MH

"Mike H."

29/12/2004 12:13 PM

Hand Plane Comparison: Stanley vs. Veritas

I'm wanting to purchase my first real hand plane (smooth plane), but I don't
have the $ for a Lie-Neilson (the Cadillac?). Therefore, I was going to get
a Veritas. After reading reviews and shopping online (and according to the
2005 Tool Guide from Taunton), the Veritas planes appear to be the best
value for the money.

But the Stanley planes *look* descent enough, and are about half the price
of a Veritas. And I have seen photos of Stanleys in professional wood
workers' "favorite hand tool" selections. So I was wondering if anyone out
there might have first hand experience in providing a side-by-side
comparison of the Stanley vs. Veritas hand planes (in particular smooth
planes). Amazon had a nasty review for the #4 Stanley, but the fellow
didn't say why it was such a horrible hand plane.

So what's the difference? Please help.
TIA.

-Mike


This topic has 71 replies

Aa

"AAvK"

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

31/12/2004 2:45 PM


> It's also a plane for rough work, and the standard blade is a skosh thin for
> the type of work to be performed. Thicker would be nice, so you could get
> rid of a bunch of chatter telegraphing to your elbow.
>
>
http://www.stjamesbaytoolco.com/

Alex

LJ

Larry Jaques

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

29/12/2004 5:56 PM

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:13:50 -0600, "Mike H."
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:

>I'm wanting to purchase my first real hand plane (smooth plane), but I don't
>have the $ for a Lie-Neilson (the Cadillac?). Therefore, I was going to get
>a Veritas. After reading reviews and shopping online (and according to the
>2005 Tool Guide from Taunton), the Veritas planes appear to be the best
>value for the money.

You'll find that most of us (those without several satchels of cash)
have all bought used Stanleys which are up to around 100 years old
and all of us love them to death.


>But the Stanley planes *look* descent enough, and are about half the price
>of a Veritas. And I have seen photos of Stanleys in professional wood
>workers' "favorite hand tool" selections. So I was wondering if anyone out
>there might have first hand experience in providing a side-by-side
>comparison of the Stanley vs. Veritas hand planes (in particular smooth
>planes). Amazon had a nasty review for the #4 Stanley, but the fellow
>didn't say why it was such a horrible hand plane.

The newer models aren't as well made as the oldies.


>So what's the difference? Please help.

Shininess. LN, Veritas, and new Stanleys are all quite shiny.

Another possibility for you is to buy one of Steve Knight's
smoothers. It's a wood plane with a thickarse blade. They cost
less than Veritas, too (by a whopping $4 and s/h.) Look for them
on Ebay or at his website at www.Knight-Toolworks.com . I own a
whole bevy of his planes and like them, using the smoother a lot.

-----------------------------------------------
I'll apologize for offending someone...right
after they apologize for being easily offended.
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.diversify.com Inoffensive Web Design

BR

"Big Rob"

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

29/12/2004 12:15 PM

Buy a vintage stanley plane on ebay. If you're just looking for a
basic model you could probably get a Stanley #4 or #5 for less than
$10. You might have to buy a new blade though. That's another $20-30.
Get one from Ron Hock. The old planes are far superior to anything
Stanley or Veritas make today.

Or better yet buy a wooden plane from Knight Toolworks
(knight-toolworks.com) or Gordon (hntgordon.com).

Or even better still, make your own wooden plane. I have several home
made planes that work beautifully.


Mike H. wrote:
> I'm wanting to purchase my first real hand plane (smooth plane), but
I don't
> have the $ for a Lie-Neilson (the Cadillac?). Therefore, I was going
to get
> a Veritas. After reading reviews and shopping online (and according
to the
> 2005 Tool Guide from Taunton), the Veritas planes appear to be the
best
> value for the money.
>
> But the Stanley planes *look* descent enough, and are about half the
price
> of a Veritas. And I have seen photos of Stanleys in professional
wood
> workers' "favorite hand tool" selections. So I was wondering if
anyone out
> there might have first hand experience in providing a side-by-side
> comparison of the Stanley vs. Veritas hand planes (in particular
smooth
> planes). Amazon had a nasty review for the #4 Stanley, but the
fellow
> didn't say why it was such a horrible hand plane.
>
> So what's the difference? Please help.
> TIA.
>
> -Mike

Bw

"Bob"

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

29/12/2004 2:10 PM

A vintage stanley for $10????? When is the last time you shopped on
ebay? Nothing has been going for less than $50 for months, as I've
watched it. I must be missing something.

Bob

BR

"Big Rob"

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

29/12/2004 4:47 PM

I don't know much about Veritas planes, so I can't comment on them.
But as far as a new Stanley versus a pre 1920 Stanley, I would go with
the vintage plane every time -- even if it takes a weekend of tuning it
up. You'll probably end up spending that much time in frustration with
a new Stanley. The only exception I can think of is Stanley's small,
low angle block plane -- I can't remember the model number off the top
of my head. It's not that bad for about $35 -- but be prepared to
spend some time flattening the bottom. I just replaced mine with a Lie
Neilson and the LN is much nicer of course.

If you've got a drill press and a band saw or table saw, I would
seriously consider making your own plane. It's really not that
difficult, although it does take some time. Check out David Fink's
(sp?) book. There's nothing like making your own tool. I've made four
of them in the past six months -- 45% and 50% smoothers, jack and
shoulder. My neighbor thinks I'm nuts. : - )



Nate Perkins wrote:

>
> Pretty much all of the Veritas planes are really well made. You
won't be
> sorry with one.
>
> Modern Stanley planes are really not very good. The castings are
inferior,
> the tolerances in the blade and adjustments are far worse than
previous
> Stanleys. They can be tuned to work, sure, but then again so can the
Anant
> planes.
>
> If you go with a Stanley, get a vintage one off of Ebay. Some of the
old
> ones are very good. I have a Sweetheart Stanley #3 (ca 1920?) with a
Hock
> blade that is my favorite.
>
> What plane are you thinking of getting? IMHO the most useful is a
low
> angle block plane, followed by a shoulder plane, a scraper plane, and
a #3/
> #4 smoother and a #5 jack.
>
> Hope that helps.

Cc

"Cubby"

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

29/12/2004 6:01 PM


I went the ebay route myself only for reasons of cash on hand (or lack
thereof!). I've got pretty much No. 2 through No. 8 bench planes.
Yes, they take a bit of work to get tuned but I learned more about a
plane that way than if I had just bought one. A few hours truing the
sole, cleaning it up, and sharpening has yielded me great planes. I
highly recommend looking at Patrick's Blood and Gore (don't have the
link with me at the moment) as it'll tell you how to identify a
particular plane and makes recommendations as to what year's were best.


That being said, I always wonder when I get my LV or LN catalog....
Cheers,
cc

LB

Larry Blanchard

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

29/12/2004 4:17 PM

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> If you go with a Stanley, get a vintage one off of Ebay. Some of the old
> ones are very good. I have a Sweetheart Stanley #3 (ca 1920?) with a Hock
> blade that is my favorite.
>
And if you want a #8 jointer plane, used is the only choice you have.
Unless one has come out recently that I don't know about.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Sd

Silvan

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 12:13 AM

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> And if you want a #8 jointer plane, used is the only choice you have.
> Unless one has come out recently that I don't know about.

A year or two ago somebody was selling new #8s, I *think*. Maybe they were
#7s. I had one in my shopping cart for a long time at whatever place that
was, but never bought it. I have a "Stanley Tools Sheffield England"
fold-out sheet right in front of me, from a new #9 1/2 that was too cheap
to pass up ($10), and it only lists bench planes from the #3 up through
#7C. So you're probably right, and I'm probably dreaming.

#8s are damn hard to find used too.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Sd

Silvan

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 12:31 AM

Mike H. wrote:

> But the Stanley planes *look* descent enough, and are about half the price
> of a Veritas. And I have seen photos of Stanleys in professional wood

> So what's the difference? Please help.

I'd buy one of each of the Veritas if I had the cashola. They look
excellent, and everybody talks good talk about them.

What I actually have is an odd hodgepodge. Where the old and new, black and
blue lines cross is at the #4 level. I have two #4s, one new, and one
around 90 years old.

I put a lot of work into tuning up the new #4, and I did fine work with it.
After I got the old one, I put a wicked ugly curved blade in the new #4 and
turned it into a scrub.

It really is amazing. The one is new, clean, in perfect working order, and
it even has a groovy easy-adjust frog. The old one is pitted, covered with
hard brown rust wherever it doesn't have to rub on anything, and just
generally looks pretty nasty sitting side by side with its newer cousin.
When both of them were tuned to be smoothers, I kept picking up the old one
time and again. I swear it takes better shavings even though it has the
original (or an original vintage) iron with some light pitting on the back.
I tweaked the new one into making some damn whispy shavings, and I thought
I had a great plane, but then I gave that junky looking nonagenerian a
push, and I figured out why everybody says the new English Stanley stuff
sucks.

