Other than ease of adjustments, appearance, and "cachet", why does an expensive plane work better?

In article <[email protected]>, George
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Memories!
>
> A coil of magnesium wire cleverly hidden in the candle snuffer made chapel
> more exciting....

I remember vividly my Grade 11 chem teacher spitting water into a tray
on the front bench. Nobody except him knew there was a piece of sodium
metal in the tray.

Ah, the good old days!

djb

--
There are no socks in my email address.

"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati"

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 01:58:43 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Trent,
>
>are you by any chance referring to the LOOONG thread last year about
>table saws where I was steered towards the PM, but I ended up with a
>Unisaw? :) The PM was nice, but NOT $600 more than the Uni. I love my
>Uni and I'm sure I would've liked the PM also. I got some reproachful
>remarks from the guys who KNEW which TS I SHOULD have bought.
>
>dave

No...I wasn't, Dave. But you see that a lot in this group...and
others, of course. I think its just human nature.

I've been posting in here for quite a few years...but I do it
sporadically. Woodworking, I believe, is one of those areas where you
can never know it all...no matter how knowledgeable and experienced
you are. So I jump back in here to learn...and lurk mostly.

A couple of good examples...RotoZip's...and Kreg pocket jointers. I'm
pretty sure I got those ideas from reading this group...so I tried
both of them. AFAIC, they're the current way of doing things that
were done a different way at the beginning. I no longer find a need
for a plane...and I no longer find a need for biscuits and clamps.
Not NEVER...but very, very seldom.

My opinion that I gave to you was as a hobbyiest...and in general, I
guess. I actually enjoy not buying top of the line...for most things.
Nor can I afford most top of the line items. There are MANY folks on
here that have MUCH more experience with planes...and with woodworking
in general.

But I HAVE been doing woodworking for over 50 years. There ain't a
whole lot that I haven't done...or can't do.

Excitedly enough, I've got a whole lot to learn though! lol


Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

> Of course, I also own some L-N planes, a few Veritas ones, and a
> bunch of old Stanleys. Guess what? They are all purchased with the
> idea of making my woodworking *more* *enjoyable*. And if I was doing
> this as a living, my tools would all be purchased with the idea of
> making it *more* *efficient*. And I wouldn't be purchasing shoddy
> planes in either case.

I have beed looking the prices for hand planes recently, and boy,
being a librarian must pay well :-)

irax.

Trolling again? That new bandsaw of yours cuts the same as the scorned
Delta if the blade's the same?

Real woodworkers know that repeatability, not one-time success is the
measure of a good tool. Good looks are nice, too.

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:c%[email protected]...
> If you polish up your plane's blade (iron, right?) at the correct angle,
> to 8,000 grit, why does an expensive plane garner such praise for it's
> cutting ability?

Good, sounds as if you're beginning to figure out that tools come in grades,
and what you require is based as much on your skill and patience as the
capability of the tool.

Now think ... with the same blade, did your new bandsaw cut better, or
worse than the Delta which has been the standard of the world for fifty
years, but which you seemed incapable of, and interminably obtuse about
tuning? Think planes might be the same?

Oh yes, the "best" tool isn't necessarily the prettiest, but I have a
feeling you knew that as well.

Think I hear something hitting the side of the boat....

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George, not trolling. I value the wisdom of SOME of the Wreckers and am
> not afraid to ask about things I know little about. Your statement (in
> the form of a rhetorical question) restates MY question that if the
> blade's the same, will a "better" plane cut better. I already
> appreciate the nicer fit/finish, adjust ability of a superior product,
> but I posted the question to find out if anyone could quantify what
> makes a "nicer" plane CUT better. Seems as though the answer is
> precisely the fact that it can be set and hold an adjustment precisely.
> Lack of chatter, etc. Kinda like when the BS blade is held properly by
> the guides of a well tuned BS. The fit and finish just adds to the
> overall enjoyment of the tool, but the wood being cut on it could care
> less. But I care; to a point. I can't go "whole hog" for the most
> expensive tool in it's category. My pockets aren't that deep.
>
> dave
>
> George wrote:
>
> > Trolling again? That new bandsaw of yours cuts the same as the scorned
> > Delta if the blade's the same?
> >
> > Real woodworkers know that repeatability, not one-time success is the
> > measure of a good tool. Good looks are nice, too.
> >
> > "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:c%[email protected]...
> >
> >>If you polish up your plane's blade (iron, right?) at the correct angle,
> >>to 8,000 grit, why does an expensive plane garner such praise for it's
> >>cutting ability?
> >
> >
> >
>

> > The Stanley I was referring to is a new plane. Even though it's
> >five years old, it is the model that is currently being sold as the
> >"contractor grade" Stanley.

Trent© <[email protected]> schreef
> Its been used.

+ + +
True colors? You assume planes are to be used as-out-of-the-box, and thrown
away when getting dull. Like a file.
PvR

I take it you've never dropped a piece of normal cast. If you had, you
certainly would know how much of a difference it can make.

"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:V18sb.174267$e01.608731@attbi_s02...
> Like it makes a difference.
> "Robin Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:yz_qb.104112$9E1.512248@attbi_s52...
> > > The only material in their planes that was unavailable 100 years ago
was
> > the
> > > A2 for the blade.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, ductile iron is a recent innovation ....
> >
> >
>
>

Memories!

A coil of magnesium wire cleverly hidden in the candle snuffer made chapel
more exciting....

"Larry Jaques" <jake@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And if they'd tried pure mag, what -pretty- fireworks would
> have ensued!

If you take two planes with the same cutting geometry then the
differences would be due to differences in precision, mass, and blade
metalurgy. A lack of precision leads to the blade being able to move
which can lead to chatter and other maladies that would effect the
quality of cut. For example, a well tuned Bailey is still a fairly
imprecise instrument compared to a well executed Norris; mainly due to
design. Does it make any difference in use? Maybe, maybe not - depends
on the board.

Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<c%[email protected]>...

> I already know about the "pride of ownership", and all that jazz, but on
> a purely scientific basis, why do the pricier planes cut better? Please
> assume the SAME blade, honed to the nth degree when explaining the
> difference the plane itself makes. Any chance that the "break the bank"
> plane is perceived as better because it's owner lavishes extra attention
> to setting it up properly, whereas a cheap Stanley gets the once-over?

First of all, I'm assuming you are talking about smoothers here.

If everything is set up exactly *perfectly*, you probably *can* get
a cheap POS to perform as well as a L-N ... for a couple of passes ...

A better plane will have a better and thicker iron, so to begin
with you'll need to upgrade your iron if you want it to hold an edge
as long and be as resistant to chatter. A better plane will likely
have a more solid bedding, which also helps negate chatter. (You may
or may not be able to compensate for this on a cheap plane.) A better
plane will likely have a more precise adjustment mechanism, which
makes it easier to get the correct setting to start with, and to be
able to do it repeatedly (sloppy yokes and excessive backlash are a
royal PIA on a "precise" tool). A better plane may even have better
ergonomics (Lee Valley's line is a good example of this), which makes
the plane easier to use for extended periods of time.

IMHO, you cannot separate ease of adjustment, ergonomics, blade
quality, bedding, etc., as they all go into making a smoother that
performs well. If all you intend to do is to take one perfect
shaving, then you could get by for less. If you intend to use your
plane on a regular basis, and rely on it for giving you a surface
that's free from tearout and ready for finishing, then all those
elements come into play.

As for the question of the owner lavishing extra attention on the
L-N versus the cheap Stanley, I've found just the opposite to be true.
A L-N will actually make pretty decent shaving from the box with no
more than a bit of honing to the iron. An old Stanley usually needs
quite a bit of attention to get it to where it performs well. (And a
new Stanley is probably a lost cause altogether.)

> I'm not disputing any facts; just trying to understand what to look for
> when shopping for planes. Is the best bang for the buck below L-N,
> like Veritas?

IMHO, the Veritas is the best value out there now. I have old
Stanleys, and several L-N planes, but the Veritas (low-angle) smoother
is the one I turn to most often. It's got the combination of solid
bedding, a good iron, precise adjustment, flat sole, and excellent
ergonomics; and all for a good price.


