjustment
> }play (possibly) and the cap-iron/iron fit are the sorts of
> }things that are effected by "tuning". But even if all of
> }the differences were that easily corrected, wouldn't it
> }make sense to pay *less* to get a tool that had already been
> }"tuned up"?
>
> Let's not imply that all "old" tools are cheaper than the "new" versions.
My apologies for responding to blanket generalizations
with one of my own. I was thinking in terms of the
standard line of benchplanes when I made my comment. I
probably should have said something like: Wouldn't it
make sense to pay less, with a few noteable exceptions,
to get a tool that had already been "tuned up"?
> Some of the L-N planes - expensive tho they are - are considerably cheaper
> than the plane they're based on. I've also mentioned my experience w. old
> & new #93s.
I don't recall your specific experience with the #93,
but I do recall reading that many were satisfied with
the newer #90/92/93's (and I do know how expensive the
older ones generaly are). Do you count yourself among
that group?
I own a recent English-made #90, and have found it to
be well-machined. Having said that, it still took a bit
of fiddling to get the mouth opening to less than 1/8".
(In fact, the only way I could get an acceptably-tight
mouth was by removing the adjustment set-screw
altogether.)
(Also, dare I say that this may be a case of the
exception proving the rule?)
> <snip>
> }> But I do hate those plastic handles. I acquired all my Records
> before they
> }> changed to plastic, I bought the Stanley just because they offered it with
> }> wood handles, and the Lie/Nielsen is a no brainer. I honestly believe that
> }> whoever goes back to Rosewood handles first will win the marketing game.
> }
> } That's certainly possible, but the handles are a small
> }part of the difference between old and new. (Why do you
> }think Thomas L-N is able to sell his wares at such high
> }prices? Hint: It's not just 'cause they have purty
> }handles.)
>
> That would be an interesting thread all by itself. It would be cool to
> see the buyer demographics, to see to what degree your claims are
> supported.
Hmmmm ... I think we may have a misunderstanding here. My
only claim is that L-N tools sell, not because they have cute
handles, but because they manufacture a product that lives up
to standards that the newer Stanleys too often fail to meet.
(I.e., even if Stanley started slapping rosewood handles on
their products, L-N would still sell because they fill a
market niche that is lacking.)
> Now someone like BridgeCity Tools Works...
Heh. They sent me one of their catalogs a while back.
Now there's a company that makes products for people who've
got more money than common sense. :-)
Chuck Vance
Vern Wanzong
I just want to clarify the meaning of quotes you took from my message on
this subject.
By "tuning up", I don't mean the lateral adjustment or only the cap/iron
fit. I refer to a thorough process of working the tool including:
Flattening the sole with abrasive sandpaper ON A SHEET OF THICK PLATE
GLASS to insure an absolutely flat surface.
Filing the mouth (gently now) to get rid of any burrs or irregular shape.
Flattening the cap and frog surfaces to insure absolute solid contact on
all clamping surfaces.
And of course, continuing this anal-retentive behaviour on the iron itself
(which, of course, you have already replaced with one of the thicker ones
available) by first flattening the back and then working magic on the
actual sharpening of it.
I would perform all of the above mentioned steps on any plane I acquire,
new or old, Stanley, Record, and yes, even Lie-Nielson (although the #4 L-N
sure didn't need much work!).
Your rhetorical question about "wouldn't it be better to buy a Lie-Nielson
rather than one of the more expensive ones they're based on?" is exactly
right. The mystique of the older tools as well as their rarety add
"collectable" value to them. But I have yet to be convinced that a well
tuned, new plane of a comparable design to an older one is any less of a
performer than the antique. In fact, the only possible argument that could
be made for the older tool is the stability that the iron casting will have
achieved over the years. But the new, high quality planes of today made by
Record or Stanley are made of aged iron anyway. And an occasional visit to
the glass plate for sole truing is too easy for that to be a deciding
factor. (BTW, this whole discussion is meant to consider only the top-line
planes being made today by Stanley, Record and L-N, not the cheap
knock-offs).