It's about as much work to tweak up an old rust bucket as a new English
one. Unless you happen to find a plane owned by somebody who was up to the
same anal retentive standards we modern dorkers are, it's probably going to
need a bit of twiddling to deliver peak performance. I have no experience
with the Veritas planes, but I believe that they're probably a better way
to go if you A) don't really care about owning tools from a bygone era, B)
want to buy something that you can get to work with in short order.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Sd

Silvan

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

31/12/2004 1:25 AM

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> "AAvK" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>> Personaly, I despise plastic.

> I've made a good living from it for the past 35 years. It has improved
> your life even if you won't admit it.

Hell no it hasn't. It just about bankrupted me. :)

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Sd

Silvan

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

31/12/2004 1:54 AM

Nate Perkins wrote:

>> But I will not have a joiner or a planer, so I was going to use hand
>> planes to smooth all of my rough sawn wood. That's why the #4 was
>> first on the list.
>
> Flattening and thicknessing rough sawn wood with hand planes isn't an easy
> undertaking. If you are serious about doing it by hand (the neander
> route) then you'll probably want a scrub plane, a jointer plane, a jack
> plane, and a smooth plane.

Having come up through this myself, due to space as the overriding
consideration, with money a close second, I can say that you *can* do it
all with a #4 if your projects are smallish. You spend forever
re-adjusting it. A #4 and a #5 is better. Two of each, better still. The
advantage is in having more planes so you can leave them set up different
ways. Or perhaps an easy-to-adjust Veritas might make up for some of this.
Changing the mouth on a Bailey type is tedious, and it's better to set it
and leave it alone.

I don't have a jointer yet, but I do have a Sargent #6 that I hope to get in
service soon (as soon as I drill a tote hole correctly :). I also caved
and bought a benchtop mechanical jointer because I really suck at getting
an edge *exactly* perpendicular to a face, no matter how many gadgets I
employ to help me in the process. (Shop built jointer fence followed by a
real LV jointer fence.) It's useful for getting stock consistently flat
too. This one leaves a horrible burnished and washboarded finish on the
wood, but I haven't bothered to tune it up. It saves me from the parts I
can't do very well, and then I can go back in with hand planes and make the
wood look puuuurty without screwing up the flatness and perpendicularity
too much in the process.

Not the real Neander way, and a lame excuse for Normism too, but it gets me
there. Only the results matter, right? :)

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Sd

Silvan

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

31/12/2004 12:14 PM

Paul Kierstead wrote:

> I struggled with this as well (<http://tinyurl.com/675gf>). I ended up
> using Jeff Gorman's suggestion

No time to look at the moment, but I'm sure I tried that too. :)

> are going to do this much, a scrub plane is really really really handy.

I have one, just as you described more or less. It's the new #4 with a
broken old lever cap that has no spring, the mouth is wide open, and it has
a vicious ugly ) blade in it. It does nasty things to wood, and does it
fast. But it doesn't get anything flat.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Sd

Silvan

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

02/01/2005 3:13 AM

Nate Perkins wrote:

> Wow. I am a middle aged guy in pretty good shape, and when I tried to
> do it all with an old #4 it was a heavy duty workout. Just taking a 4/4
> roughsawn board down to 3/4" is a lot of wood removal. Even face

I was doing skip planed S2S FWIW. Only the edges were rough. The faces
were too ugly to use without attention, but most of the hogging work had
been done already.

> jointing a board with a lot of bow or twist in it is fair work. I did
> it that way for a while, and it sure made me appreciate a power jointer
> and planer.

I finally bought a power jointer. Little bitty one. All I could afford
money or room for, but I do appreciate it.

> It also made me appreciate the skill of the guys who can neander it
> really perfectly flat and square with nothing but a plane and a couple
> of winding sticks :-)

Yeah buddy! They didn't even get a 2000-grit mirror polish on their blades,
or lap their plane soles on a piece of granite.

But you know, the side of that coin that people don't talk about much is
that woodworking used to be too expensive for most people to enjoy. We
romanticize about the days of yore, but how many colonists were out in
their shops on weekends making furniture and whatnot? They were too busy
worrying about food. Everybody used to have some skill, but most of it was
strictly utilitarian. Furniture was a luxury most people couldn't afford,
even while they were surrounded by walnut trees 5' in diameter. Or hell,
CHESTNUT trees.

>> Not the real Neander way, and a lame excuse for Normism too, but it
>> gets me there. Only the results matter, right? :)
>
> You bet! Only thing that matters more than the results is the enjoyment
> :-)

Well said.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Sd

Silvan

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

02/01/2005 3:15 AM

Dave in Fairfax wrote:

> It sounds as though you are missing some planes from your
> collection. But then, who isn't. %-)

The ol' Blood and Gore himself, I suspect.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

LJ

Larry Jaques

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 10:21 AM

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 07:14:47 GMT, Steve Knight
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:

>
>>Another possibility for you is to buy one of Steve Knight's
>>smoothers. It's a wood plane with a thickarse blade. They cost
>>less than Veritas, too (by a whopping $4 and s/h.) Look for them
>>on Ebay or at his website at www.Knight-Toolworks.com . I own a
>>whole bevy of his planes and like them, using the smoother a lot.
>
>my advertising money well spent (G)

Hehehe. I got those planes fair and square for weeks of work on
a previous design incarnation of your website. Speaking of which,
the site is 2 years old now (date-stamped 2002.) It's time for a
new design, Steve. (I should talk, my site hasn't been updated in
that time, either. <blush> )


> hey I have been playing around with some/new planes for my first of the year
>planes
>www.knight-toolworks.com/web_temp_pics/newyearplanes.jpg

Ah, I can tell those are counterfit. They're already marked 2005 and
it's only 2004 now! ;)


>a couple of pocket planes one in ebony and one in zircote and some 7.5" long
>finish planes in bubinga and rosewood. these have short blades so you hand fits
>over the top and the finger grooves. I missed my low rider planes.
> also making some 2.5" and 3" bladded jointers.

Ooh, jointer planes? <scritch, scritch, scritch> Let's talk!
I still don't own a Normite jointer and I never really got
fully comfortable with that bigass oaken bastihd of your earliest
design.

-----------------------------------------------
I'll apologize for offending someone...right
after they apologize for being easily offended.
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.diversify.com Inoffensive Web Design

DB

Duane Bozarth

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 8:51 AM

Ba r r y wrote:
...
> FWIW, once you use a good shoulder plane, you'll be amazed at how much
> time can be saved cutting tenons a scootch oversize and custom
> trimming them during the dry fit. A swipe or two, and a perfect fit
> is yours!
...

You have any particular recommendations? I've been watching for a while
but haven't leapt as I'm not sure what is/isn't value and/or desirable
models...

I do mostly medium to larger size work...right now the driving forcie is
finishing the rebuilding of the barnd doors...they are full-size 2x6
first growth southern yellow pine w/ hand work beveled edges around a
tongue and groove base w/ an "x" on the upper half. The originals were
simply nailed together and they've lasted about 80 years so far, but a
couple have sufficient water damage that several pieces are beyond
repair for restoration...they look good from the outside still, but when
taken apart the interior is all punky and there's so much volume it's
just not practical to reconstitute them, unfortunately. I'll keep the
originals for the "museum" of collectibles I've discovered during the
restoration process...

Anyway, when re-building I'm using loose tenons in the main corners to
hold them and putting solid tenons on the replacement parts...these are
4" W x 5/8" T and 2-1/2" deep. Something to help tune these up is first
priority...I got one new one done and it was fairly slow slogging by the
chisel route to clean them up...

After that, more modest sized work would be the norm...

If I had a place to post them, I'd put a couple pictures of the old barn
and progress up (if, of course, anybody cares... :) )

Di

Dave in Fairfax

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

31/12/2004 2:24 PM

"Mike H." wrote:
> I was gonna get a #4, then I was gonna get a standard block plane. That was
> my original plan. But based on the amount of reading I've been doing, the
> low-angle/shoulder planes makes sense to buy first. But I will not have a
> joiner or a planer, so I was going to use hand planes to smooth all of my
> rough sawn wood. That's why the #4 was first on the list.

If you're starting with roughsawn wood, you need to flattten it,
and square your edges. That means longer planes, not shorter ones
and a shooting board or very large and flat bench. A #4 is boing
to be one of the last planes that you use in the process, it
finishes up wha the others have gotten "just about right". DAGS
on shooting board for more info. A #6 or 7 is very useful on
flattening as well as in squaring up the wood, then you'll need to
go backwards yo a #5 and then a #4 or #3. Hopefully you won't
need a scrub plane, but in a pinch a #4 with a highly radiused
blade will work to flatten the board before you use the longer of
the planes. You really need to check out
http://www.supertool.com as well as http://www.amgron.clara.net
for info on what planes are used for what and how to care and use
them. The reason that many people have suggested using the older
Stanleys is that you can't do everything you need to do with just
one or two planes, not realistically anyway, and that the cost
start mounting pretty quickly if you are buying new planes. The
old planes are likely to have been used by someone who knew how to
use them, so little to no fettling may be required.