Chuck Vance

Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> If I get the small low angle block plane later on, is it so small that
> it would be silly to install the wooden ball and handle set? Do you
> have that plane too?

Yeah, I've got their low-angle block plane too. It's a very nice
little plane and extremely handy to have around the shop. Knowing
what I know now, if I could only have one low-angle block, I'd
probably opt for that plane.

I thought about getting the add-ons for the plane, but then I
thought about what I use a block plane for, and 99% of the time it's
going to be a one-handed operation anyway. Besides, I've already got
a low-angle jack, a couple of low-angle smoothers, an old Stanley #65
and an old #60-1/2.


Chuck Vance
Just say (tmPL) No, I don't have a plane problem.

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 09:15:39 -0500, Trent© <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Most of today's woodworkers can't even FUNCTION unless they have the
>very best that money can buy.

Unless I have a good plane, I can't work fast enough that I can afford
to eat ! Hobbies are great, but try to do it for an income and you
really start to hurt over anything that slows you down, or needs
fiddling with instead of just making product for you.

--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 08:27:20 -0600, Conan The Librarian <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Trent© wrote:
>
>> There's a big difference between rec.(recreational) woodworking,
>> Andy...and woodworking to make a living.
>>
>> And I'm not saying that there's not a difference in quality in ALL
>> tools.
>>
>> But I replied to Dave's post in light of our group's title.
>
> I'm honestly not trying to pick on you specifically, but I can't
>help but comment on what you wrote above. As a recreational woodworker,
>why would anyone want to buy tools that make it more difficult to enjoy
>their hobby? I can manage to make a new Stanley perform *just*
>*barely*, but why on earth would I want to when I can spend a bit more
>for a Veritas which will outperform it by light years, or I can go
>whole-hog and buy a L-N and enjoy the form+function aspect to its
>fullest.

Let me answer by giving you my personal reasons for buying the table
saw that I did...

1. Economics. I couldn't afford $400-$500 or more for a saw...that
I'll use occasionally. But TIME...I have plenty of time on my
hands...to make jigs that can make the saw do more than it was
originally intended. And my plan has worked well for me.

2. Space. I have a small work area in my basement. The smaller saw
works well for me.

3. Portability. I wouldn't be able to get the saw down the basement
without a whole lot of help. And then it would STAY there. I've been
able to easily carry the saw out to the back lawn...to cut out there
for remodeling projects.

4. The challenge! lol

1 & 4 would apply well to the purchase of a plane.


>> To be quite honest, I very seldom use a plane. The last one I bought
>> was about 40 years ago...and I haven't used it for a long time. Most
>> of my projects preclude the need for a plane.
>
> What's the old saying ... "when all you have is a hammer, everything
>looks like a nail"? All of my projects *require* the use of a plane.
>Rough wood has to be surfaced, dimensioned, smoothed, joined, etc. All
>of those are done with a specific plane.

I do the same as you...I just don't use a plane. I use various other
tools. I usually use my RotoMate for excess removal...along with my
sander. Then there's my router, etc.

>> Unlike you, though, I don't do woodworking for a living. I *DO* use a
>> router in my trade, though...almost 24hrs. a day. But it can't do any
>> wood work. lol
>
> And except for a corded drill, my routah is the only power tool I
>ever use in woodwrecking. But there are planes that do everything the
>routah does. :-)

I have no doubt, Chuck. Even in my earlier days, I never did the
level of planeing that I'm sure you and Charlie do.

But I still hold to my original post...which was directed to Dave, of
course.

And its just opinion, nonetheless...as is your's opinion.


Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

Trent© wrote:

> Most of today's woodworkers can't even FUNCTION unless they have the
> very best that money can buy. The old timers simply made do with what
> they had...or even could build themselves.

I have a lot of Veritable brand tools in my shop, like the Veritable
jointing fence I made out of angle iron.

The old timers and I would get along fine.

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

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:36:01 GMT, Larry Jaques <jake@di\/ersify.com>
wrote:

>http://www.ductile.org/magazine/1999_1/expendable.htm
>is one story,

Interesting, thanks

There's some stuff on display in Coalbrookdale (home of Victorian cast
iron) about ductile iron. Clearly there's another of those US / UK
terminology variations going on. Adding magnesium to the melt would
have been easy enough mid-19th, if only you could find the
magnesium....

>complete with a Dynaflow tranny explosion. ;)

"Dynaflow tranny explosion" ? Isn't that a Wasp Factory song ?
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:08:44 -0600, Conan The Librarian <[email protected]>
wrote:


>> And its just opinion, nonetheless...as is your's opinion.
>
> Yes, and I'll leave it to the astute reader to determine whose is
>more likely to be helpful ... or accurate.
>

FINALLY!! lol

I think we were both as helpful. After all, I sure in help he isn't
gonna go out and buy a plane just based on what you and/or I say.

Accurate...I think we were both pretty accurate.

Nice chattin' with ya!


Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

I think he makes most of his cash as "Conan"....




"Iraxl Enb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have beed looking the prices for hand planes recently, and boy,
> being a librarian must pay well :-)
>
> irax.
>

I think he makes most of his cash as "Conan".... :)

Chuck, thanks for your thoughtful reply. Your now famous "full-width,
translucent, cottony-soft shaving" phrase has stuck with me! I'm eager
to join the ranks of Neanders, at least on a part-time basis, to share
in the joy! :) Now the Veritas you mentioned here is the larger low
angle, correct? NOT the $89 low angle block plane?


dave

Conan the Librarian wrote:

> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<c%[email protected]>...
>
>
>>I already know about the "pride of ownership", and all that jazz, but on
>>a purely scientific basis, why do the pricier planes cut better? Please
>>assume the SAME blade, honed to the nth degree when explaining the
>>difference the plane itself makes. Any chance that the "break the bank"
>>plane is perceived as better because it's owner lavishes extra attention
>>to setting it up properly, whereas a cheap Stanley gets the once-over?
>
>
> First of all, I'm assuming you are talking about smoothers here.
>
> If everything is set up exactly *perfectly*, you probably *can* get
> a cheap POS to perform as well as a L-N ... for a couple of passes ...
>
> A better plane will have a better and thicker iron, so to begin
> with you'll need to upgrade your iron if you want it to hold an edge
> as long and be as resistant to chatter. A better plane will likely
> have a more solid bedding, which also helps negate chatter. (You may
> or may not be able to compensate for this on a cheap plane.) A better
> plane will likely have a more precise adjustment mechanism, which
> makes it easier to get the correct setting to start with, and to be
> able to do it repeatedly (sloppy yokes and excessive backlash are a
> royal PIA on a "precise" tool). A better plane may even have better
> ergonomics (Lee Valley's line is a good example of this), which makes
> the plane easier to use for extended periods of time.
>
> IMHO, you cannot separate ease of adjustment, ergonomics, blade
> quality, bedding, etc., as they all go into making a smoother that
> performs well. If all you intend to do is to take one perfect
> shaving, then you could get by for less. If you intend to use your
> plane on a regular basis, and rely on it for giving you a surface
> that's free from tearout and ready for finishing, then all those
> elements come into play.
>
> As for the question of the owner lavishing extra attention on the
> L-N versus the cheap Stanley, I've found just the opposite to be true.
> A L-N will actually make pretty decent shaving from the box with no
> more than a bit of honing to the iron. An old Stanley usually needs
> quite a bit of attention to get it to where it performs well. (And a
> new Stanley is probably a lost cause altogether.)
>
>
>>I'm not disputing any facts; just trying to understand what to look for
>> when shopping for planes. Is the best bang for the buck below L-N,
>>like Veritas?
>
>
> IMHO, the Veritas is the best value out there now. I have old
> Stanleys, and several L-N planes, but the Veritas (low-angle) smoother
> is the one I turn to most often. It's got the combination of solid
> bedding, a good iron, precise adjustment, flat sole, and excellent
> ergonomics; and all for a good price.
>
>
> Chuck Vance

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 18:48:17 +0000, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 09:15:39 -0500, Trent© <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Most of today's woodworkers can't even FUNCTION unless they have the
>>very best that money can buy.
>
>Unless I have a good plane, I can't work fast enough that I can afford
>to eat ! Hobbies are great, but try to do it for an income and you
>really start to hurt over anything that slows you down, or needs
>fiddling with instead of just making product for you.