I didn't intend to seemingly over-emphasize my penchant for wood handles.
The material handles are made of are certainly not critical to the tools
use. It's just one of those little things that add to the overall quality
of life. Like Godiva chocolate over Hershey's. They're both chocolate, but,
well, you know.
Bottom line is that there is no reason to seek out old planes in order to
acquire the best. We have a lot of good choices right in front of us today.
For the planes I have yet to acquire, I would not hesitate to buy Record or
Stanley, but I will probably look to Lie-Nielsen first to see if it's in
their line-up. I shyed away from them at first thinking that they were just
high priced shelf art. But they easily equal (and exceed) the quality and
design of older planes on which they are based. They deserve to be used,
and used a lot, not just to be looked at.
Think of it; leap ahead 75 years. We're all dead and Lie-Nielsen planes
will probably be history unless his kids or buyer can run it like he does
(not likely - no successor is ever as dedicated as the founder). Guess
which planes our great grand children will be seeking out and paying
obnoxious amounts of money for? The planes that "they don't make 'em like
they used to" of the future are being made today.
I'm almost 50 now. So what do I want people to say about me in 75 years?
For starters, how about "Gee, he sure looks good for his age."
Vern
--------
Conan The Librarian <cv...@tegan.swt.edu> wrote in article
<1998Nov...@tegan.swt.edu>...
MKepke
}In article <nojunk-0211...@nrtpi763.us.nortel.com>,
}noj...@nojunk.com (MKepke) writes:
}
}> In article <1998Nov...@tegan.swt.edu>, cv...@tegan.swt.edu (Conan The
}> Librarian) wrote:
<snip>
}> } That's certainly possible, but the handles are a small
}> }part of the difference between old and new. (Why do you
}> }think Thomas L-N is able to sell his wares at such high
}> }prices? Hint: It's not just 'cause they have purty
}> }handles.)
}>
}> That would be an interesting thread all by itself. It would be cool to
}> see the buyer demographics, to see to what degree your claims are
}> supported.
}
} Hmmmm ... I think we may have a misunderstanding here. My
}only claim is that L-N tools sell, not because they have cute
}handles, but because they manufacture a product that lives up
}to standards that the newer Stanleys too often fail to meet.
}(I.e., even if Stanley started slapping rosewood handles on
}their products, L-N would still sell because they fill a
}market niche that is lacking.)
No arguement here. I was just wondering what % of L-N tools are sold to
hobbiests versus professionals. This on my belief that "value" tends to
be a little higher priority when you're spending your company's revenue
stream.
Conan The Librarian
In article <01be0725$c0f7c400$88e590d1@home>, "Vern Wanzong"
<vernw...@pdq.net> writes:
>Chuck,
> I just want to clarify the meaning of quotes you took from my message on
>this subject.
> By "tuning up", I don't mean the lateral adjustment or only the cap/iron
>fit. I refer to a thorough process of working the tool including:
> Flattening the sole with abrasive sandpaper ON A SHEET OF THICK PLATE
>GLASS to insure an absolutely flat surface.
> Filing the mouth (gently now) to get rid of any burrs or irregular shape.
> Flattening the cap and frog surfaces to insure absolute solid contact on
>all clamping surfaces.
> And of course, continuing this anal-retentive behaviour on the iron itself
>(which, of course, you have already replaced with one of the thicker ones
>available) by first flattening the back and then working magic on the
>actual sharpening of it.
> I would perform all of the above mentioned steps on any plane I acquire,
>new or old, Stanley, Record, and yes, even Lie-Nielson (although the #4 L-N
>sure didn't need much work!).
Vern,
I appreciate the fact that you take all of these steps to get a plane to
work as well as possible. In fact, I performed all the steps you mentioned
above on my newer #4. However, it still didn't work as well as an old #4
that I simply removed from the mailer it came in, slapped a Hock iron in
and adjusted the frog.
