I am starting to slip down the slope and have acquired several
handplanes. Nothing great: a Stanley #4, a block plane, and I found an
old Stanley router plane at a garage sale for $3.00--only one cutter
but it is in good condition.
These purchase got me to wondering: Just what are the reasons these old
mass-produced planes are better than many of the new mass-produced
ones? Was it just because they were heavier? Because the were
flatter? The metal was difference? Because the just felt better?
One would assume if you install a nice blade, like a Hock blade, into a
newer plane, it should cut well--but I am not going to waste my money
buying a cheapo Buck Brothers or something and then have it cut for
crap.
Is it true old planes are better or is it urban legend? I guess the
same could be said for other hand tools as well (saws, chisels, etc.).
I can see why the metal used to make saws and chisels can have an
impact because inferior steel won't take and keep an edge and 'good
grade' steel may be very expensive but I don't see how this could be
the case for planes since the metal that does the cutting is the blade,
and a Hock takes care of that, doesn't it?
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Charles Self" wrote in message
>
>> Sometimes I have to wonder about the economies of scale. How much extra
> per
>> plane the customers keep is added to the cost because of the planes
>> customers return because they're trashy (the planes are trashy, not the
>> customers)? Would we pay an extra two bucks, or however much, per plane
>> to
>> reduce the crappiness?
>
> Sad, but I'd bet the above no longer even enters the equation in today's
> topsy turvy, MBA tainted, business model.
>
> Upper management remuneration, stock price, and employee benefits/perks
> appear to be foremost in current business philosophy, not product quality
> or
> service.
>
> Whereas if the latter two are foremost, the first three seem to take care
> of
> themselves ... just ask Robin Lee.
>
Wedding announcement in today's Roanoke paper: nice looking couple, so you
wouldn't suspect...the woman has her MBA, the guy is finishing his up.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
> But it would seem to me that the improvements in economies of scale
> would come into play in modern times, like using computers and machines
> to do the work of scores of men.
... and therein lies the preponderance of the answer to your question.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05
I understand that, in comparison, the payscale has increased immensely
over the years but that doesn't answer my question. I know if you made
the old Stanleys the same way now as you did then and only accounted
for labor, the price would be tremendously more than what a person made
in, say, 1910.
And I also know the one best way to keeo labor costs down would be to
go to China--I don't like that but it is the truth.
But it would seem to me that the improvements in economies of scale
would come into play in modern times, like using computers and machines
to do the work of scores of men.
I guess I am asking if a cheapo Buck Bros. plane from Home Depot will
cut as good as an old Stanley if both were equipped with a Hock blade?
I am not trying to be a smart aleck, I am really confused as to whether
it is worth obtaining old planes when as cheapo new would work as long
as it used a good blade.
I would have to say the same is NOT true with a saw or chisel because
not only does labor need to get factored in but also the steel used to
make them--a higher quality steel will, obvisously, cost a lot more and
no longer make a saw cheap.
Ok, ok, I give. Allt hese answers make quite a bit of sense,
especially now that I understand that these tools were in the same mold
as the finer planes today. And they lasted this long only because they
were workers and built with quality materials and great craftsmanship.
Andy: Thanks for the book suggestion. That seems like a good read.
All this said, I never hear about anything other than Lie-Nielsen or
Veritas or Knight planes as examples of fine quality modern planes.
Are there others as well? Is Clifton any good? How about the new
Stanleys? Are wooden planes better/worse than metal ones?
I am still very new to this aspect of woodworking. Heck, I just made
my very first handcut dovetail joint last week. It took me a heck of
a long time to cut it and the pieces don't fit like a glove, let me
tell you! But it worked. And I can only see me getting better at it
as time goes on. I am planning on making a drawer, of sorts, as my
first "project" using dovetails. I know it will probably be a nasty
looking thing, but it'll be better than nothing.
I am beginning to find hand tools very interesting and that is why I
want to learn about such things as the quality of modern hand planes.
I guess I am being impatient. I need to scrounge garage sales and eBay
to get good deals because I don't have the money to plop down $250 for
a hand plane!
If I did that, the wife would have my left nut, too.
Wow, the Norris sure is a unique-looking plane. But what I wouldn't
give to hold one. I think I beginning to get the fever really bad now.