There's a big difference between rec.(recreational) woodworking,
Andy...and woodworking to make a living.

And I'm not saying that there's not a difference in quality in ALL
tools.

But I replied to Dave's post in light of our group's title.

To be quite honest, I very seldom use a plane. The last one I bought
was about 40 years ago...and I haven't used it for a long time. Most
of my projects preclude the need for a plane.

Unlike you, though, I don't do woodworking for a living. I *DO* use a
router in my trade, though...almost 24hrs. a day. But it can't do any
wood work. lol


Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

Why are you responding, much less trying to reason with, this troll. Most on
here killed filed this idiot long ago. I guess what I need is a filter that
will catch anything related to this fool.


"Conan The Librarian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Im no plane expert but here what i think, with the same iron on two
different planes,from personal experience,i have two jointers plane a
stanley 7 and a transitional,the transitional is longer but his ability to
hold the iron is definetaly not as good as the other,which if you think
about it,if your iron has any slop in it how can it cut as good as the
other,the transitional is a good users plane,but the 7 is a much better
plane, with the same iron, and the same flatness,and pretty much the same
adjustments possible.Lie Nielson are definately great planes and expensive
but they are Stanley reproduction made from better materials that were
unaivalable 100 yrs ago, on the other hand veritas is taking the originals
design and with research and development, improved the design.

--
Knowledge speaks, wisdom listen.....
Jimi Hendrix
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:c%[email protected]...
> If you polish up your plane's blade (iron, right?) at the correct angle,
> to 8,000 grit, why does an expensive plane garner such praise for it's
> cutting ability? Isn't how the plane cuts due to it's flatness, and
> other tuning parameters rather than whether or not it's made from an
> exotic wood or has brass inlay? WHAT is it about a better plane that
> makes it work better than a cheaper brand? Assuming that the user
> applies the same careful attention to tuning the cheaper plane.
>
> I already know about the "pride of ownership", and all that jazz, but on
> a purely scientific basis, why do the pricier planes cut better? Please
> assume the SAME blade, honed to the nth degree when explaining the
> difference the plane itself makes. Any chance that the "break the bank"
> plane is perceived as better because it's owner lavishes extra attention
> to setting it up properly, whereas a cheap Stanley gets the once-over?
>
> I'm not disputing any facts; just trying to understand what to look for
> when shopping for planes. Is the best bang for the buck below L-N,
> like Veritas?
>
> Anyone tired of discussing this topic ( I know it's been dealt with
> before) please by adult enough to just ignore the thread. Thank you!
>
>
> dave
>

:) Trent, I'm so glad I don't pound a keyboard all day for a living any
longer. I used to work with software. Yuck! that's why many of my
posts are so terse. I sit down for a while to ask a few questions, and
catch up, then I'm out doing something else. pc's are necessary evils
in my book.

rant off.

dave

Trent© wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:14:21 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks to all who responded to my questions. I'm going to give the
>>Veritas Low Angle Smooth Plane a try.
>>
>>Chuck and Trent: I didn't mean to spark a controversy. Shake hands and
>>call it a day. :)
>
>
> Its just friendly bantering, Dave. The real fun is in the
> woodworking...not in this computer junk! lol If they didn't make me
> a good living, I'd throw them all out the window!
>
>
> Have a nice week...
>
> Trent
>
> Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

ah, George, you didn't have the EXACT POS BS that was delivered to my
shop. I had a previous Delta, which was FINE! Don't you get it? Delta
and I gave up trying to make a silk purse from a cow's ear and I got a
refund. Do a Google search for BS vibration and see what saw comes up!

Do you think you could once in a while act civilized instead of so
antagonist?

dave

George wrote:

snip
> Now think ... with the same blade, did your new bandsaw cut better, or
> worse than the Delta which has been the standard of the world for fifty
> years, but which you seemed incapable of, and interminably obtuse about
> tuning? Think planes might be the same?
snip

I'm glad you like the Veritas, Andy, because that's the one I've been
meaning to order from Lee Valley very soon. I passed on L-N at last
weekends WW show due it being about $45 more than the Veritas. I just
honed the blade on my little Stanley sub-miniature (hell, I don't know
what it's really called) plane and got some curly shavings. Not sure
that they were cottony, but it was fun to see the wood transformed so
quickly... the plane I'm talking about probably didn't set me back more
than $10 (new) and can hide in your hand. It is a true PITA to set the
blade depth. When I spend REAL money I want something that's easy to
adjust so I get the depth just right. I take it the Veritas low angle
block plane will work well for shooting miters?

dave

Andy Dingley wrote:
snip

Cool. You and Mike both have the same plane and give it 2 thumbs up!
I'm gonna order it as soon as I get an updated Lee Valley catalog so I
peruse the latest and greatest before placing my order.

If I get the small low angle block plane later on, is it so small that
it would be silly to install the wooden ball and handle set? Do you
have that plane too?

dave

Conan The Librarian wrote:

> Bay Area Dave wrote:
>
>> Chuck, thanks for your thoughtful reply. Your now famous "full-width,
>> translucent, cottony-soft shaving" phrase has stuck with me! I'm
>> eager to join the ranks of Neanders, at least on a part-time basis, to
>> share in the joy! :) Now the Veritas you mentioned here is the larger
>> low angle, correct? NOT the $89 low angle block plane?
>
>
> Yep, the one I was talking about is their "low-angle smoother". To
> tie in with your other post asking about the adjustable mouth: That is
> something I forgot when I was talking about what makes it my most-used
> smoother. It makes it a snap to get the plane set up for the lightest
> cut and smallest mouth possible. Set the iron depth and close the mouth
> up as much as you want.
>
> Also, here is another case where a well-made plane makes a
> difference. The tolerances have to be pretty tight for that sliding
> toe-piece. A poorly-made plane would likely have some slop which could
> cause the plate to misalign slightly right in front of the iron. This
> could cause problems when trying to set the mouth for a tiny opening.
>
> It could also allow for some side-to-side gaps which could allow
> "crumbs" to get picked up and possibly ding the work as they were
> dragged across the surface.
>
>
> Chuck Vance
>

50 years! Wow! I feel like time is running out for me to learn
everything I want to, at my age. That's why I ask so many frickin'
questions, and buy books on WW, and have subscriptions to WW mags. I've
learned a TON of stuff from the folks here nice enough to share their
experience. Seeing as the purpose of this NG is to share ideas, it
amazes me when a diehard few vilify me for asking newbie questions. I
go out to the shop for a while, then check back here periodically during
the day. Right now I should be cutting out the modesty panel
rails/stiles for my desk...

I too, love my Kreg jigs. I like it for face frames and I've used it on
miscellaneous projects for the shop. It works pretty well with 2x4's
like when I built a floor to ceiling enclosure for sheet goods.

dave

Trent© wrote:

> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 01:58:43 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Trent,
>>
>>are you by any chance referring to the LOOONG thread last year about
>>table saws where I was steered towards the PM, but I ended up with a
>>Unisaw? :) The PM was nice, but NOT $600 more than the Uni. I love my
>>Uni and I'm sure I would've liked the PM also. I got some reproachful
>>remarks from the guys who KNEW which TS I SHOULD have bought.
>>
>>dave
>
>
> No...I wasn't, Dave. But you see that a lot in this group...and
> others, of course. I think its just human nature.
>
> I've been posting in here for quite a few years...but I do it
> sporadically. Woodworking, I believe, is one of those areas where you
> can never know it all...no matter how knowledgeable and experienced
> you are. So I jump back in here to learn...and lurk mostly.
>
> A couple of good examples...RotoZip's...and Kreg pocket jointers. I'm
> pretty sure I got those ideas from reading this group...so I tried
> both of them. AFAIC, they're the current way of doing things that
> were done a different way at the beginning. I no longer find a need
> for a plane...and I no longer find a need for biscuits and clamps.
> Not NEVER...but very, very seldom.
>
> My opinion that I gave to you was as a hobbyiest...and in general, I
> guess. I actually enjoy not buying top of the line...for most things.
> Nor can I afford most top of the line items. There are MANY folks on
> here that have MUCH more experience with planes...and with woodworking
> in general.
>
> But I HAVE been doing woodworking for over 50 years. There ain't a
> whole lot that I haven't done...or can't do.
>
> Excitedly enough, I've got a whole lot to learn though! lol
>
>
> Have a nice week...
>
> Trent
>
> Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

It was patented in 1949.
"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:30:08 -0500, "Robin Lee" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Actually, ductile iron is a recent innovation ....
>
> How old ? I thought it was mid 19th ? _Rare_, but it was known.
>
> --
> Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

Having a bad day?