All of this assumes that you can sharpen a plade to a high degree
of sherpeness, pretty darn isn't sharp enough by half.
Look in the antiques stores and tag sales in your area for old
planes. Depending on where you are this can range from a
no-brainer to very difficult.

I hope this helps,
Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.Patinatools.org/

Di

Dave in Fairfax

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

01/01/2005 3:08 PM

Nate Perkins wrote:
> Wow. I am a middle aged guy in pretty good shape, and when I tried to
> do it all with an old #4 it was a heavy duty workout. Just taking a 4/4
> roughsawn board down to 3/4" is a lot of wood removal. Even face
> jointing a board with a lot of bow or twist in it is fair work. I did
> it that way for a while, and it sure made me appreciate a power jointer
> and planer.
> That's great. The only time I joint by hand anymore is when I've got a
> nice-grained board that's wider than my power jointer.
> You bet! Only thing that matters more than the results is the enjoyment :-)

Sorry you had such a hard time of it Nate. Just FYI, a #4 is a
smoother, that's why it was so hard for you to remove the 1/4" of
wood with it. A #6 or so would have been a better place to start
and then, when you had it down to nearly the right thickness and
flatness, switch down to a #5 and then a #4. Least that's the way
I do it. As for jointing, it's simple. Clamp the two boards on
top of each other on your shooting board and run a #6 or #7 on its
side along the sandwiched sdes of the boards until the shaving is
full length, doesn't take more than a couple minutes unless the
baords are amazingly shaped. The sides will match up and be ready
to glue.

It sounds as though you are missing some planes from your
collection. But then, who isn't. %-)

Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.Patinatools.org/

Di

Dave in Fairfax

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

02/01/2005 11:03 PM

Nate Perkins wrote:
> Right, I know how to do it (and have done it with most of the planes you
> suggest). The fellow I was replying to was considering doing it all
> with a #4. Having tried it once, I was trying to caution him that
> (while possible) it is a lot of work.
> Planes that help me mill lumber wouldn't be of much use to me, since I
> do most all lumber milling by machine. I admire the skill and
> persistence of the neanders, YMMV.
> The planes I would find handy are:
> - a Veritas medium shoulder plane (upgrade for my Record 077)
> - a Lie-Nielsen low angle block (upgrade for my Stanley 60-1/2)
> - a Veritas scraping plane (upgrade for my Stanley 80)

Opps, my bad. I misunderstood. I like your list of wnated planes
BTW, I was thinking #112 though. I'm not sure though, It'd save
my thumbs, but it seems to me that there was a thread a while back
about how hard it was to get a #112 style plane to work properly.

Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.Patinatools.org/

Gg

"George"

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

29/12/2004 6:14 PM


"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mike H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > But the Stanley planes *look* descent enough, and are about half the
price
> > of a Veritas.
>
> I own three planes, all bought new. Stanley, Knight, Veritas. I will
never
> buy a new Stanley plane. It is OK now, but took me a few hours to get it
> right.
>
>

Two major points which recommend the Veritas smoother are room for the hand
at the handle, and ease of throat adjustment. They will always be there on
the Veritas, as will the lateral limit adjustments. They will never be
there on the Stanley.


Gg

"George"

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

31/12/2004 4:29 PM


"Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
If you
> are going to do this much, a scrub plane is really really really handy.
> You might be able to get one cheap used, or get ECE woody, or get a
> really crappy #4/5 (used or Home Depot junk) and put a *heavy* camber on
> the blade and open up the throat a mile. This will make the heavy chores
> surprisingly fast and easy. You really want to do this, honest. Use that
> crappy grinder of yours. It's a scrub plane, it doesn't have to be
> perfect (hell, mine currently has a pretty good nick out of the blade...)
>
>
It's also a plane for rough work, and the standard blade is a skosh thin for
the type of work to be performed. Thicker would be nice, so you could get
rid of a bunch of chatter telegraphing to your elbow.

EP

"Edwin Pawlowski"

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

31/12/2004 1:05 PM


"Patriarch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Thank you for the effort. I'd still rather have rosewood or cherry plane
> totes. Soft drink bottles and dialysis machines, that's another matter.
>
> Patriarch

Exactly. No one material can do everything all the time. I'm also a fan of
using metal where is should be used, but can you imagine your printer made
from cast iron housings?
Ed

Pg

Patriarch

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 5:14 PM

Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in news:41D4160E.70777853
@swko.dot.net:

> Ba r r y wrote:
> ...
>> FWIW, once you use a good shoulder plane, you'll be amazed at how much
>> time can be saved cutting tenons a scootch oversize and custom
>> trimming them during the dry fit. A swipe or two, and a perfect fit
>> is yours!
> ...
>
> You have any particular recommendations? I've been watching for a while
> but haven't leapt as I'm not sure what is/isn't value and/or desirable
> models...

Either of the Veritas shoulder planes is a great place to start. I have
the medium, because of the scale of the work I do. I've briefly tested the
large, but I don't (yet) need one that big.

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?page=48430&category=1,41182,48945
&ccurrency=2&SID=

Patriarch

PK

Paul Kierstead

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

31/12/2004 10:10 AM

Silvan wrote:

> I also caved
> and bought a benchtop mechanical jointer because I really suck at getting
> an edge *exactly* perpendicular to a face, no matter how many gadgets I
> employ to help me in the process. (Shop built jointer fence followed by a
> real LV jointer fence.) It's useful for getting stock consistently flat
> too.

I struggled with this as well (<http://tinyurl.com/675gf>). I ended up
using Jeff Gorman's suggestion
(<http://www.amgron.clara.net/planingpoints/edgeplaning/squareedgeindex.htm>)
. It works very well if you should want to give it a try.

Although certainly not an "old" hand at it now, I have flattened quite a
lot of very rough stock by hand, typically 10" wide stuff. Sometimes I
thickness small pieces by hand just for the pleasure of it too. If you
are going to do this much, a scrub plane is really really really handy.
You might be able to get one cheap used, or get ECE woody, or get a
really crappy #4/5 (used or Home Depot junk) and put a *heavy* camber on
the blade and open up the throat a mile. This will make the heavy chores
surprisingly fast and easy. You really want to do this, honest. Use that
crappy grinder of yours. It's a scrub plane, it doesn't have to be
perfect (hell, mine currently has a pretty good nick out of the blade...)

PK

Aa

"AAvK"

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

29/12/2004 3:13 PM


> A vintage stanley for $10????? When is the last time you shopped on
> ebay? Nothing has been going for less than $50 for months, as I've
> watched it. I must be missing something.
> Bob
>
>
Yep, $10 - $12 4's and 5's fly by aaaaaaallllllllllll day long. My #5 was $9.99 and it
is a beaut! My old type 19 #4 was $7.99, needs a bit of tuning on the sole and sides.

Alex

Tt

"Tyke"

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

29/12/2004 9:37 PM

If you want to see reviews, start looking in this UK forum.

http://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/

If you dig around you will find a section which has reviews of planes. I
cannot find the link to this section.

One of the reviewers owns L-N as well as Veritas. I am not sure about
Stanley.

The typical response about a new Stanley vs a Veritas appears to be :
a) The Veritas are flat and true out of the box. A Stanley needs to be
flattened - if you desire your plane soles to be flat. Some folks do not
care. I bought a new Record #5 about 2 years ago and had to spend the time
to get its sole flat.
b) Quality of the blade. A Stanley has a normal steel blade, which will
hone to a great edge, but will not keep the edge for long. The Veritas
blade is a harder alloy which will keep its edge much longer.

I have a hand-me-down Stanley 9-1/2 and bought an old Stanley #3 from a
friend. Both of these were not flat. The #3 was used by a carpenter for
all his life and so even had significant wear scratches on the sole.

I have spent a lot of time tuning these tools. The 9-1/2 is now flat and
has a recently sharpened, but original blade. I have considered getting a
upgraded blade, but the ones I have seen have a 5/8 slot, whereas my plane
being US built has 7/16 slot. The 9-1/2 is now working acceptable well for
the light duty it is used for.

The #3 is another story. I do not have the sole as flat as desired perhaps
due to the amount of wear over the years. I will have to spend another hour
or two to get this to my desire.

The blade has been sharpened, but even after all my work, the Record cuts
much better than the #3, and most people claim the Record blades are not
very good.

Neither the Record or the #3 work as well as a recent Veritas purchase of
the Low Angle Block Plane. Even without any honing the Veritas cut with
ease.

The workmanship on the Veritas is very good. I prefer the ductile iron body
over cast iron, just in case this is ever nudged off the bench onto my
concrete floor.

Some people feel the Stanleys of 1950's or before are superior to present
day. This may be the case, but I expect a Veritas to hold its own compared
to any equivalent Stanley.

Dave Paine.