On the older plane the mouth was smooth and square, the frog was smooth
and made solid contact with the blade assembly, the lateral adjustment
lever had no play in it, and the cap iron made full contact with the iron
itself.
Since that experience, I *gasp* try the plane on some wood before I go
through all the trouble of lapping, etc. (I do, however, always Scary
Sharp the iron.) If it takes see-through shavings, I don't bother with all
of the fiddling.
> Your rhetorical question about "wouldn't it be better to buy a
Lie-Nielson
>rather than one of the more expensive ones they're based on?" is exactly
>right.
Hmmmm ... I don't think I ever said that.
> The mystique of the older tools as well as their rarety add
> "collectable" value to them. But I have yet to be convinced that a well
> tuned, new plane of a comparable design to an older one is any less of a
> performer than the antique. In fact, the only possible argument that could
> be made for the older tool is the stability that the iron casting will have
> achieved over the years. But the new, high quality planes of today made by
> Record or Stanley are made of aged iron anyway. And an occasional visit to
> the glass plate for sole truing is too easy for that to be a deciding
> factor. (BTW, this whole discussion is meant to consider only the top-line
> planes being made today by Stanley, Record and L-N, not the cheap
> knock-offs).
Fair enough. And how much would you pay for a "top-line" #4 made
by any of the above outfits? (I paid less than $40 for my #4.)
And for the Stanley would you still need to invest in new handles
and a new iron?
> I didn't intend to seemingly over-emphasize my penchant for wood
handles.
>The material handles are made of are certainly not critical to the tools
>use. It's just one of those little things that add to the overall quality
>of life. Like Godiva chocolate over Hershey's. They're both chocolate, but,
>well, you know.
Actually, I believe the handles *are* critical to the tool's use.
My "workshop" is an un-air-conditioned garage, and it tends to get a
bit hot down here in Texas in the summer, and when I'm pushing a
smoother I tend to sweat a bit. Those plastic handles are slippery
compared to proper wooden ones. The also have that little seam from
where they were molded that tends to be an annoyance (and can even
cause blisters).
So I don't consider wood vs. plastic to be just a matter of
cosmetics. But, the point I was trying to make is that L-N can charge
what he does, not because of the handles, but because he builds top
quality tools. And slapping rosewood handles on a crappy tool only
makes it a prettier crappy tool.
> Bottom line is that there is no reason to seek out old planes in order
to
>acquire the best. We have a lot of good choices right in front of us today.
>For the planes I have yet to acquire, I would not hesitate to buy Record or
>Stanley, but I will probably look to Lie-Nielsen first to see if it's in
>their line-up. I shyed away from them at first thinking that they were just
>high priced shelf art. But they easily equal (and exceed) the quality and
>design of older planes on which they are based. They deserve to be used,
>and used a lot, not just to be looked at.
Yes, but most of us (except Paddy) don't have unlimited tool
budgets. I can get a perfectly good user for a fraction of the price
you would pay for a L-N, and for significantly less than you'd pay for
a "top-line" new Stanley or Record. (I'm talking about your basic
benchplanes here, like your #4,5,6,7,8.)
> Think of it; leap ahead 75 years. We're all dead and Lie-Nielsen planes
>will probably be history unless his kids or buyer can run it like he does
>(not likely - no successor is ever as dedicated as the founder). Guess
>which planes our great grand children will be seeking out and paying
>obnoxious amounts of money for? The planes that "they don't make 'em like
>they used to" of the future are being made today.
If I understand your point correctly, I have to disagree.
Modern-day Stanleys will most likely *not* be collectables, while
pre-WWII Stanleys will probably continue to increase in value. (At
least as long as FWW keeps "discovering" old planes for the YB
humidor-making crowd.)
L-N's will be worth even more when/if they close up shop.
(Scarcity will drive their prices up.)
And finally, the one issue that I have avoided until this point: I
prefer the look and feel of an old plane over the new ones. The
patina, the areas on the handles that show wear from use, the little
dings, etc. all are part of the history of the tool itself, and
woodworking in general.