Certainly it makes a difference, as does making a plane out brass or bronze,
steel or cast iron, cast iron or ductile iron. The materials all have
different properties - tensile strength, damping coefficients, warping
characteristics, machinability....



"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:V18sb.174267$e01.608731@attbi_s02...
> Like it makes a difference.
> "Robin Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:yz_qb.104112$9E1.512248@attbi_s52...
> > > The only material in their planes that was unavailable 100 years ago
was
> > the
> > > A2 for the blade.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, ductile iron is a recent innovation ....
> >
> >
>
>

Like it makes a difference.
"Robin Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:yz_qb.104112$9E1.512248@attbi_s52...
> > The only material in their planes that was unavailable 100 years ago was
> the
> > A2 for the blade.
> >
>
> Actually, ductile iron is a recent innovation ....
>
>

"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:yz_qb.104112$9E1.512248@attbi_s52...
> The only material in their planes that was unavailable 100 years ago was
the
> A2 for the blade.
>

Actually, ductile iron is a recent innovation ....

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:14:57 -0600, Conan The Librarian <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Trent© wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:14:21 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Chuck and Trent: I didn't mean to spark a controversy. Shake hands and
>>>call it a day. :)
>>
>>
>> Its just friendly bantering, Dave.
>> The real fun is in the
>> woodworking
>
> Exactly. This has been just a little good-natured taunting like you
>might do with a friend on a basketball court. We might approach
>woodwrecking in a totally different way, but we both enjoy it or we
>wouldn't be here arguing about it.
>
> BTW, you're still wrong. :-)
>

I can spot you HORS and STILL kick your ass!

:)



Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

Bay Area Dave wrote:

> Chuck, thanks for your thoughtful reply. Your now famous "full-width,
> translucent, cottony-soft shaving" phrase has stuck with me! I'm eager
> to join the ranks of Neanders, at least on a part-time basis, to share
> in the joy! :) Now the Veritas you mentioned here is the larger low
> angle, correct? NOT the $89 low angle block plane?

Yep, the one I was talking about is their "low-angle smoother". To
tie in with your other post asking about the adjustable mouth: That is
something I forgot when I was talking about what makes it my most-used
smoother. It makes it a snap to get the plane set up for the lightest
cut and smallest mouth possible. Set the iron depth and close the mouth
up as much as you want.

Also, here is another case where a well-made plane makes a
difference. The tolerances have to be pretty tight for that sliding
toe-piece. A poorly-made plane would likely have some slop which could
cause the plate to misalign slightly right in front of the iron. This
could cause problems when trying to set the mouth for a tiny opening.

It could also allow for some side-to-side gaps which could allow
"crumbs" to get picked up and possibly ding the work as they were
dragged across the surface.


Chuck Vance

Trent© wrote:

> There really is no difference, Dave. The only difference is in the
> quality of the tool...i.e., how long the tool will last before its
> difficult to adjust, how often you need to resharpen, etc.

Let's see if I've got this right: "There really is no difference ...
The only difference is in the QUALITY [emphasis mine] of the tool"?

Leaving aside the question of whether that particular statement even
makes sense, as someone who uses planes extensively in all of his
woodworking, ease of adjustment and quality of tool steel (longlasting
edge) are very important differences. As well as bedding of the iron,
reliability, repeatability, and ergonomics.

> I have a $79 table saw that I use almost daily...and I've used it to
> build cabinets. Sure, there's a lot of features missing on it
> (originally, at least) that you see on a top-of-the-line name brand
> saw. And I do have a lot of jigs made for it. But, in the final
> analysis, it does an excellent job for me...and the quality is equal
> to anything else out there.

So is the quality of the tool equal, or have you figured out a way
to do decent work *despite* the tool?

> The same can be said for most tools...planes included.

Have you actually used a modern plane from Stanley versus one of the
higher-end planes (or even an old Stanley for that matter)? I'll tell
you what, if you are really a glutton for punishment, I've got a Stanley
#4 that's less than five years old. If you'd like, I'll pack it up and
send it to you, so you can put it to use. But I'll guarantee you that
if you can make it work it will be *despite* the plane, not because of it.

> Most of today's woodworkers can't even FUNCTION unless they have the
> very best that money can buy. The old timers simply made do with what
> they had...or even could build themselves.

I'm not really sure where that puts me. I have a couple of
home-made spokeshaves that are as good as any manufactured ones I own,
and my little cocobolo smoother is a pretty fine little plane as well.

Of course, I also own some L-N planes, a few Veritas ones, and a
bunch of old Stanleys. Guess what? They are all purchased with the
idea of making my woodworking *more* *enjoyable*. And if I was doing
this as a living, my tools would all be purchased with the idea of
making it *more* *efficient*. And I wouldn't be purchasing shoddy
planes in either case.

> Look at the excellent quality of some really old cabinetry. Simply
> amazing to me...and much with no power tools at all.

I agree completely. And what's ironic, is that I do almost 100% of
my dimensioning, joinery, and surfacing by hand (i.e., with no power
tools at all). Maybe that's why I can see the difference in poor
quality planes (or hand tools in general) vs. decent ones.

> Even a very expensive plane...with a mediocre owner...will turn out
> shoddy work.

Very insightful. None of us had ever thought about that possibility
before.

So, how do you feel about Craftsman power tools?


Chuck Vance

Trent© wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 11:54:10 -0600, Conan The Librarian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Let's see if I've got this right: "There really is no difference ...
>>The only difference is in the QUALITY [emphasis mine] of the tool"?
>
>
> You left out the i.e.

I addressed that in the next paragraph. See below.

And if you really believe that a "difference in ... quality" "really
is no difference", then I certainly don't want to be the recipient of
whatever your work product is.

>> Leaving aside the question of whether that particular statement even
>>makes sense, as someone who uses planes extensively in all of his
>>woodworking, ease of adjustment and quality of tool steel (longlasting
>>edge) are very important differences. As well as bedding of the iron,
>>reliability, repeatability, and ergonomics.
>
> A plane is simply a tool to fix specific errors or problems in
> woodworking. I very seldom use a plane. There are other tools...or
> combination of tools...that can accomplish the same thing.

I don't even know where to start. Maybe just a question: Why do
you think that there are planes that are referred to as "smoothers",
"jointers", "rabbet planes", "plow planes", "scrub planes", "molding
planes", "dado planes", "router planes", "chisel planes", etc., etc.?

>> So is the quality of the tool equal, or have you figured out a way
>>to do decent work *despite* the tool?
>
>
> You want MY opinion?...or something to compliment your pre-conceived
> mindset?

The second clause in that sentence doesn't parse.

Let's review: You said you have a cheap saw and you have built all
sorts of jigs to make it work well. Then you say the quality is equal
to anything out there. So which is it? Is the quality just as good, or
have you managed to cobble together enough jigs to make it functional?

>> Have you actually used a modern plane from Stanley versus one of the
>>higher-end planes (or even an old Stanley for that matter)?
>
>
> No...I haven't. I haven't used a plane at all for quite a while.
> And the newest one I have is 40+ years old.

Ah, but you are prepared to tell us that there is no differnece
between high and low-end planes.

Thanks, I'll give your opinion all the consideration that it deserves.