"Mike H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm wanting to purchase my first real hand plane (smooth plane), but I
don't
> have the $ for a Lie-Neilson (the Cadillac?). Therefore, I was going to
get
> a Veritas. After reading reviews and shopping online (and according to
the
> 2005 Tool Guide from Taunton), the Veritas planes appear to be the best
> value for the money.
>
> But the Stanley planes *look* descent enough, and are about half the price
> of a Veritas. And I have seen photos of Stanleys in professional wood
> workers' "favorite hand tool" selections. So I was wondering if anyone
out
> there might have first hand experience in providing a side-by-side
> comparison of the Stanley vs. Veritas hand planes (in particular smooth
> planes). Amazon had a nasty review for the #4 Stanley, but the fellow
> didn't say why it was such a horrible hand plane.
>
> So what's the difference? Please help.
> TIA.
>
> -Mike
>
>

Gg

GregP

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 12:37 AM

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:04:15 GMT, Patriarch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Now, if you want drop dead gorgeous, all your friends will drool, then
>order youself up one of these babies:
>http://www.knight-toolworks.com/wooden.htm
>And they work exceedingly well, too. But maybe not for your first one.


Steve has been selling them on eBay recently at a good-
sized discount.

MM

"Mike Marlow"

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 6:33 PM


"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> It really is amazing. The one is new, clean, in perfect working order,
and
> it even has a groovy easy-adjust frog. The old one is pitted, covered
with
> hard brown rust wherever it doesn't have to rub on anything, and just
> generally looks pretty nasty sitting side by side with its newer cousin.
> When both of them were tuned to be smoothers, I kept picking up the old
one
> time and again. I swear it takes better shavings even though it has the
> original (or an original vintage) iron with some light pitting on the
back.
> I tweaked the new one into making some damn whispy shavings, and I thought
> I had a great plane, but then I gave that junky looking nonagenerian a
> push, and I figured out why everybody says the new English Stanley stuff
> sucks.
>

Isn't it something the way these things work on us. There's absolutely
nothing quantifiable in what you posted Mike. It's all subjective. But...
it's the way things go. I have a Remington 870 that I use just for deer
hunting. As hunting goes, I much prefer bow hunting than gun hunting, but
when shotgun and rifle season comes around I find myself anxious for it, and
loving it when I head out into the woods with that 870. I just love the
feel of that gun in my hands. Nothing quantifiable about it. The 870
stands on its own as a first rate firearm, but I'm talking about a love
affair that goes way beyond the merits of a shotgun. Where I hunt one could
make a good case for having a 30-06 in the gun cabinet, but I just use that
870. It's all about the way it feels in my hands. Well, that and the
number of deer that have met their fate in front of that gun. My other guns
are all nothing more than utilitarian devices to me. I could sell any one
of them and never really miss them. There is indeed a certain irrational
aspect to this stuff.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]


EP

"Edwin Pawlowski"

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

31/12/2004 4:11 AM


"AAvK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
> Personaly, I despise plastic.
>
> (a rediculous interjection, I know)
>
> Alex

I've made a good living from it for the past 35 years. It has improved your
life even if you won't admit it.

Pg

Patriarch

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

29/12/2004 7:04 PM

"Mike H." <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> So what's the difference? Please help.

The difference is that the Stanleys in most woodworkers' shops were made in
an era when Stanley cared about handplanes more than garage door openers.

The designs are strong, and have been around since your great grandfather
was a boy, or longer. They are, in fact, the same designs from which the
Lie Nielsen and to some extent, the Veritas, planes are derived.

Here's the difference: The Veritas from Lee Valley works, right out of the
box, requiring only that you clean off the preseratives and give the blade
a light honing. A Stanley, or Record, or Anant, or Groz/Rockler, is going
to require that you spend more time with it. Within the last 6 months or
so, David Charlesworth did an excellent article, I think in Fine
Woodworking, on tuning up a modern plane. With those efforts, he, and
pretty much everyone else, gets the modern plane up to acceptable levels.

If you don't want to fiddle (fettle), then buy the Veritas, and go to work.
I particularly like the LV Low Angle smoother (watch the wrap)
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?page=45864&category=1,41182,48944
&ccurrency=2&SID=
The bevel up configuration has some real advantages.


Now, if you want drop dead gorgeous, all your friends will drool, then
order youself up one of these babies:
http://www.knight-toolworks.com/wooden.htm
And they work exceedingly well, too. But maybe not for your first one.

Welcome to the quiet side!

Patriarch

Aa

"AAvK"

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 8:30 AM


> my advertising money well spent (G)
> hey I have been playing around with some/new planes for my first of the year
> planes
> www.knight-toolworks.com/web_temp_pics/newyearplanes.jpg
> a couple of pocket planes one in ebony and one in zircote and some 7.5" long
> finish planes in bubinga and rosewood. these have short blades so you hand fits
> over the top and the finger grooves. I missed my low rider planes.
> also making some 2.5" and 3" bladded jointers.
>
>
Steve, considering developing new planes I have le challenge for you... why not
12º (literally) low angle blocks, smoothers and jacks, adjustable mouths? I think
that would fill a good niche of competition for you. Another would be skew angle
shoulder type planes used for cross grain tennon work. I'll be doing that and had
to buy some old used ones on eBay.

Alex

AB

"Alan Bierbaum"

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

29/12/2004 2:13 PM

Comments interspersed below:
I use old planes and new planes; my "go to" plane is the Veritas low angle
smoother ( I have, and use, the HA blade also).

--
Alan Bierbaum

Web Site: http://www.calanb.com
Current project: http://home.comcast.net/~cabierbaum/

"Big Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Buy a vintage stanley plane on ebay. If you're just looking for a
> basic model you could probably get a Stanley #4 or #5 for less than
> $10.

For $10 on Ebay you will get (normally) junk that takes hours of work to
make right.

You might have to buy a new blade though. That's another $20-30.
> Get one from Ron Hock.

You will probably need a new blade and Hock blades are good.

The old planes are far superior to anything
> Stanley or Veritas make today.

Old Stanley are generally better than new Stanley; however, many of us do
not believe that they are better than Veritas.

>
> Or better yet buy a wooden plane from Knight Toolworks
> (knight-toolworks.com) or Gordon (hntgordon.com).
>
> Or even better still, make your own wooden plane. I have several home
> made planes that work beautifully.
>
>
> Mike H. wrote:
>> I'm wanting to purchase my first real hand plane (smooth plane), but
> I don't
>> have the $ for a Lie-Neilson (the Cadillac?). Therefore, I was going
> to get
>> a Veritas. After reading reviews and shopping online (and according
> to the
>> 2005 Tool Guide from Taunton), the Veritas planes appear to be the
> best
>> value for the money.
>>
>> But the Stanley planes *look* descent enough, and are about half the
> price
>> of a Veritas. And I have seen photos of Stanleys in professional
> wood
>> workers' "favorite hand tool" selections. So I was wondering if
> anyone out
>> there might have first hand experience in providing a side-by-side
>> comparison of the Stanley vs. Veritas hand planes (in particular
> smooth
>> planes). Amazon had a nasty review for the #4 Stanley, but the
> fellow
>> didn't say why it was such a horrible hand plane.
>>
>> So what's the difference? Please help.
>> TIA.
>>
>> -Mike
>

NP

Nate Perkins

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

29/12/2004 10:22 PM

"Mike H." <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I'm wanting to purchase my first real hand plane (smooth plane), but I
> don't have the $ for a Lie-Neilson (the Cadillac?). Therefore, I was
> going to get a Veritas. After reading reviews and shopping online
> (and according to the 2005 Tool Guide from Taunton), the Veritas
> planes appear to be the best value for the money.
...
>
> So what's the difference? Please help.
> TIA.

Pretty much all of the Veritas planes are really well made. You won't be
sorry with one.

Modern Stanley planes are really not very good. The castings are inferior,
the tolerances in the blade and adjustments are far worse than previous
Stanleys. They can be tuned to work, sure, but then again so can the Anant
planes.

If you go with a Stanley, get a vintage one off of Ebay. Some of the old
ones are very good. I have a Sweetheart Stanley #3 (ca 1920?) with a Hock
blade that is my favorite.

What plane are you thinking of getting? IMHO the most useful is a low
angle block plane, followed by a shoulder plane, a scraper plane, and a #3/
#4 smoother and a #5 jack.

Hope that helps.

NP

Nate Perkins

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

31/12/2004 6:00 AM

"Mike H." <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
>> What plane are you thinking of getting? IMHO the most useful is a
>> low angle block plane, followed by a shoulder plane, a scraper plane,
>> and a
> #3/
>> #4 smoother and a #5 jack.
>
> I was gonna get a #4, then I was gonna get a standard block plane.
> That was my original plan. But based on the amount of reading I've
> been doing, the low-angle/shoulder planes makes sense to buy first.
> But I will not have a joiner or a planer, so I was going to use hand
> planes to smooth all of my rough sawn wood. That's why the #4 was
> first on the list.

Flattening and thicknessing rough sawn wood with hand planes isn't an easy
undertaking. If you are serious about doing it by hand (the neander route)
then you'll probably want a scrub plane, a jointer plane, a jack plane, and
a smooth plane.

Good luck

CH

Chris Hartman

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 11:41 PM

Silvan <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> #8s are damn hard to find used too.