In fact, I'd be willing to pay *more* for an old-tool because of
that. Fortunately, (L-N aside) I can get a plane that performs at
least as well as its new counterpart (and with less "tuning up"
required), for considerably less.
Chuck Vance
Conan The Librarian
In article <nojunk-0311...@nrtpi763.us.nortel.com>,
noj...@nojunk.com (MKepke) writes:
> In article <1998Nov...@tegan.swt.edu>, cv...@tegan.swt.edu (Conan The
> Librarian) wrote:
>
> [chomp]
>
> } Hmmmm ... I think we may have a misunderstanding here. My
> }only claim is that L-N tools sell, not because they have cute
> }handles, but because they manufacture a product that lives up
> }to standards that the newer Stanleys too often fail to meet.
> }(I.e., even if Stanley started slapping rosewood handles on
> }their products, L-N would still sell because they fill a
> }market niche that is lacking.)
>
> No arguement here. I was just wondering what % of L-N tools are sold to
> hobbiests versus professionals. This on my belief that "value" tends to
> be a little higher priority when you're spending your company's revenue
> stream.
OK, I see your point now, and there's no denying the snob appeal of
L-N planes. However, I doubt that just slapping some rosewood handles
onto newer Stanleys would cut into the L-N market much. (Face it, for
those who are interested in that sort of thing, the fact that L-N's
are so pricey *is* part of their appeal. And I expect those who make
their living with planes would have little concern for the cosmetic
aspect.)
Personally, if my livelihood depended on my planes, I would
probably opt for the most time-tested, solid design I could find. And
given that the L-N benchplanes are patterned after the Bedrock line, I
imagine I would just choose the original and spring for the extra
expense of the Bedrock. Maybe in a hundred years or so we can check
back and see how the L-N's have held up.
But, I do agree with you that it would be interesting to see the
numbers for L-N owners, pro vs. hobbyist.
Chuck Vance
Vern Wanzong
got to the REAL point on which your opinions are based, i.e., that many
people such as yourself like old tools because they're old.
There is an emotional, visceral feel to the old stuff. The fact that there
are tools today that perform equally as well doesn't matter if they can't
offer the history. I like old tools for that reason as well and I'm glad
you have finally brought out this most important point.
But it is a separate issue in regard to the available quality of the
planes that are available today.
vern
------
Conan The Librarian
In article <01be07ef$8c8d4800$bd1990d1@home>, "Vern Wanzong"
<vernw...@pdq.net> writes:
> You shouldn't have avoided this issue at all because, I think, we finally
> got to the REAL point on which your opinions are based, i.e., that many
> people such as yourself like old tools because they're old.
I had intentionally avoided that issue because it is
totally subjective and is secondary to the question of
whether the older or newer planes were better made.
Matters such as chrome vanadium irons, cheap castings,
poorly machined frogs, cap-irons that don't seat properly
and loose lateral adjustment levers are objectively
verifiable.
> There is an emotional, visceral feel to the old stuff. The fact that there
> are tools today that perform equally as well doesn't matter if they can't
> offer the history. I like old tools for that reason as well and I'm glad
> you have finally brought out this most important point.
>
> But it is a separate issue in regard to the available quality of the
> planes that are available today.
Yes, and that's why I only brought it up *after* I had
made my other points. I wouldn't advise someone to buy
old planes simply because I think old-tools are cool.
However, I *would* advise them based on real differences
in how they were manufactured.
Chuck Vance
Spokeshave
> got to the REAL point on which your opinions are based, i.e., that many
> people such as yourself like old tools because they're old.
> But it is a separate issue in regard to the available quality of the
> planes that are available today.
I love old tools for all the reasons you mention and for one other, they are
just plain better.
All the things that make the classics what they are, also add to thier
useability.
Compare, for example a NIB condition vintage Stanley #3 and a Stanley or record
#3 off the shelf of Home Depot or from a catalog distributor.
The quality is just not there on the new one. I don't know how anybody can deny
that.