I see you said you have a couple hundred, HUNDRED, moulding planes. I
am beginning to understand how that can happen. I just want to buy
everything I see!
Thanks for the tips on the dovetails. I tried what you said this
afternoon: I made some joints really fast and you were right, they
basically sucked. But I see the method in the madness. I need to do
some more. Then some more! Thanks!!.
[email protected] wrote:
> I am not trying to be a smart aleck, I am really confused as to whether
> it is worth obtaining old planes when as cheapo new would work as long
> as it used a good blade.
>
> I would have to say the same is NOT true with a saw or chisel because
> not only does labor need to get factored in but also the steel used to
> make them--a higher quality steel will, obvisously, cost a lot more and
> no longer make a saw cheap.
Nope. The cheapo new one is different in other ways than just the
blade. Looking at metal planes, you need to consider the type of metal
used in the casting (ductile cast iron or brittle, bronze, etc.), the
cast quality (voids, impurities), the machining of the base (smoothness,
flatness, sides square to sole).
Then there are things like the quality of the machining of the frog, the
fit of the cap iron to the blade, and on, and on.
Old planes are at least in part good because people actually relied on
them. People who care about a decent plane now generally either use a
good old one, or spend the money on a good new one (Veritas,
Lie-Nielsen, Clifton, etc.)
Chris
On 21 Jan 2006 14:50:47 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>Wow, the Norris sure is a unique-looking plane. But what I wouldn't
>give to hold one.
Save your money. The good things about a Norris are the adjuster and the
weight of the thing. You can get pretty much all the performance by
buying a new Lee Valley. The Norris style adjuster is just a much
better design than the Stanley style.
> I see you said you have a couple hundred, HUNDRED, moulding planes.
Just had a rough eyeball of them and it's about 130 that are real shaped
moulding planes and a few dozens more that are various rounders (concave
and convex), plain rebates, fillisters, and oddball carriage-maker's
routers and the like.
On 2006-01-20 15:53:50 -0500, [email protected] said:
> I guess I am asking if a cheapo Buck Bros. plane from Home Depot will
> cut as good as an old Stanley if both were equipped with a Hock blade?
Once, in my younger and stupider days, I bought a Buck Bros. plane at
Home Depot before putting a straight-edge on it. When I got home, I
did. Not even close. That plane went back to HD the next day.
On 2006-01-20 18:35:10 -0500, [email protected] said:
> All this said, I never hear about anything other than Lie-Nielsen or
> Veritas or Knight planes as examples of fine quality modern planes.
> Are there others as well? Is Clifton any good? How about the new
> Stanleys?
I've had good luck with Record (basically identical to Stanley but
"English" instead of "American.") But Record seems to no longer exist...
On 2006-01-21 09:05:10 -0500, "Charles Self"
<[email protected]> said:
>> When you buy a used plane, chances are it's one of the fittest, or it
>> would not have survived.
>
> True. And that's a major part of the reason that around the world, we
> see so many old, superb houses. The poorly built houses collapsed many
> years ago, just as the poorly made tools hit the trash bins early. The
> good stuff just keeps on keeping on.
Ehhhh...I'd have to respectfully disagree. My house is 114 years old
but it certainly isn't "superb."
2' x 6" floor joists over 14' or 16' spans...piers made from bricks and
sand lime...the floors slope and slop like a rough day at sea...but
I'll readiy admit it's "charming" and looks "lived in!"
Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2006 12:23:03 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>These purchase got me to wondering: Just what are the reasons these old
>>mass-produced planes are better than many of the new mass-produced
>>ones?
>
> Look at the retail price for them when new, as a proportion of a
> worker's weekly wage. In their day, these were expensive tools and only
> owned by well-heeled tradesmen. There were cheaper options, as might
> have been used by farmers and similar, but these were relatively crude
> and we don't pay so much attention to them today.