Drive by: I got my #8 on ebay in November for $42. Complete, and in good
condition, although I haven't tuned it yet. 'course, shipping was another
$17, but hey, others in this thread are reporting those prices for 4s and
5s! So, shop around.
--
Prof. Chris Hartman | "To use bad English is regrettable,
University of Alaska Fairbanks | to use bad Scotch is unforgivable."
Arctic Region Supercmptng Ctr. | http://www.cs.uaf.edu/~hartman

NP

Nate Perkins

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

01/01/2005 4:58 AM

Silvan <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>> Nate Perkins wrote:

>> Flattening and thicknessing rough sawn wood with hand planes isn't an
>> easy undertaking. If you are serious about doing it by hand (the
>> neander route) then you'll probably want a scrub plane, a jointer
>> plane, a jack plane, and a smooth plane.
>
> Having come up through this myself, due to space as the overriding
> consideration, with money a close second, I can say that you *can* do
> it all with a #4 if your projects are smallish. You spend forever
> re-adjusting it. A #4 and a #5 is better. Two of each, better still.
> The advantage is in having more planes so you can leave them set up
> different ways. Or perhaps an easy-to-adjust Veritas might make up
> for some of this. Changing the mouth on a Bailey type is tedious, and
> it's better to set it and leave it alone.

Wow. I am a middle aged guy in pretty good shape, and when I tried to
do it all with an old #4 it was a heavy duty workout. Just taking a 4/4
roughsawn board down to 3/4" is a lot of wood removal. Even face
jointing a board with a lot of bow or twist in it is fair work. I did
it that way for a while, and it sure made me appreciate a power jointer
and planer.

It also made me appreciate the skill of the guys who can neander it
really perfectly flat and square with nothing but a plane and a couple
of winding sticks :-)

> I don't have a jointer yet, but I do have a Sargent #6 that I hope to
> get in service soon (as soon as I drill a tote hole correctly :). I
> also caved and bought a benchtop mechanical jointer because I really
> suck at getting an edge *exactly* perpendicular to a face, no matter
> how many gadgets I employ to help me in the process. (Shop built
> jointer fence followed by a real LV jointer fence.) It's useful for
> getting stock consistently flat too. This one leaves a horrible
> burnished and washboarded finish on the wood, but I haven't bothered
> to tune it up. It saves me from the parts I can't do very well, and
> then I can go back in with hand planes and make the wood look puuuurty
> without screwing up the flatness and perpendicularity too much in the
> process.

That's great. The only time I joint by hand anymore is when I've got a
nice-grained board that's wider than my power jointer.

> Not the real Neander way, and a lame excuse for Normism too, but it
> gets me there. Only the results matter, right? :)

You bet! Only thing that matters more than the results is the enjoyment
:-)

NP

Nate Perkins

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

02/01/2005 5:35 AM

Dave in Fairfax <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Nate Perkins wrote:
>> Wow. I am a middle aged guy in pretty good shape, and when I tried
>> to do it all with an old #4 it was a heavy duty workout. Just taking
>> a 4/4 roughsawn board down to 3/4" is a lot of wood removal. Even
>> face jointing a board with a lot of bow or twist in it is fair work.
>> I did it that way for a while, and it sure made me appreciate a power
>> jointer and planer.
>> That's great. The only time I joint by hand anymore is when I've got
>> a nice-grained board that's wider than my power jointer.
>> You bet! Only thing that matters more than the results is the
>> enjoyment :-)
>
> Sorry you had such a hard time of it Nate. Just FYI, a #4 is a
> smoother, that's why it was so hard for you to remove the 1/4" of
> wood with it. A #6 or so would have been a better place to start
> and then, when you had it down to nearly the right thickness and
> flatness, switch down to a #5 and then a #4. Least that's the way
> I do it. As for jointing, it's simple. Clamp the two boards on
> top of each other on your shooting board and run a #6 or #7 on its
> side along the sandwiched sdes of the boards until the shaving is
> full length, doesn't take more than a couple minutes unless the
> baords are amazingly shaped. The sides will match up and be ready
> to glue.

Right, I know how to do it (and have done it with most of the planes you
suggest). The fellow I was replying to was considering doing it all
with a #4. Having tried it once, I was trying to caution him that
(while possible) it is a lot of work.

> It sounds as though you are missing some planes from your
> collection. But then, who isn't. %-)

Planes that help me mill lumber wouldn't be of much use to me, since I
do most all lumber milling by machine. I admire the skill and
persistence of the neanders, YMMV.

The planes I would find handy are:
- a Veritas medium shoulder plane (upgrade for my Record 077)
- a Lie-Nielsen low angle block (upgrade for my Stanley 60-1/2)
- a Veritas scraping plane (upgrade for my Stanley 80)

Pg

Patriarch

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

31/12/2004 6:07 AM

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "AAvK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>> Personaly, I despise plastic.
>>
>> (a rediculous interjection, I know)
>>
>> Alex
>
> I've made a good living from it for the past 35 years. It has improved
> your life even if you won't admit it.
>

Thank you for the effort. I'd still rather have rosewood or cherry plane
totes. Soft drink bottles and dialysis machines, that's another matter.

Patriarch

SK

Steve Knight

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 7:14 AM


>Another possibility for you is to buy one of Steve Knight's
>smoothers. It's a wood plane with a thickarse blade. They cost
>less than Veritas, too (by a whopping $4 and s/h.) Look for them
>on Ebay or at his website at www.Knight-Toolworks.com . I own a
>whole bevy of his planes and like them, using the smoother a lot.

my advertising money well spent (G)
hey I have been playing around with some/new planes for my first of the year
planes
www.knight-toolworks.com/web_temp_pics/newyearplanes.jpg
a couple of pocket planes one in ebony and one in zircote and some 7.5" long
finish planes in bubinga and rosewood. these have short blades so you hand fits
over the top and the finger grooves. I missed my low rider planes.
also making some 2.5" and 3" bladded jointers.

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

PK

Paul Kierstead

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 10:35 AM

Mike Marlow wrote:

> Plastic totes - yeah, one of mine has them. They're ugly. I don't like the
> looks of them. But then, I don't like synthetic gun stocks either. Do they
> work? You bet. Would a nice wood tote be better? Nope. Prettier? Hell
> yes. But the point is, there is nothing inherently wrong with a plastic
> tote.

I quite agree with you on all your points but this one. I own a few
Record planes and all the ones that get used a lot had the totes
replaced because *I* have found a plastic tote truly miserable when used
for heavily. Your hands get sweatier, they are uncomfortable and feel
awful. Wood is much much more pleasant to use if you are doing a fair
bit of planing. I would agree there isn't much difference if you are
just using them for a couple of quick swipes though.

PK

PK

Paul Kierstead

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

01/01/2005 11:38 AM

Silvan wrote:

> I have one, just as you described more or less. It's the new #4 with a
> broken old lever cap that has no spring, the mouth is wide open, and it has
> a vicious ugly ) blade in it. It does nasty things to wood, and does it
> fast. But it doesn't get anything flat.

Hmm...well, "flat" is a kinda funny word. You should be able to get a
board pretty flat with a scrub plane, where flat is defined as all the
planing ridges lie in the same plane. It will not be smooth, but will
be mostly flat. Make sense? The switch planes for real flat and smooth.

PK

SK

Steve Knight

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 7:03 PM



>Steve, considering developing new planes I have le challenge for you... why not
>12º (literally) low angle blocks, smoothers and jacks, adjustable mouths? I think
>that would fill a good niche of competition for you. Another would be skew angle
>shoulder type planes used for cross grain tennon work. I'll be doing that and had
>to buy some old used ones on eBay.
>
been there dunit (G) I have made a few low angle planes. but there really is not
much need. metal planes benefit from a low angle because they have blade
vibration problems that limit what woods they can handle. were a woodies does
not. Plus I found them very hard to adjust. I made them with a steel plate
epoxied to the plane iron bed.
I had made paired of skewed shoulder planes at 45. but it is a paid to need two
planes for a job like that and they are a pain to set.

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

MJ

"Mark Jerde"

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 3:17 PM

Duane Bozarth wrote:

> If I had a place to post them, I'd put a couple pictures of the old
> barn and progress up (if, of course, anybody cares... :) )

You can do it for free here and post the URLs. ;-)
http://tinypic.com/

-- Mark

Br

Ba r r y

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

29/12/2004 11:48 PM

On 29 Dec 2004 12:15:07 -0800, "Big Rob" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Buy a vintage stanley plane on ebay. If you're just looking for a
>basic model you could probably get a Stanley #4 or #5 for less than
>$10.

$10? <G>

The best I've ever done on eBay for a COMPLETE Stanley #4 or 5 is
about $40 + shipping. None of them were all that great when they
arrived, with pitting, filed mouths, cracks. etc...

After a Hock iron and shipping, I typically spent a total of $80 to
$100, and then faced HOURS of work to get a Stanley cranked up.

I wish I had your luck!