Look at the material the of Iron casting itself, it is much more porous, and
not as fine in "grain" as a vintage example.
Simply, the quality of casting is just not avalible anmore as the EPA has banned
the use of phosphrous in the mix. (But you can still legally re-smelt and
re-cast old Iron that contains phosphrous....)
Seconldy look at the fit and finish.
Vintage expamples will have thier soles milled to final surface dims.
new planes have thier soles linished (fancy word than means "belt sanded") to
final Dims.
this linishing _will_ produce a concavity.
Feel the wieght difference between the two?
check out he Chrome Vandium Blade in the new plane against the High Carbon Steel
irons of old....
And then we get to thte wood/plastic debate..
plastic totes and knobs will get slippery when damp from perspiration. This
will cause you to grip harder to maintain controll and this will cause blisters
to be raised.... with Wood (beech or rosewood) this is lessened to a great
degree. also wood totes and knobs will not have nasty little ridges left from
the injection molds are not all to pleasant and can cause chafing...
IMO, anybody that tries to say that new (Stanley or Record) planes are as good
(or better) than the average quality of vintage tools have Rectal Cranial
Inversion
There are exceptions like L-N and St. James Bay, Kelly Tools Works, and Hock,
and what-not.
but the "big boys" might as well go piss on a rope for what they are producing
today.
--
~
John
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pointe/1824/
Please post follow-ups to the group.
MKepke
}In article <01be07ef$8c8d4800$bd1990d1@home>, "Vern Wanzong"
}<vernw...@pdq.net> writes:
<snip>
}> There is an emotional, visceral feel to the old stuff. The fact
that there
}> are tools today that perform equally as well doesn't matter if they can't
}> offer the history. I like old tools for that reason as well and I'm glad
}> you have finally brought out this most important point.
}>
}> But it is a separate issue in regard to the available quality of the
}> planes that are available today.
}
} Yes, and that's why I only brought it up *after* I had
}made my other points. I wouldn't advise someone to buy
}old planes simply because I think old-tools are cool.
}However, I *would* advise them based on real differences
}in how they were manufactured.
Which is about where this thread should end. We've been through the
old-tools-are-better-quality-than-new-tools (and determined that it
depends on the tool) and the old-tools-are-cheaper-than-new-tools (and
determined that it depends on the tool).
What have we learned ? Well, hopefully it's that we should look for a
tool on a case by case basis, and not make generalizations. There are a
lot of old and new dogs out there (anybody using an A4 ? how about a
Stanley HandyMan ?)
Conan The Librarian
In article <nojunk-0411...@nrtpi763.us.nortel.com>,
noj...@nojunk.com (MKepke) writes:
> In article <1998Nov...@tegan.swt.edu>, cv...@tegan.swt.edu (Conan The
> Librarian) wrote:
>
> [munch]
>
> }I wouldn't advise someone to buy
> }old planes simply because I think old-tools are cool.
> }However, I *would* advise them based on real differences
> }in how they were manufactured.
>
> Which is about where this thread should end. We've been through the
> old-tools-are-better-quality-than-new-tools (and determined that it
> depends on the tool) and the old-tools-are-cheaper-than-new-tools (and
> determined that it depends on the tool).
>
> What have we learned ? Well, hopefully it's that we should look for a
> tool on a case by case basis, and not make generalizations.
I can't disagree with that. In fact, I first entered this
thread in response to some people who were generalizing about
new planes being as good as the older ones. (Excerpts from
the posts I responded to are included below.)
Of course, the mistake I made was that I fired back with my
own generalization. But throughout the thread I have tried to
focus on specifics related to the manufacture of new vs. old.
I'll shut up now. :-}
Chuck Vance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <909556872.27824.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, "J.F.
Horobin" <JohnH...@jhorobin.demon.co.uk> writes:
> I've got new and old Stanley's and I'm not really convinced
> they work any differently, given a good sharp iron on both. The plastic
> handles are a definite minus point but they do not affect the operation of
> the plane.