> I got the impression Dave was interested in the difference between two
> NEW planes.

The Stanley I was referring to is a new plane. Even though it's
five years old, it is the model that is currently being sold as the
"contractor grade" Stanley.

BTW, that plane is in a lot better shape than it was when I bought
it. I lapped the sole, tightened the yoke and lateral lever, and
upgraded to a Hock. It's still a piece of garbage.

>> I'm not really sure where that puts me. I have a couple of
>>home-made spokeshaves that are as good as any manufactured ones I own,
>>and my little cocobolo smoother is a pretty fine little plane as well.
>
>
>> Of course, I also own some L-N planes, a few Veritas ones, and a
>>bunch of old Stanleys. Guess what? They are all purchased with the
>>idea of making my woodworking *more* *enjoyable*. And if I was doing
>>this as a living, my tools would all be purchased with the idea of
>>making it *more* *efficient*. And I wouldn't be purchasing shoddy
>>planes in either case.
>
>
> Sure sounds like yer an advanced woodworker.

I'm not sure if yer being sarcastic here or not, but I'll give you
the benefit of the doubt and just move on.

>> I agree completely. And what's ironic, is that I do almost 100% of
>>my dimensioning, joinery, and surfacing by hand (i.e., with no power
>>tools at all). Maybe that's why I can see the difference in poor
>>quality planes (or hand tools in general) vs. decent ones.
>
>
> But the discussion never WAS about poor quality planes...at least that
> wasn't Dave's question. Poor quality is poor quality...no matter what
> the cost.

I may have misunderstood, but it appears to me that when discussing
the merits of a *new* cheaper plane vs. the high-end ones, it is valid
to include the current Stanley model.

There are also degrees of quality even among perfectly useable
planes. If you are interested, just check Google for discussions about
Records, Cliftons, Veritas, Lie-Nielsen, Knight, Clark & Williams planes
to name a few.

>> [it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools]
>
>> Very insightful. None of us had ever thought about that possibility
>>before.
>
>
> See...ya learn somethin' new every day! lol
>
>
>> So, how do you feel about Craftsman power tools?
>
>
> Which tools?...and which manufacturer?

Plug the following into Google and all will become clear:
http://www.google.com/groups?as_q=blames%20tools&as_epq=poor%20craftsman&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_ugroup=rec.woodworking&lr=&hl=en


Chuck Vance

Trent© wrote:

> There's a big difference between rec.(recreational) woodworking,
> Andy...and woodworking to make a living.
>
> And I'm not saying that there's not a difference in quality in ALL
> tools.
>
> But I replied to Dave's post in light of our group's title.

I'm honestly not trying to pick on you specifically, but I can't
help but comment on what you wrote above. As a recreational woodworker,
why would anyone want to buy tools that make it more difficult to enjoy
their hobby? I can manage to make a new Stanley perform *just*
*barely*, but why on earth would I want to when I can spend a bit more
for a Veritas which will outperform it by light years, or I can go
whole-hog and buy a L-N and enjoy the form+function aspect to its
fullest.

> To be quite honest, I very seldom use a plane. The last one I bought
> was about 40 years ago...and I haven't used it for a long time. Most
> of my projects preclude the need for a plane.

What's the old saying ... "when all you have is a hammer, everything
looks like a nail"? All of my projects *require* the use of a plane.
Rough wood has to be surfaced, dimensioned, smoothed, joined, etc. All
of those are done with a specific plane.

> Unlike you, though, I don't do woodworking for a living. I *DO* use a
> router in my trade, though...almost 24hrs. a day. But it can't do any
> wood work. lol

And except for a corded drill, my routah is the only power tool I
ever use in woodwrecking. But there are planes that do everything the
routah does. :-)


Chuck Vance

Trent© wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 08:11:25 -0600, Conan The Librarian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Thanks, I'll give your opinion all the consideration that it deserves.
>
>
> You can if you want to, of course. But it wasn't DIRECTED to you. lol

Right, it was directed to a Usenet *newsgroup*. If it was just for
BAD's consumption, then you should have e-mailed him directly.

You offered your advice on a public forum as if you had some
knowledge of what you were discussing (i.e., no difference in cheap vs.
expensive planes, except for quality ... whatever that means). I wanted
to make it clear for others who might happen to stumble across your
statements, that it appears you don't know what you're talking about.

> Its obvious you have a different opinion...and that's fine. That's
> what this group is all about. We all have different
> experiences...i.e., different opinions.

Yep, that's exactly what it's all about. Some us have opinions
based on experience, and some of us ... well, exactly *what* is your
experience with planes, anyway? :-)

>> The Stanley I was referring to is a new plane. Even though it's
>>five years old, it is the model that is currently being sold as the
>>"contractor grade" Stanley.
>
> Its been used.

Semantics. It's the new model of Stanley plane. My L-N plane is as
old as it is.

> [snippety doo-dah]
>
>> I may have misunderstood,
>
>
> Yes...I think you did.

Maybe so. I thought he wanted advice from someone who had something
useful to offer. Perhaps he wanted to hear from you instead.


Chuck Vance

Trent© wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 08:27:20 -0600, Conan The Librarian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm honestly not trying to pick on you specifically, but I can't
>>help but comment on what you wrote above. As a recreational woodworker,
>>why would anyone want to buy tools that make it more difficult to enjoy
>>their hobby? I can manage to make a new Stanley perform *just*
>>*barely*, but why on earth would I want to when I can spend a bit more
>>for a Veritas which will outperform it by light years, or I can go
>>whole-hog and buy a L-N and enjoy the form+function aspect to its
>>fullest.
>
> Let me answer by giving you my personal reasons for buying the table
> saw that I did...
>
> 1. Economics. I couldn't afford $400-$500 or more for a saw...that
> I'll use occasionally. But TIME...I have plenty of time on my
> hands...to make jigs that can make the saw do more than it was
> originally intended. And my plan has worked well for me.
>
> 2. Space. I have a small work area in my basement. The smaller saw
> works well for me.
>
> 3. Portability. I wouldn't be able to get the saw down the basement
> without a whole lot of help. And then it would STAY there. I've been
> able to easily carry the saw out to the back lawn...to cut out there
> for remodeling projects.
>
> 4. The challenge! lol
>
> 1 & 4 would apply well to the purchase of a plane.

Fair enough. And I would say that #1 is false economy in the case
of planes. Woodcraft carries the new Stanley planes, and a smoother is
$59.99. The first step to make one of these guys work worth a d*mn is
to buy an aftermarket iron. It will cost you upwards of $30 to get a
good one. Of course, the plane still has those crappy plastic handles,
so you'll want to get replacement wooden ones. That'll set you back
another $20-30. Hmmm ... looks like we're already up to $100.

The problem is, we still will probably have to lap the sole (and
hope that the improperly-seasoned casting will stay flat once we get it
there), file the surface of the frog to level it, peen the pin for the
lateral adjustment lever to tighten it up, etc.

And assuming you took all of those steps and set it up perfectly,
you still aren't assured of ever getting it right the next time due to
excessive slop and backlash in the depth adjustment mechanism.

So you're already out $100 and you'll struggle to get the plane to
do what it is supposed to be designed to do. And guess what? There's
no market for a slightly-used recent-vintage Stanley-Bailey. So you'll
now need to eat the cost of that "plane" and go get you a real one.

As for enjoying "the challenge" ... no thanks. A challenge is only
fun if you have any hope of achieving what you set out to do. Otherwise
it's just beating your head against the wall. (FWIW, that's where
you'll be tempted to throw your plane if you do get a new Stanley.)

>> And except for a corded drill, my routah is the only power tool I
>>ever use in woodwrecking. But there are planes that do everything the
>>routah does. :-)
>
>
> I have no doubt, Chuck.

But I could have sworn you said this earlier in this thread:

> A plane is simply a tool to fix specific errors or problems in
> woodworking.

> Even in my earlier days, I never did the
> level of planeing that I'm sure you and Charlie do.

I expect that's true.