Barry

r

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 12:58 AM

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:13:50 -0600, "Mike H."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm wanting to purchase my first real hand plane (smooth plane), but I don't
>have the $ for a Lie-Neilson (the Cadillac?). Therefore, I was going to get
>a Veritas. After reading reviews and shopping online (and according to the
>2005 Tool Guide from Taunton), the Veritas planes appear to be the best
>value for the money.
>
>But the Stanley planes *look* descent enough, and are about half the price
>of a Veritas. And I have seen photos of Stanleys in professional wood
>workers' "favorite hand tool" selections. So I was wondering if anyone out
>there might have first hand experience in providing a side-by-side
>comparison of the Stanley vs. Veritas hand planes (in particular smooth
>planes). Amazon had a nasty review for the #4 Stanley, but the fellow
>didn't say why it was such a horrible hand plane.
>
>So what's the difference? Please help.
>TIA.
>
>-Mike
>
It's a lot easier to make a tool look good than it is to make it
perform well. The Stanleys look good -- if you don't look too closely.
They can even be made to perform well -- but it usually takes an awful
lot of work.

I have some Stanley planes as well as a Veritas. The best way to think
of the Stanleys is as a plane kit. The parts are all there but it
takes a lot of work to turn it into the real thing. By the time you
get done flattening the sole, fooling with the frog, etc., you'll have
a lot of time into the plane. By the time you get it right you will
have learned a tremendous amount about planes as well.

If this is your first plane, I would strongly suggest spending the
money for the Veritas. It may still take some tuning, but you'll be
making shavings a lot sooner and you'll be a lot happier.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

Aa

"AAvK"

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 4:26 PM


> That would be a good point. I haven't hit the point where the plastic
> bothers me, but I can see where it could be a problem.
> -Mike-
>
>
Personaly, I despise plastic.

(a rediculous interjection, I know)

Alex

LJ

Larry Jaques

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 10:11 AM

On 29 Dec 2004 14:10:29 -0800, "Bob" <[email protected]> calmly
ranted:

>A vintage stanley for $10????? When is the last time you shopped on
>ebay? Nothing has been going for less than $50 for months, as I've
>watched it. I must be missing something.

I picked up a #6-C for $15.49 in September, Bob.
A 1910 #78 went for $5.50 on 12/10, a #4 for $5.50 on 12/15,
a #5 for $7.99 on 12/25, several #110s for under $8 in December.
Tons of wood, iron, and transitional planes have been sold for
under $10, and I've paid under $30 for each of my half dozen
Stanleys (other than the pair of 45s) in the past decade.

You just haven't been "shopping" for them. Pay 'tenshun, boy. ;)

-----------------------------------------------
I'll apologize for offending someone...right
after they apologize for being easily offended.
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.diversify.com Inoffensive Web Design

Aa

"AAvK"

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 7:49 AM


> A year or two ago somebody was selling new #8s, I *think*. Maybe they were
> #7s. I had one in my shopping cart for a long time at whatever place that
> was, but never bought it. I have a "Stanley Tools Sheffield England"
> fold-out sheet right in front of me, from a new #9 1/2 that was too cheap
> to pass up ($10), and it only lists bench planes from the #3 up through
> #7C. So you're probably right, and I'm probably dreaming.
> #8s are damn hard to find used too.
>
>
I got some serious lucky at that local junk shop, a good condition type 10 #8
(early with no frog adjuster) for $50!

Alex

SK

Steve Knight

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

31/12/2004 5:11 PM



>Hehehe. I got those planes fair and square for weeks of work on
>a previous design incarnation of your website. Speaking of which,
>the site is 2 years old now (date-stamped 2002.) It's time for a
>new design, Steve. (I should talk, my site hasn't been updated in
>that time, either. <blush> )

I think the design is ok but it sure needs some updating.



>Ah, I can tell those are counterfit. They're already marked 2005 and
>it's only 2004 now! ;)

but they won't be finished till then so there (G)



>Ooh, jointer planes? <scritch, scritch, scritch> Let's talk!
>I still don't own a Normite jointer and I never really got
>fully comfortable with that bigass oaken bastihd of your earliest
>design.

these are really bigass. I have not finished one far enough to weight it yet but
they are going to be monsters.

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

Dd

DaveR

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

29/12/2004 8:16 PM

Mike:

You could also try the inexpensive wooden Planes - Taiwanese style from
Lee Valley.

They are very good and very inexpensive. They are much better than a new
cheaply made plane.

I have handled the new Lee Valley (Veritas) planes at their store - and
if you can afford them they are great value.


Mike H. wrote:
> I'm wanting to purchase my first real hand plane (smooth plane), but I don't
> have the $ for a Lie-Neilson (the Cadillac?). Therefore, I was going to get
> a Veritas. After reading reviews and shopping online (and according to the
> 2005 Tool Guide from Taunton), the Veritas planes appear to be the best
> value for the money.
>
> But the Stanley planes *look* descent enough, and are about half the price
> of a Veritas. And I have seen photos of Stanleys in professional wood
> workers' "favorite hand tool" selections. So I was wondering if anyone out
> there might have first hand experience in providing a side-by-side
> comparison of the Stanley vs. Veritas hand planes (in particular smooth
> planes). Amazon had a nasty review for the #4 Stanley, but the fellow
> didn't say why it was such a horrible hand plane.
>
> So what's the difference? Please help.
> TIA.
>
> -Mike
>
>

SK

Steve Knight

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 7:06 AM

On 29 Dec 2004 12:15:07 -0800, "Big Rob" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Buy a vintage stanley plane on ebay. If you're just looking for a
>basic model you could probably get a Stanley #4 or #5 for less than
>$10. You might have to buy a new blade though. That's another $20-30.
>Get one from Ron Hock. The old planes are far superior to anything
>Stanley or Veritas make today.
>
>Or better yet buy a wooden plane from Knight Toolworks
>(knight-toolworks.com) or Gordon (hntgordon.com).
>
>Or even better still, make your own wooden plane. I have several home
>made planes that work beautifully.

all good suggestions but for the first plane a old one may be a hard way to go
since the person has never used a plane and does not really understand how it
all works till he does. same with making one. I know I did both and it was a
pain in the rear (G) it's nice to start with a working plane so you know how a
plane should work.

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

Aa

"AAvK"

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

29/12/2004 11:11 AM


> I'm wanting to purchase my first real hand plane (smooth plane), but I don't
> have the $ for a Lie-Neilson (the Cadillac?). Therefore, I was going to get
> a Veritas. After reading reviews and shopping online (and according to the
> 2005 Tool Guide from Taunton), the Veritas planes appear to be the best
> value for the money.
>
> But the Stanley planes *look* descent enough, and are about half the price
> of a Veritas. And I have seen photos of Stanleys in professional wood
> workers' "favorite hand tool" selections. So I was wondering if anyone out
> there might have first hand experience in providing a side-by-side
> comparison of the Stanley vs. Veritas hand planes (in particular smooth
> planes). Amazon had a nasty review for the #4 Stanley, but the fellow
> didn't say why it was such a horrible hand plane.
>
> So what's the difference? Please help.
> TIA.
>
> -Mike
>
>
Veritas has superior carbon steel blades and wood knobs and totes, bodies
made of a ductile iron that will not crack, and they are ready to use out of
the box.
Stanley's blades are a very "basic" quality of thin carbon steel that will
need sharpening more often and wear down faster. They have plastic totes
and knobs, bodies made of basic iron that will* crack upon landing hard
enough. The Stanley body castings are not* machined prescision, so the
sole and sides must be tuned_to_square before it is accurate enough for
use, THIS is a LOT of hard work. Tuning being another lesson. A new
Stanley can be made to work beautifully after tuning, as well as any plane,
new wood totes and knobs and better blades can be added but it isn't
supremely cost effective considering the work of tuning. Even any new
blade must be tuned, and you must be set-up for that. Veritas are highly
praised for their quality of manufacture and usability, right out of the box.
I don't have one yet ;-( so, Mr Lee, I want a new L-A-B-P for this promo...?

Alex

MH

"Mike H."

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 11:23 PM


> What plane are you thinking of getting? IMHO the most useful is a low
> angle block plane, followed by a shoulder plane, a scraper plane, and a
#3/
> #4 smoother and a #5 jack.

I was gonna get a #4, then I was gonna get a standard block plane. That was
my original plan. But based on the amount of reading I've been doing, the
low-angle/shoulder planes makes sense to buy first. But I will not have a
joiner or a planer, so I was going to use hand planes to smooth all of my
rough sawn wood. That's why the #4 was first on the list.

Pg

Patriarch

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

31/12/2004 6:15 AM

"Mike H." <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
>> What plane are you thinking of getting? IMHO the most useful is a
>> low angle block plane, followed by a shoulder plane, a scraper plane,
>> and a
> #3/
>> #4 smoother and a #5 jack.
>
> I was gonna get a #4, then I was gonna get a standard block plane.
> That was my original plan. But based on the amount of reading I've
> been doing, the low-angle/shoulder planes makes sense to buy first.
> But I will not have a joiner or a planer, so I was going to use hand
> planes to smooth all of my rough sawn wood. That's why the #4 was
> first on the list.
>

OK, now that's a different question altogether.

The #4 is not particularly good at that. A #5 is better, and a #6
better still. And you WILL want and need a good block plane.