>
> Thoughts anyone? Why do people think the old ones are better?
------
In article <363745...@swbell.net>, hht...@swbell.net writes:
> Personally, as
> long as one knows how to flatten a sole and sharpen a blade, I don't
> think there's much to choose from between old Stanleys and new Stanleys
> -- plastic knobs aside, that is.
------
In article <01be04c9$13fae560$e91990d1@home>, "Vern Wanzong"
Vern Wanzong
respective opinions home, we have all come to one final point of agreement:
This thread is pretty much dead.
May we all meet again in more fertile ground.
Vern
-------
Conan The Librarian <cv...@tegan.swt.edu> wrote in article
<1998Nov...@tegan.swt.edu>...
>
tomp...@my-dejanews.com
"Vern Wanzong" <vernw...@pdq.net> wrote:
> It appears that after those of us (including me) who have hammered our
> respective opinions home, we have all come to one final point of agreement:
> This thread is pretty much dead.
>
Not so fast buck-o. Remember writing this?
> But to contribute to your original question about new vs. old, I
> challenge anyone to find any difference at all. Given that comparable
> planes are of similar design (and of top of the line quality within
> brand), the only difference in use would relate to how well the planes
> have been tuned up. I have never bought a plane that I didn't personally
> flatten the sole (I even flattened the Lie/Nielsen just to make sure),
> hand sharpened the irons, deburred the frogs, etc. Once you spend that
> first 3 or 4 hours doing an anal retentive tune up on a plane, new or
> old, it will forever sing a perfect note for you.
First 3-4 hours? Maybe you like to spend your time in the shop
remanufacturing BRAND NEW planes but some of us have better things to do with
our time. A Sweetheart era Stanley (Type ~12-15) in reasonably good condition
shouldn't require much more than a gentle lapping (if that) and
grinding/honing the blade. Your new POS still has plastic handles, an
inferior blade and a mouth that is too wide. The paint job on the new plane
does look nice, though.
Bought me an English Stanley 10 1/2 rabbet plane a couple of years ago.
Besides the plastic handles, I found that the sole was _far_ from flat, the
sides were not square to the sole and the sides and sole had been surfaced on
a linisher. The sides of the plane were, basically, lumpy. To add insult to
injury, the bottom surface of the frog had not been machined, although the
frog receiver had. Go figure. After much effort, I have a plane that sort of
works but I could have spent my time in far more productive pursuits. Suffice
it to say that the older 10's and 10 1/2's (the latter being rare) were
better tools out of the box.
Oh yeah, those pretty new block planes? Tell you what. Take out the blade and
check to see of the lever cap actually overlaps the machined portion of the
bed (directly behind the mouth). Chances are it won't because the newer block
planes have a skimpy little ramp there (I'm not including L-N planes in this
- righteous planes, these). The lever cap on a pre-war Stanley will rest on
the much larger machined surface found on these older planes. With room to
spare. Leonard Lee has an interesting section on this problem in his book on
sharpening and describes a method to more-or-less compensate for this
manufacturing shortcut. Not to mention that you can't even buy a new plane
with a knuckle style lever cap unless you go L-N.
Just a couple of specific examples. Wouldn't want to be accused of
generalizing. The above being JUST MY OPINION. Heh, heh.
*******************************
Tom Price (tomp...@my-dejanews.com)
Will Work For Tools
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Patrick Olguin
Pardon me while I pile-on.
> In article <01be0870$17973f20$f51890d1@home>,
> "Vern Wanzong" <vernw...@pdq.net> wrote:
> > It appears that after those of us (including me) who have hammered our
> > respective opinions home, we have all come to one final point of agreement:
> > This thread is pretty much dead.
It ain't dead until we say it's dead (Bluto the Woodworker).
> >
>
> Not so fast buck-o. Remember writing this?
Wait a minute, you called him bucko?