FWIW, Charlie isn't a neanderthal woodworker like myself. Also, he
has many more years doing this stuff than I do. He's also a
well-respected writer on many woodworking subjets. Given those facts,
you might want to go back and read his response in this thread and
reflect on it.

> But I still hold to my original post...which was directed to Dave, of
> course.

What is it with this "it was directed at Dave" stuff? It was posted
to a *newsgroup*, a public forum. It is certainly fair game for
discussion.

> And its just opinion, nonetheless...as is your's opinion.

Yes, and I'll leave it to the astute reader to determine whose is
more likely to be helpful ... or accurate.


Chuck Vance

Trent© wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:14:21 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Chuck and Trent: I didn't mean to spark a controversy. Shake hands and
>>call it a day. :)
>
>
> Its just friendly bantering, Dave.
> The real fun is in the
> woodworking

Exactly. This has been just a little good-natured taunting like you
might do with a friend on a basketball court. We might approach
woodwrecking in a totally different way, but we both enjoy it or we
wouldn't be here arguing about it.

BTW, you're still wrong. :-)


Chuck Vance

Trent© wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:08:44 -0600, Conan The Librarian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, and I'll leave it to the astute reader to determine whose is
>>more likely to be helpful ... or accurate.
>>
>
> FINALLY!! lol
>
> I think we were both as helpful. After all, I sure in help he isn't
> gonna go out and buy a plane just based on what you and/or I say.
>
> Accurate...I think we were both pretty accurate.

OK, but last time I checked it looks like he's planning to go out
and buy the plane I recommended.

> Nice chattin' with ya!

Same here. Just be warned that I'll be keeping an eye out for you,
so don't go making any more of those silly claims that a new POS Stanley
is as good as a Veritas. :-)


Chuck Vance

Andy Dingley wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 08:27:20 -0600, Conan The Librarian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>As a recreational woodworker,
>>why would anyone want to buy tools that make it more difficult to enjoy
>>their hobby?
>
> What's their hobby though ? Making things, or collecting old tools
> and persuading them back into life ?
>
> Lets be honest here, an awful lot of people collect lots of tools yet
> make very little with them. It's a different hobby.

Oh, absolutely. But in the context of the thread, do you really
think a collector is going to go out and stock up on new Stanleys? :-)

And as far as the collector goes, the original question is moot
anyway. The collector places value on a plane for all sorts of reasons,
but plane performance isn't likely to enter into it.


Chuck Vance
Just say (tmPL): Well, there was that one guy who was selling
his planes on *b*y by advertising them as the absolute *worst* planes
ever made. :-)

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 04:47:26 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The only material in their planes that was unavailable 100 years ago was the
>A2 for the blade.

What are things like the lever caps made from ? I've seen some
Veritas products that were making extensive use of the ZA series
zinc-aluminium diecasting alloys. Now Mazak has a pretty dire
reputation, mainly for poor long term stability. But the ZA series are
stiffer, long-lasting, and still cost effective to make.

--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 04:27:52 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]>
wrote:

>If you polish up your plane's blade (iron, right?) at the correct angle,
>to 8,000 grit, why does an expensive plane garner such praise for it's
>cutting ability? Isn't how the plane cuts due to it's flatness, and
>other tuning parameters rather than whether or not it's made from an
>exotic wood or has brass inlay? WHAT is it about a better plane that
>makes it work better than a cheaper brand? Assuming that the user
>applies the same careful attention to tuning the cheaper plane.
>
>I already know about the "pride of ownership", and all that jazz, but on
>a purely scientific basis, why do the pricier planes cut better? Please
>assume the SAME blade, honed to the nth degree when explaining the
>difference the plane itself makes. Any chance that the "break the bank"
>plane is perceived as better because it's owner lavishes extra attention
>to setting it up properly, whereas a cheap Stanley gets the once-over?
>
>I'm not disputing any facts; just trying to understand what to look for
> when shopping for planes. Is the best bang for the buck below L-N,
>like Veritas?
>
>Anyone tired of discussing this topic ( I know it's been dealt with
>before) please by adult enough to just ignore the thread. Thank you!

There really is no difference, Dave. The only difference is in the
quality of the tool...i.e., how long the tool will last before its
difficult to adjust, how often you need to resharpen, etc.

I have a $79 table saw that I use almost daily...and I've used it to
build cabinets. Sure, there's a lot of features missing on it
(originally, at least) that you see on a top-of-the-line name brand
saw. And I do have a lot of jigs made for it. But, in the final
analysis, it does an excellent job for me...and the quality is equal
to anything else out there.

The same can be said for most tools...planes included.

Most of today's woodworkers can't even FUNCTION unless they have the
very best that money can buy. The old timers simply made do with what
they had...or even could build themselves.

Look at the excellent quality of some really old cabinetry. Simply
amazing to me...and much with no power tools at all.

Even a very expensive plane...with a mediocre owner...will turn out
shoddy work.


Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 02:11:49 +0000, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> brought forth from the murky depths:

>On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:36:01 GMT, Larry Jaques <jake@di\/ersify.com>
>wrote:
>
>>http://www.ductile.org/magazine/1999_1/expendable.htm
>>is one story,
>
>Interesting, thanks
>
>There's some stuff on display in Coalbrookdale (home of Victorian cast
>iron) about ductile iron. Clearly there's another of those US / UK
>terminology variations going on. Adding magnesium to the melt would
>have been easy enough mid-19th, if only you could find the
>magnesium....

And if they'd tried pure mag, what -pretty- fireworks would
have ensued!


>>complete with a Dynaflow tranny explosion. ;)
>
>"Dynaflow tranny explosion" ? Isn't that a Wasp Factory song ?

Could be. Whassa "Wasp Factory"? I didn't know white anglo saxon
protestants did blue-collar work. =:0


----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Scattered Showers My Ass! * Insightful Advertising Copy
* --Noah * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:25:22 -0600, Conan The Librarian <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Andy Dingley wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 08:27:20 -0600, Conan The Librarian <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>As a recreational woodworker,
>>>why would anyone want to buy tools that make it more difficult to enjoy
>>>their hobby?
>>
>> What's their hobby though ? Making things, or collecting old tools
>> and persuading them back into life ?
>>
>> Lets be honest here, an awful lot of people collect lots of tools yet
>> make very little with them. It's a different hobby.
>
> Oh, absolutely. But in the context of the thread, do you really
>think a collector is going to go out and stock up on new Stanleys? :-)

A little off-topic here, Chuck, but...

They're starting to collect...and SELL on Ebay...the FREE discs that
AOL has been giving out over the years. And they're gettin' good
money for them!!

Go figure!

So, if you've got any of those crumby Stanley's left, I'd hang on to
them...or give them to your grand kids. They'll probably be worth big
bucks one of these days.

As long as you don't screw them up, change them, and make them cut
better! :)


Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

George, not trolling. I value the wisdom of SOME of the Wreckers and am
not afraid to ask about things I know little about. Your statement (in
the form of a rhetorical question) restates MY question that if the
blade's the same, will a "better" plane cut better. I already
appreciate the nicer fit/finish, adjust ability of a superior product,
but I posted the question to find out if anyone could quantify what
makes a "nicer" plane CUT better. Seems as though the answer is
precisely the fact that it can be set and hold an adjustment precisely.
Lack of chatter, etc. Kinda like when the BS blade is held properly by
the guides of a well tuned BS. The fit and finish just adds to the
overall enjoyment of the tool, but the wood being cut on it could care
less. But I care; to a point. I can't go "whole hog" for the most
expensive tool in it's category. My pockets aren't that deep.

dave

George wrote:

> Trolling again? That new bandsaw of yours cuts the same as the scorned
> Delta if the blade's the same?
>
> Real woodworkers know that repeatability, not one-time success is the
> measure of a good tool. Good looks are nice, too.
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:c%[email protected]...
>
>>If you polish up your plane's blade (iron, right?) at the correct angle,
>>to 8,000 grit, why does an expensive plane garner such praise for it's
>>cutting ability?
>
>
>

Thanks to all who responded to my questions. I'm going to give the
Veritas Low Angle Smooth Plane a try.