I have done without a power jointer so far, but it isn't as though I've
been saving money - I just don't have the space to give it. Yet. But
the planer cost about the same as two good handplanes, is a lot faster,
and does things for you that will take a good while to learn to do with
planes.

S3S lumber, a planer, a LV block plane, and a LV low angle smoother can
get you a long ways towards finishing your projects. And finishing is
what will make it easier to budget for more tools.

Br

Ba r r y

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 5:32 PM

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:51:58 -0600, Duane Bozarth
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Ba r r y wrote:
>...
>> FWIW, once you use a good shoulder plane, you'll be amazed at how much
>> time can be saved cutting tenons a scootch oversize and custom
>> trimming them during the dry fit. A swipe or two, and a perfect fit
>> is yours!
>...
>
>You have any particular recommendations? I've been watching for a while
>but haven't leapt as I'm not sure what is/isn't value and/or desirable
>models...

I have the medium, bullnose, and large Veritas versions, and I love
them. The medium would be an excellent first shoulder plane. I've
also used Clifton 410 and 420 shoulder planes, they're excellent, but
I do not think they are worth the price difference over Veritas. The
LN versions were everything one would expect them to be when I tried
them. However, they don't make a medium shoulder plane.

I think a good, medium shoulder plane is a great second plane, after a
low angle block, for a shop with power jointing and thicknessing
equipment.

Barry

LJ

Larry Jaques

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 10:38 AM

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 07:06:30 GMT, Steve Knight
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:

>On 29 Dec 2004 12:15:07 -0800, "Big Rob" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Buy a vintage stanley plane on ebay. If you're just looking for a
>>basic model you could probably get a Stanley #4 or #5 for less than
>>$10. You might have to buy a new blade though. That's another $20-30.
>>Get one from Ron Hock. The old planes are far superior to anything
>>Stanley or Veritas make today.
>>
>>Or better yet buy a wooden plane from Knight Toolworks
>>(knight-toolworks.com) or Gordon (hntgordon.com).
>>
>>Or even better still, make your own wooden plane. I have several home
>>made planes that work beautifully.
>
>all good suggestions but for the first plane a old one may be a hard way to go
>since the person has never used a plane and does not really understand how it
>all works till he does. same with making one. I know I did both and it was a
>pain in the rear (G) it's nice to start with a working plane so you know how a
>plane should work.

Agreed. First, buy a good, old, working plane. Then learn how to
tune it up and to properly sharpen it. Then build your own if you
must. (This last part said to them, not you, Steve. ;)

-----------------------------------------------
I'll apologize for offending someone...right
after they apologize for being easily offended.
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.diversify.com Inoffensive Web Design

Br

Ba r r y

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

29/12/2004 11:42 PM

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:13:50 -0600, "Mike H."
<[email protected]> wrote:


>But the Stanley planes *look* descent enough, and are about half the price
>of a Veritas. And I have seen photos of Stanleys in professional wood
>workers' "favorite hand tool" selections. So I was wondering if anyone out
>there might have first hand experience in providing a side-by-side
>comparison of the Stanley vs. Veritas hand planes (in particular smooth
>planes).

Sure. Some OLD Stanley's work very well. Most will need at least
some work. A Hock iron will hold an edge better than any original.
I've purchased a few Stanley's, tuned them, added good irons and chip
breakers, and ended up spending nearly what a Veritas planes costs.

Veritas planes come close to ready to go, except for a bit of
Cosmolene that needs to be cleaned off, and maybe a very quick touch
up of the edge. The bottoms are flat, the sides are square, the irons
have flat backs, etc...

Veritas planes also are designed with really nice adjusting
mechanisms, adjustable throat openings and a frog that supports the
high quality blade better than a typical Stanley. Lee Valley also has
satisfaction guarantee. I doubt they get many planes back.

>Amazon had a nasty review for the #4 Stanley, but the fellow
>didn't say why it was such a horrible hand plane.

Plastic knobs, sides that aren't square, a sole that isn't flat, and a
blade that won't hold an edge. What more could you want in a hand
plane? <G>

I don't use standard bench planes as much as some folks might, as I
use machines for grunt work. My Veritas low angle block and medium
shoulder planes are constantly in use. I have some pre-1950 Stanley
#5's and a #4 with Hock irons. I put a ton of time into them to get
them working well, but they still don't have the mechanism or
adjustable mouth of the Veritas versions.

FWIW, once you use a good shoulder plane, you'll be amazed at how much
time can be saved cutting tenons a scootch oversize and custom
trimming them during the dry fit. A swipe or two, and a perfect fit
is yours!

Trust me, a good plane is poetry in motion, a new Stanley is a
doorstop.

Barry

MM

"Mike Marlow"

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 10:11 AM


"AAvK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:pjDAd.60958$QR1.34067@fed1read04...
>
> Veritas has superior carbon steel blades and wood knobs and totes, bodies
> made of a ductile iron that will not crack, and they are ready to use out
of
> the box.
> Stanley's blades are a very "basic" quality of thin carbon steel that
will
> need sharpening more often and wear down faster. They have plastic totes
> and knobs, bodies made of basic iron that will* crack upon landing hard
> enough. The Stanley body castings are not* machined prescision, so the
> sole and sides must be tuned_to_square before it is accurate enough for
> use, THIS is a LOT of hard work. Tuning being another lesson. A new
> Stanley can be made to work beautifully after tuning, as well as any
plane,
> new wood totes and knobs and better blades can be added but it isn't
> supremely cost effective considering the work of tuning. Even any new
> blade must be tuned, and you must be set-up for that. Veritas are highly
> praised for their quality of manufacture and usability, right out of the
box.
> I don't have one yet ;-( so, Mr Lee, I want a new L-A-B-P for this
promo...?
>

Alex is correct in his observations and to a lot of people those factors all
mean a lot. They may not to you though, and not all of them are reflective
of the usefulness of the plane. I'm still using the iron that came in my
Stanley plane and I don't consider that I have to touch it up an excessive
amount. Be assured, I have to touch it up more than if I had a better iron
in it, but it's not like I have to stroke it after every 5th pass. You'll
get reasonable use out of the stock iron. You'll get better use out of
better irons, but that does not make the standard product a bad product.

I have no problems with the machining on my Stanley body. Sure, as Alex
says, it's not precise machining, but it's imprecise in directions and areas
that do not matter to the use I put the plane to. I don't care that the
sides are not square to the base within .001 inches. That does not affect
the plane's ability to smoothly remove ribbons of wood from a hunk of rough
cut, or to true up the edge of a board. Even the most ardent plane folks
have commented that too much emphasis is placed on some pretty irrelevant
pursuits when it comes to hand planes.

Plastic totes - yeah, one of mine has them. They're ugly. I don't like the
looks of them. But then, I don't like synthetic gun stocks either. Do they
work? You bet. Would a nice wood tote be better? Nope. Prettier? Hell
yes. But the point is, there is nothing inherently wrong with a plastic
tote. Nor should one necessarily shy away from a plane because if it gets
dropped hard enough, it will damage the frame. That can be said of any
tool, and the objective is not to drop your planes on the floor. Any tool
that meets a minimum standard of resiliency is all that should be expected
of tool. The rest is in the hands of the operator. Having said that, Alex
is again correct in stating that you can buy better - it's a question of
whether you need to.

Alex has a certain interest in particular aspects of his planes and that's
half of what owning tools is all about. I too have tools that I hold that
type of interest in and have purchased when something else would have worked
just fine. But, to be fair to the Stanley plane, it does work. It's
utilitarian, and it can benefit from some upgrades (mainly the iron), but it
can be made to work extremely well pretty much right out of the box. Put
the iron down on some sandpaper and do the Scarey Sharp thing, and you'll be
surprised what a tool it really is.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]


cC

[email protected] (Charlie Self)

in reply to "Mike Marlow" on 30/12/2004 10:11 AM

30/12/2004 7:11 PM

Mike Marlow responds:

>
>Plastic totes - yeah, one of mine has them. They're ugly. I don't like the
>looks of them. But then, I don't like synthetic gun stocks either. Do they
>work? You bet. Would a nice wood tote be better? Nope. Prettier? Hell
>yes. But the point is, there is nothing inherently wrong with a plastic
>tote.

Generally, I agree with your observations, until you reach the above. The
planes I've had with plastic knobs--rear totes were fine--all had raised seams,
and after a bit of use, I could always tell what was wrong with them. Or my
hand could.

Charlie Self
"A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to
the ground." H. L. Mencken

Sd

Silvan

in reply to "Mike Marlow" on 30/12/2004 10:11 AM

31/12/2004 1:27 AM

Charlie Self wrote:

> Generally, I agree with your observations, until you reach the above. The
> planes I've had with plastic knobs--rear totes were fine--all had raised
> seams, and after a bit of use, I could always tell what was wrong with
> them. Or my hand could.

Fortunately knobs are easy enough to turn that even a 10 year old can do
it. :)

(He did, too. I need to remember to yank off the knob I turned myself and
put the one he did on there. I had to clean it up a little to make it
suitably smooth for my poor widdle delicate fingers, but he nailed the
shape.)