>
> > But to contribute to your original question about new vs. old, I
> > challenge anyone to find any difference at all. Given that comparable
> > planes are of similar design (and of top of the line quality within
> > brand), the only difference in use would relate to how well the planes
> > have been tuned up. I have never bought a plane that I didn't personally
> > flatten the sole (I even flattened the Lie/Nielsen just to make sure),
> > hand sharpened the irons, deburred the frogs, etc. Once you spend that
> > first 3 or 4 hours doing an anal retentive tune up on a plane, new or
> > old, it will forever sing a perfect note for you.
>
> First 3-4 hours? Maybe you like to spend your time in the shop
> remanufacturing BRAND NEW planes but some of us have better things to do with
> our time. A Sweetheart era Stanley (Type ~12-15) in reasonably good condition
> shouldn't require much more than a gentle lapping (if that) and
> grinding/honing the blade. Your new POS still has plastic handles, an
> inferior blade and a mouth that is too wide. The paint job on the new plane
> does look nice, though.
Tom,
You got something against pukey blue?
There's another more austere reason for making at least a little
effort to locate older Stanleys (and Sargents, Craftmans, Millers
Falls, Union, Siegley, etc) in good condition: someone else has
already tuned it for you. Add to this the previous mountains of
evidence (rosewood, brass, yadda yadda yadda) already mentioned, and
the argument for bothering with new Record or Stanley dwindles to
white noise. I have purchased and tuned well over 100 bench planes in
a little over four years. I dunno if that makes me an expert, but it
certainly qualifies me as less than newby.
The most time I have ever spent reconditioning even the most crusty
and rusty old plane was two hours. I have lapped the sole of exactly
one plane, and that was because it had been gouged by the previous
owner. That took all of 30 seconds of surfing on a beltsander. I do
one simple check on an old plane before looking at it in detail. I
slap a straight-edge against the sole. If it's significantly out of
flat, I put it down and don't look back.
Oh, all the planes I've tuned take shavings of less than 0.001", if
set that thin (well, maybe not the #40 - scrub plane, Jeff), easily.
This points to beginning the process with a good plane, versus being
some genius mechanical engineer.
As for LN planes requiring tuning, that has not been my experience. If
a Lie-Nielsen plane won't perform perfectly by merely honing the iron,
send it back to Tom. He'll fix or replace it. I actually *like*
fussing with my tools a little bit, but 3 to 4 hours of tuning per
tool is wasted time in this Neanderthal's opinion.
Another data point - I have a an old Craftsman jack plane that is
Blanchard-ground on both cheeks, making it dead-nuts square on *both*
sides - the perfect plane for shooting ends in either direction.
If you'd like to see pictures, take a gander at:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/2305/jack.html
O'Deen
--
Old tools and old fools: a dangerous combination
http://www.concentric.net/~odeen/oldtools
MKepke
Patrick Olguin <Od...@concentric.net> wrote:
}On Thu, 5 Nov 1998 tomp...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
}
}Pardon me while I pile-on.
}
}> In article <01be0870$17973f20$f51890d1@home>,
}> "Vern Wanzong" <vernw...@pdq.net> wrote:
<snip>
}> > I have never bought a plane that I didn't personally
}> > flatten the sole (I even flattened the Lie/Nielsen just to make sure),
}> > hand sharpened the irons, deburred the frogs, etc. Once you spend that
}> > first 3 or 4 hours doing an anal retentive tune up on a plane, new or
}> > old, it will forever sing a perfect note for you.
}>
}> First 3-4 hours? Maybe you like to spend your time in the shop
}> remanufacturing BRAND NEW planes but some of us have better things to do with
}> our time. A Sweetheart era Stanley (Type ~12-15) in reasonably good condition
}> shouldn't require much more than a gentle lapping (if that) and
}> grinding/honing the blade.
<snip>
}The most time I have ever spent reconditioning even the most crusty
}and rusty old plane was two hours.
<snip>
}As for LN planes requiring tuning, that has not been my experience. If
}a Lie-Nielsen plane won't perform perfectly by merely honing the iron,
}send it back to Tom.