Chuck and Trent: I didn't mean to spark a controversy. Shake hands and
call it a day. :)

dave

Bay Area Dave wrote:

> If you polish up your plane's blade (iron, right?) at the correct angle,
> to 8,000 grit, why does an expensive plane garner such praise for it's
> cutting ability? Isn't how the plane cuts due to it's flatness, and
> other tuning parameters rather than whether or not it's made from an
> exotic wood or has brass inlay? WHAT is it about a better plane that
> makes it work better than a cheaper brand? Assuming that the user
> applies the same careful attention to tuning the cheaper plane.
>
> I already know about the "pride of ownership", and all that jazz, but on
> a purely scientific basis, why do the pricier planes cut better? Please
> assume the SAME blade, honed to the nth degree when explaining the
> difference the plane itself makes. Any chance that the "break the bank"
> plane is perceived as better because it's owner lavishes extra attention
> to setting it up properly, whereas a cheap Stanley gets the once-over?
>
> I'm not disputing any facts; just trying to understand what to look for
> when shopping for planes. Is the best bang for the buck below L-N,
> like Veritas?
>
> Anyone tired of discussing this topic ( I know it's been dealt with
> before) please by adult enough to just ignore the thread. Thank you!
>
>
> dave
>

I've only been at it for fifteen years. No, you probably have not seen any
of my work. It's all been in the industrial market.


"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robin Lee wrote:
>
> > Having a bad day?
> >
> > Certainly it makes a difference, as does making a plane out brass or
> > bronze, steel or cast iron, cast iron or ductile iron. The materials all
> > have different properties - tensile strength, damping coefficients,
> > warping characteristics, machinability....
>
> Oh, come on now Robin, you're not going to try to convince us that you
guys
> know more about making tools than this "CW" fellow, are you?
>
> Sheesh, with all that useless junk you guys are trying to force people to
> buy by sending them Christmas Holiday tool porn and stuff. ;)
>
> --
> Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
>

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:34:10 +0000, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> brought forth from the murky depths:

>On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:30:08 -0500, "Robin Lee" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Actually, ductile iron is a recent innovation ....
>
>How old ? I thought it was mid 19th ? _Rare_, but it was known.

http://www.ductile.org/magazine/1999_1/expendable.htm
is one story, complete with a Dynaflow tranny explosion. ;)


----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Scattered Showers My Ass! * Insightful Advertising Copy
* --Noah * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Robin Lee wrote:

> Having a bad day?
>
> Certainly it makes a difference, as does making a plane out brass or
> bronze, steel or cast iron, cast iron or ductile iron. The materials all
> have different properties - tensile strength, damping coefficients,
> warping characteristics, machinability....

Oh, come on now Robin, you're not going to try to convince us that you guys
know more about making tools than this "CW" fellow, are you?

Sheesh, with all that useless junk you guys are trying to force people to
buy by sending them Christmas Holiday tool porn and stuff. ;)

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

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 19:33:16 -0500, Trent© <[email protected]>
wrote:

>They're starting to collect...and SELL on Ebay...the FREE discs that
>AOL has been giving out over the years. And they're gettin' good
>money for them!!

Better than that.

_I'm_ getting good money for them ! 8-)

Seems the UK ones were harder to find. I just had to dust them off
from my collection of "That's damn good polycarbonate that, it'll come
in handy some day".

--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 08:27:20 -0600, Conan The Librarian <[email protected]>
wrote:

>As a recreational woodworker,
>why would anyone want to buy tools that make it more difficult to enjoy
>their hobby?

What's their hobby though ? Making things, or collecting old tools
and persuading them back into life ?

Lets be honest here, an awful lot of people collect lots of tools yet
make very little with them. It's a different hobby.

--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

Trent,

are you by any chance referring to the LOOONG thread last year about
table saws where I was steered towards the PM, but I ended up with a
Unisaw? :) The PM was nice, but NOT $600 more than the Uni. I love my
Uni and I'm sure I would've liked the PM also. I got some reproachful
remarks from the guys who KNEW which TS I SHOULD have bought.

dave

Trent© wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:08:44 -0600, Conan The Librarian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>And its just opinion, nonetheless...as is your's opinion.
>>
>> Yes, and I'll leave it to the astute reader to determine whose is
>>more likely to be helpful ... or accurate.
>>
>
>
> FINALLY!! lol
>
> I think we were both as helpful. After all, I sure in help he isn't
> gonna go out and buy a plane just based on what you and/or I say.
>
> Accurate...I think we were both pretty accurate.
>
> Nice chattin' with ya!
>
>
> Have a nice week...
>
> Trent
>
> Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

And that is normal use, right?


"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I take it you've never dropped a piece of normal cast. If you had, you
> certainly would know how much of a difference it can make.
>
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:V18sb.174267$e01.608731@attbi_s02...
> > Like it makes a difference.
> > "Robin Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:yz_qb.104112$9E1.512248@attbi_s52...
> > > > The only material in their planes that was unavailable 100 years ago
> was
> > > the
> > > > A2 for the blade.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually, ductile iron is a recent innovation ....
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:30:08 -0500, "Robin Lee" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Actually, ductile iron is a recent innovation ....

How old ? I thought it was mid 19th ? _Rare_, but it was known.

--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 08:11:25 -0600, Conan The Librarian <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Thanks, I'll give your opinion all the consideration that it deserves.

You can if you want to, of course. But it wasn't DIRECTED to you. lol

Its obvious you have a different opinion...and that's fine. That's
what this group is all about. We all have different
experiences...i.e., different opinions.


>> I got the impression Dave was interested in the difference between two
>> NEW planes.
>
> The Stanley I was referring to is a new plane. Even though it's
>five years old, it is the model that is currently being sold as the
>"contractor grade" Stanley.

Its been used.

> BTW, that plane is in a lot better shape than it was when I bought
>it. I lapped the sole, tightened the yoke and lateral lever, and
>upgraded to a Hock. It's still a piece of garbage.

:)

>> Sure sounds like yer an advanced woodworker.
>
> I'm not sure if yer being sarcastic here or not, but I'll give you
>the benefit of the doubt and just move on.

I wasn't. But I can see where your attitude might have thought that.

>>> I agree completely. And what's ironic, is that I do almost 100% of
>>>my dimensioning, joinery, and surfacing by hand (i.e., with no power
>>>tools at all). Maybe that's why I can see the difference in poor
>>>quality planes (or hand tools in general) vs. decent ones.
>>
>>
>> But the discussion never WAS about poor quality planes...at least that
>> wasn't Dave's question. Poor quality is poor quality...no matter what
>> the cost.
>
> I may have misunderstood,

Yes...I think you did.


Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:30:08 -0500, "Robin Lee" <[email protected]>
brought forth from the murky depths:

>
>"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:yz_qb.104112$9E1.512248@attbi_s52...
>> The only material in their planes that was unavailable 100 years ago was
>the
>> A2 for the blade.
>
>Actually, ductile iron is a recent innovation ....

Is it really made from ducks and ceramic, Rob?



----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Scattered Showers My Ass! * Insightful Advertising Copy
* --Noah * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 11:54:10 -0600, Conan The Librarian <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Trent© wrote:
>
>> There really is no difference, Dave. The only difference is in the
>> quality of the tool...i.e., how long the tool will last before its
>> difficult to adjust, how often you need to resharpen, etc.
>
> Let's see if I've got this right: "There really is no difference ...
>The only difference is in the QUALITY [emphasis mine] of the tool"?

You left out the i.e.


> Leaving aside the question of whether that particular statement even
>makes sense, as someone who uses planes extensively in all of his
>woodworking, ease of adjustment and quality of tool steel (longlasting
>edge) are very important differences. As well as bedding of the iron,
>reliability, repeatability, and ergonomics.

A plane is simply a tool to fix specific errors or problems in
woodworking. I very seldom use a plane. There are other tools...or
combination of tools...that can accomplish the same thing.