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Sd

Silvan

in reply to "Mike Marlow" on 30/12/2004 10:11 AM

31/12/2004 11:25 PM

Jay Pique wrote:

> Oh boy, if you can keep him interested in turning at that age, I have
> no doubt he'll become exceptional. There's just something about
> learning at that age.

He's better at it than I am, truthfully. He has infinite reserves of
patience, and he's very furtive with his cuts. He takes his time, and
coaxes the shape out just oh so. While I tend to be less furtive, and more
aggressive.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Sd

Silvan

in reply to "Mike Marlow" on 30/12/2004 10:11 AM

02/01/2005 3:18 AM

AAvK wrote:

> "furtive" ... hhmmm ... just had to look that one up!

I had this more in mind:

WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]


furtive
adj 1: marked by quiet and caution and secrecy; taking pains to
avoid being observed;

Especially "quiet" and "caution."

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

MM

"Mike Marlow"

in reply to "Mike Marlow" on 30/12/2004 10:11 AM

30/12/2004 6:25 PM


"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Marlow responds:
>
> >
> >Plastic totes - yeah, one of mine has them. They're ugly. I don't like
the
> >looks of them. But then, I don't like synthetic gun stocks either. Do
they
> >work? You bet. Would a nice wood tote be better? Nope. Prettier?
Hell
> >yes. But the point is, there is nothing inherently wrong with a plastic
> >tote.
>
> Generally, I agree with your observations, until you reach the above. The
> planes I've had with plastic knobs--rear totes were fine--all had raised
seams,
> and after a bit of use, I could always tell what was wrong with them. Or
my
> hand could.
>

Oh man Charlie - that would bug me to no end. Any tool of mine that has a
molding seam like that gets an immediate treatment, whether it's a plastic
molding seam or a wood joint. I *hate* it when that starts to wear into
your hand after some use. Just one of my (many...) personal nuances...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]


Aa

"AAvK"

in reply to "Mike Marlow" on 30/12/2004 10:11 AM

02/01/2005 10:40 AM


> I had this more in mind:
> WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]
> furtive
> adj 1: marked by quiet and caution and secrecy; taking pains to
> avoid being observed;
> Especially "quiet" and "caution."
>
>

The adjective "furtive" has 2 senses in WordNet.

1. furtive, lurking, skulking, sneak(prenominal), sneaky, stealthy, surreptitious -- (marked by quiet and caution and secrecy;
taking pains to avoid being observed; "a furtive manner"; "a lurking prowler"; "a sneak attack"; "stealthy footsteps"; "a
surreptitious glance at his watch"; "someone skulking in the shadows")
2. backstair, backstairs, furtive -- (secret and sly or sordid; "backstairs gossip"; "his low backstairs cunning"- A.L.Guerard;
"backstairs intimacies"; "furtive behavior")

Yes considering all those options, we can make what we want out of it then, ay?
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/ Says:

1.. [adj] secret and sly or sordid; "backstairs gossip"; "his low backstairs cunning"- A.L.Guerard; "backstairs intimacies";
"furtive behavior"
2.. [adj] marked by quiet and caution and secrecy; taking pains to avoid being observed; "a furtive manner"; "a lurking prowler";
"a sneak attack"; "stealthy footsteps"; "a surreptitious glance at his watch"; "someone skulking in the shadows"
Definition: \Fur"tive\, a. [L. furtivus, fr. furtum theft, fr. fur
thief, akin to ferre to bear: cf. F. furtif. See {Fertile}.]
Stolen; obtained or characterized by stealth; sly; secret;
stealthy; as, a furtive look. --Prior.

A hasty and furtive ceremony. --Hallam.


Related Terms: artful, back-door, backstairs, calculating, chiseling, clandestine, collusive, conspiratorial, covert, covinous,
crafty, cunning, deceitful, doggo, false, falsehearted, feline, finagling, foxy, fraudulent, guileful, hidden, hidden out, hidlings,
hole-and-corner, hugger-mugger, in ambush, in hiding, in the wings, indirect, insidious, lurking, on tiptoe, private, privy,
prowling, pussyfoot, pussyfooted, quiet, scheming, secret, secretive, sharp, shifty, skulking, slinking, slinky, slippery, sly,
sneaking, sneaky, stealing, stealthy, surreptitious, treacherous, trickish, tricky, two-faced, under cover, under the table,
undercover, underground, underhand, underhanded, under-the-counter, under-the-table, unobtrusive, untrustworthy, waiting concealed,
wily


Alex

Aa

"AAvK"

in reply to "Mike Marlow" on 30/12/2004 10:11 AM

31/12/2004 9:16 PM


> He's better at it than I am, truthfully. He has infinite reserves of
> patience, and he's very furtive with his cuts. He takes his time, and
> coaxes the shape out just oh so. While I tend to be less furtive, and more
> aggressive.
>
>
"furtive" ... hhmmm ... just had to look that one up!

Main Entry: fur·tive
Pronunciation: 'f&r-tiv
Function: adjective
Etymology: French or Latin; French furtif, from Latin furtivus,
from furtum theft, from fur thief, from or akin to Greek phOr
thief; akin to Greek pherein to carry -- more at BEAR
1 a : done by stealth : SURREPTITIOUS b : expressive of stealth:
SLY <had a furtive look about him>
2 : obtained underhandedly : STOLEN
synonym see SECRET
- fur·tive·ly adverb
- fur·tive·ness noun
http://www.m-w.com/

Alex


begin 666 audio.gif
M1TE&.#EA$ `+`+,``,X`(?___P``````````````````````````````````
M`````````````````````"P`````$ `+```$(C#(&0"@F-HK>=Y>I8&6:'8D
3IT[I>K9=C)*R![L8J&4S.T4`.P``
`
end

JP

Jay Pique

in reply to "Mike Marlow" on 30/12/2004 10:11 AM

31/12/2004 6:54 PM

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:27:33 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Charlie Self wrote:
>
>> Generally, I agree with your observations, until you reach the above. The
>> planes I've had with plastic knobs--rear totes were fine--all had raised
>> seams, and after a bit of use, I could always tell what was wrong with
>> them. Or my hand could.
>
>Fortunately knobs are easy enough to turn that even a 10 year old can do
>it. :)

Oh boy, if you can keep him interested in turning at that age, I have
no doubt he'll become exceptional. There's just something about
learning at that age.

>(He did, too. I need to remember to yank off the knob I turned myself and
>put the one he did on there. I had to clean it up a little to make it
>suitably smooth for my poor widdle delicate fingers, but he nailed the
>shape.)

Excellent. Enjoy!

JP

Br

Ba r r y

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 12:04 AM

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:14:18 -0500, "George" <george@least> wrote:


>Two major points which recommend the Veritas smoother are room for the hand
>at the handle, and ease of throat adjustment. They will always be there on
>the Veritas, as will the lateral limit adjustments. They will never be
>there on the Stanley.


I forgot all about those nice set screws!

Barry

EP

"Edwin Pawlowski"

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

29/12/2004 10:29 PM


"Mike H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> But the Stanley planes *look* descent enough, and are about half the price
> of a Veritas.

I own three planes, all bought new. Stanley, Knight, Veritas. I will never
buy a new Stanley plane. It is OK now, but took me a few hours to get it
right.

Br

Ba r r y

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

31/12/2004 1:30 PM

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:05:05 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:


>Exactly. No one material can do everything all the time. I'm also a fan of
>using metal where is should be used, but can you imagine your printer made
>from cast iron housings?
>Ed

An MP3 player made of walnut would be cool...

Barry

Pg

Patriarch

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

31/12/2004 5:43 PM

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Patriarch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Thank you for the effort. I'd still rather have rosewood or cherry
>> plane totes. Soft drink bottles and dialysis machines, that's
>> another matter.
>>
>> Patriarch
>
> Exactly. No one material can do everything all the time. I'm also a
> fan of using metal where is should be used, but can you imagine your
> printer made from cast iron housings?
> Ed
>
>

In what seems like another lifetime, I used an even-then-antique
letterpress, made mostly of cast iron. IIRC, it was called a Kluge.
Working for a neanderprinter.

Life changes, doesn't it?

Patriarch

MM

"Mike Marlow"

in reply to "Mike H." on 29/12/2004 12:13 PM

30/12/2004 6:18 PM


"Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> > Plastic totes - yeah, one of mine has them. They're ugly. I don't like
the
> > looks of them. But then, I don't like synthetic gun stocks either. Do
they
> > work? You bet. Would a nice wood tote be better? Nope. Prettier?
Hell
> > yes. But the point is, there is nothing inherently wrong with a plastic
> > tote.
>
> I quite agree with you on all your points but this one. I own a few
> Record planes and all the ones that get used a lot had the totes
> replaced because *I* have found a plastic tote truly miserable when used
> for heavily. Your hands get sweatier, they are uncomfortable and feel
> awful. Wood is much much more pleasant to use if you are doing a fair
> bit of planing. I would agree there isn't much difference if you are
> just using them for a couple of quick swipes though.
>
>

That would be a good point. I haven't hit the point where the plastic
bothers me, but I can see where it could be a problem.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]



You’ve reached the end of replies