<snip>
Off to remedial reading for the both of you. Vern says he tunes up
*every* plane new or old - you gonna tell him how to spend his time, Mr.
tuned-up-100-planes-in-4-years. You a collector ? ;)
BTW, if you get an unworkable new plane, why don't you send it back ? I
wouldn't touch a SW with a snapped casting, either.
Anyways, the thread has been through this angle before.
Patrick Olguin
Hey Mark, I knew I could lure you back here.
> }The most time I have ever spent reconditioning even the most crusty
> }and rusty old plane was two hours.
> <snip>
> }As for LN planes requiring tuning, that has not been my experience. If
> }a Lie-Nielsen plane won't perform perfectly by merely honing the iron,
> }send it back to Tom.
> <snip>
>
> Off to remedial reading for the both of you. Vern says he tunes up
> *every* plane new or old - you gonna tell him how to spend his time, Mr.
> tuned-up-100-planes-in-4-years. You a collector ? ;)
Hey I understood what he wrote, I was questioning the value of it.
Actually, bringing up the collector angle is quite relevant. If I'd
spent 3-4 hours each, tuning 100+ planes, I'd get even less
woodworking done than I do, as hard as that is to imagine. Vern is
welcome to spend his time however he sees fit, just as I am welcome to
painstakingly hand-surface a curly cherry board vs. concurring it in a
few minutes with a very nice ROS I happen to have.
Vern even admitted to anal retentiveness about it, and I'll say the
same for how I nitpick over teensy bits of tear-out. Just as fussing
over a figured board for hours with hand tools isn't for everyone, nor
is taking hours to tune a tool typical for your average woodhacker.
>
> BTW, if you get an unworkable new plane, why don't you send it back ? I
> wouldn't touch a SW with a snapped casting, either.
Heh heh, no kidding. We're (at least I'm) not talking about gross
problems, but features on the margins, and when you use something
day-in and day-out, those margins add up. Spending hours to bring an
old clunker up to snuff is restoration; spending the same amount of
time on something fresh from the factory seems like a violation o the
Uniform Commercial Code. Ideally, you pick a product from a reliable
company (Lie-Nielsen or supertool.com) and there's no mussing, no
fussing and no cussing.
Spokeshave
> > But to contribute to your original question about new vs. old, I
> > challenge anyone to find any difference at all.
I already hammered this one a few days ago... ;-)
Spokeshave
> Ideally, you pick a product from a reliable
> company (Lie-Nielsen or supertool.com)
Oh...
are you implying that The Leachmeister has (fianlly) released his next toy!?!?!?
Spokeshave
>
> Patrick Olguin wrote:
> > Ideally, you pick a product from a reliable
> > company (Lie-Nielsen or supertool.com)
>
> Oh...
> are you implying that The Leachmeister has (fianlly) released his next toy!?!?!?
false alarm folks!
Just checked the web-site.... sadly, there is nothing new listed ;-(
MKepke
}tomp...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
}
}> > But to contribute to your original question about new vs. old, I
}> > challenge anyone to find any difference at all.
}
}I already hammered this one a few days ago... ;-)
Here's my attempt at making this constructive:
Mark the Canadian's picks:
1) common bench planes #3-#8: Stanley/Miller's Falls/etc. Est $40-100.
Buy user quality old tools. Quality of materials and workmanship tends to
be better than new planes. Wooden handles are a bonus.
2) shoulder planes: Stanley #90-93. Est.$50-$140. I've _heard_ that the
new shoulder planes remain well made. Worth a look; the user-class old
tools can routinely cost more than new.
3) block planes: Stanley 9, 9.5, 60, 60.5 or equivalent Records Est
$30-80. Same as above.
4) rabbet planes: Stanley #78 or Record #778. $45-65. Buy old tools.
Nothing against the Record, but the old Stanleys were well made and users
tend to be cheaper. Record does have a nice design improvement with the
double arm outrigger though.
Caveat: I don't own any 'new' planes.
Comments/additions ? Empirical evidence ?