>> I have a $79 table saw that I use almost daily...and I've used it to
>> build cabinets. Sure, there's a lot of features missing on it
>> (originally, at least) that you see on a top-of-the-line name brand
>> saw. And I do have a lot of jigs made for it. But, in the final
>> analysis, it does an excellent job for me...and the quality is equal
>> to anything else out there.
>
> So is the quality of the tool equal, or have you figured out a way
>to do decent work *despite* the tool?

You want MY opinion?...or something to compliment your pre-conceived
mindset?

>> The same can be said for most tools...planes included.
>
> Have you actually used a modern plane from Stanley versus one of the
>higher-end planes (or even an old Stanley for that matter)?

No...I haven't. I haven't used a plane at all for quite a while.
And the newest one I have is 40+ years old.

>I'll tell
>you what, if you are really a glutton for punishment, I've got a Stanley
>#4 that's less than five years old. If you'd like, I'll pack it up and
>send it to you, so you can put it to use. But I'll guarantee you that
>if you can make it work it will be *despite* the plane, not because of it.

I got the impression Dave was interested in the difference between two
NEW planes.


>> Most of today's woodworkers can't even FUNCTION unless they have the
>> very best that money can buy. The old timers simply made do with what
>> they had...or even could build themselves.
>
> I'm not really sure where that puts me. I have a couple of
>home-made spokeshaves that are as good as any manufactured ones I own,
>and my little cocobolo smoother is a pretty fine little plane as well.

> Of course, I also own some L-N planes, a few Veritas ones, and a
>bunch of old Stanleys. Guess what? They are all purchased with the
>idea of making my woodworking *more* *enjoyable*. And if I was doing
>this as a living, my tools would all be purchased with the idea of
>making it *more* *efficient*. And I wouldn't be purchasing shoddy
>planes in either case.

Sure sounds like yer an advanced woodworker.


>> Look at the excellent quality of some really old cabinetry. Simply
>> amazing to me...and much with no power tools at all.
>
> I agree completely. And what's ironic, is that I do almost 100% of
>my dimensioning, joinery, and surfacing by hand (i.e., with no power
>tools at all). Maybe that's why I can see the difference in poor
>quality planes (or hand tools in general) vs. decent ones.

But the discussion never WAS about poor quality planes...at least that
wasn't Dave's question. Poor quality is poor quality...no matter what
the cost.

>> Even a very expensive plane...with a mediocre owner...will turn out
>> shoddy work.
>
> Very insightful. None of us had ever thought about that possibility
>before.

See...ya learn somethin' new every day! lol


> So, how do you feel about Craftsman power tools?

Which tools?...and which manufacturer?


Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 04:27:52 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]>
wrote:

>If you polish up your plane's blade (iron, right?) at the correct angle,
>to 8,000 grit, why does an expensive plane garner such praise for it's
>cutting ability?

Because it works better.

Because it keeps working better for longer

Because it works equally well on the awkward stuff.


Get your hands on something good. Then you'll see.

One of my favourite and most-used planes is still my Veritas low-angle
block. There's nothing magic about this, and it's not an expensive
plane. Veritas just got all the bits right.

The design is right. They took the best adjuster design out there, and
used it. OK, so it has twice as many parts, they're machined rather
than stamped, and they need to be accurate for it to work at all
(compared to a Bailey), but they're prepared to make it Right, despite
the cost.

The iron has the best metallurgy they could find. OK, so my
hand-forged arcana is probably just as good, and certainly has more
"soul", but A2 steel makes good irons that last a long time between
honings. And you can do it in a factory that churns out lots of them,
all that work as well as the best, and more cheaply than hand work by
an expert.

The fit of the parts is excellent (an obvious contrast to Stanley or
Record). This increases machining costs; finish has to be better,
accuracy has to be maintained more carefully, and any mis-machined
bodies get scrapped, rather than sold as the "handyman line". As a
result, I touch the adjuster on the Veritas and things move. They move
where I want, by how much I want, and then they don't go any further.
I can re-adjust this plane all day, depending on what I'm doing. When
I used a #9 or #18 before, I'd keep one on the bench with a big mouth
and one with a narrow mouth. Both worked well, but their adjustments
were finicky and not something you'd want to change, lest they don't
work so well afterwards without much effort.


>whether or not it's made from an
>exotic wood or has brass inlay?

Look at "Crown" tools. Rosewood and brass everywhere, look pretty and
yet absolute rubbish to use.

Sure, you can pay silly money for tools. Rosewood alone gains you
nothing. But there are tools out there that are worth more than the
bargain basement, or even a good old Stanley refurbed from the eBay
pile. A Bedrock will never be a Norris, because there's always going
to be slop in the depth adjuster, and there's a sprung lever holding
the iron down, not a screw you can set for a good hold that's yet
still adjustable.

--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:14:21 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Thanks to all who responded to my questions. I'm going to give the
>Veritas Low Angle Smooth Plane a try.
>
>Chuck and Trent: I didn't mean to spark a controversy. Shake hands and
>call it a day. :)

Its just friendly bantering, Dave. The real fun is in the
woodworking...not in this computer junk! lol If they didn't make me
a good living, I'd throw them all out the window!


Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

Not a real plane user like some of the guy here but I will take a stab at it
and put in my 2 cents. First is the blade, cheaper planes will have cheaper
blades, so they need more attention and care to work the same. That being
said, The most basic item is quality of material and design. One of my
old crapsman planes broke the rear handle, I replaced it with one that I
made myself to fit my hand, a little longer and thicker, slightly different
angle, then the original, no finish except body oil and sweat, the plane
cuts better now then ever before. It looks about the same but the better
grip I get is a big difference. I have two jackplanes one a Stanley and
one a who knows slightly different weight of castings, throat is a little
different, the Stanley has better fittings all around but same basic design,
not a dimes worth of difference to look at them, but the Stanley cuts a lot
better because it was made with more care and concern for the end product.
The better quality planes are like anything else, they are made with more
care and concern to do what they were made to do. The cheaper ones will work
and often work very well but the ones of higher quality, not higher price
,will work better and often like everything else you pay for the quality of
workman ship. Compare them to a MDF bookcase and a fine hand made walnut
bookcase, both hold books very well, both look good "out of the box" , which
do you want to keep your books in? and why? planes are no different.
Some are like MDF bookcases, Some are pine bookcases, Some are fine walnut
bookcases. Pick the one that works best for your need.
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:c%[email protected]...
> If you polish up your plane's blade (iron, right?) at the correct angle,
> to 8,000 grit, why does an expensive plane garner such praise for it's
> cutting ability? Isn't how the plane cuts due to it's flatness, and
> other tuning parameters rather than whether or not it's made from an
> exotic wood or has brass inlay? WHAT is it about a better plane that
> makes it work better than a cheaper brand? Assuming that the user
> applies the same careful attention to tuning the cheaper plane.
>
> I already know about the "pride of ownership", and all that jazz, but on
> a purely scientific basis, why do the pricier planes cut better? Please
> assume the SAME blade, honed to the nth degree when explaining the
> difference the plane itself makes. Any chance that the "break the bank"
> plane is perceived as better because it's owner lavishes extra attention
> to setting it up properly, whereas a cheap Stanley gets the once-over?
>
> I'm not disputing any facts; just trying to understand what to look for
> when shopping for planes. Is the best bang for the buck below L-N,
> like Veritas?
>
> Anyone tired of discussing this topic ( I know it's been dealt with
> before) please by adult enough to just ignore the thread. Thank you!
>
>
> dave
>

The only disirable quality of pot metal is its cheap and that only concerns
the manufacturer.
"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 04:47:26 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >The only material in their planes that was unavailable 100 years ago was
the
> >A2 for the blade.
>
> What are things like the lever caps made from ? I've seen some
> Veritas products that were making extensive use of the ZA series
> zinc-aluminium diecasting alloys. Now Mazak has a pretty dire
> reputation, mainly for poor long term stability. But the ZA series are
> stiffer, long-lasting, and still cost effective to make.
>
> --
> Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

The only material in their planes that was unavailable 100 years ago was the
A2 for the blade.


"martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Lie Nielson are definately great planes and expensive
> but they are Stanley reproduction made from better materials that were
> unaivalable 100 yrs ago,