I happen to have a reprint of a Montgomery-Ward catalog from Fall of
1894 handy, and it's got some Bailey planes in it just like the #5 I
picked up at an antique mall a few weeks ago. Here's the price list:
Bailey Adjustable Iron Planes:
Smooth plane (iron), 8 inches long, No. 3 ........ $1.37
Smooth plane (iron), 9 inches long, No. 4 ........ $1.50
Smooth plane (iron), 10 inches long, No. 4 1/2 ... $1.70
Jack plane (iron), 14 inches long, No. 5 ......... $1.70
Fore plane (iron), 18 inches long, No. 6 ......... $2.16
Jointer plane (iron), 22 inches long, No. 7 ...... $2.40
Jointer plane (iron), 24 inches long, No. 8 ...... $2.96
So, what's the equivalent value today? There's a handy online tool at
http://www.eh.net/hmit/compare/ which compares these sorts of things.
So, plug in $1.70 in 1894 (for a No. 4-1/2 plane), and today that's
worth $194.75 if one compares it using the average unskilled labor rate
then and now.
And I see in my Lee Valley catalog that the really nice Veritas No.
4-1/2 smoothing plane costs $195 today.
Startling coincidence, innit?
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
Colonel wrote:
> On 2006-01-21 09:05:10 -0500, "Charles Self"
> <[email protected]> said:
>>True. And that's a major part of the reason that around the world, we
>>see so many old, superb houses. The poorly built houses collapsed many
>>years ago, just as the poorly made tools hit the trash bins early. The
>>good stuff just keeps on keeping on.
>
> Ehhhh...I'd have to respectfully disagree. My house is 114 years old
> but it certainly isn't "superb."
>
> 2' x 6" floor joists over 14' or 16' spans...piers made from bricks and
> sand lime...the floors slope and slop like a rough day at sea...but
> I'll readiy admit it's "charming" and looks "lived in!"
Heh. Reminds me of the house I grew up in. It was a pretty standard
farmhouse with a basically square floorplan, and the basement was
divided in two halves with a wall from the front to the back. Then, on
the first floor, there was a hallway down the middle from the front to
the back, with walls on either side of it.
Now, those walls down the side of the hallway? As best I can tell, they
were load-bearing.
So, the hallway floor, with the basement support going down the middle
of it and the unsupported walls on either side of it holding up the
upstairs, was crowned like a good road -- the middle was about two
inches higher than the sides. (Someone had painted it black like a
road, too. It was great for toy cars....) And the floors in the rooms
all sloped down towards the hallway.
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
"Frank Arthur" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How many dollars a day do you earn compared to how much a Stanley worker
> made when he produced #4 planes?
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> These purchase got me to wondering: Just what are the reasons these old
>> mass-produced planes are better than many of the new mass-produced
>> ones? Was it just because they were heavier? Because the were
>> flatter? The metal was difference? Because the just felt better?
>>
First, crappy planes were made back when, just as they are made now, and for
the same reason - to meet the standard of a user who did not demand the
finest hand-finished and fettled hardware for the price that such commanded.
You'll have to look to find one of any age, because most were trashed. The
user of a crummy tool had two choices, fettle to a higher standard, or pitch
it. I've got a couple of old thin metal types on my shelves as hand-me
downs, but they have some hours in them, where I've worked the frog, the
bed, and removed manufacturing uglies like grinding burrs. One of jacks has
a Hock iron, which still makes it no match for my LV or LN planes, though
it's a good deal more useable than when I started. The smooth is just a
dust collector.
As to cost and quality, there are a couple of roads available there, as
well. Back when I worked in a stamping plant making parts for Fords, of
steel produced in the Ford steel mills - Henry liked vertical integration -
we were obliged to reject some rolled stock because the number of defects
was too high. That steel was resold to Cadillac division downtown, where
hand finishing was the norm, and each stamping was filed, bumped fitted and
sanded to a different standard at a higher price. No way you could do that
for a Ford, or even a Mercury, where the standards of material and
manufacture were higher than the Ford of similar body style. Imagine the
Lincoln plant was the same as Cadillac.
When you buy a used plane, chances are it's one of the fittest, or it would
not have survived.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thanks--now you made me spend MORE money! :o)
>
> Tell me,how do you guys get your wives to let you spend the money?!!
>
Take her out for dinner and drinks, and you've spent half the price of a
great new plane.
OR get a big beach towel, a bottle of something sweet-smelling and smooth
from Bath and Body Works and give her a candlelight rubdown. Odds are
you'll not only save money toward the plane, you'll reap a short-term
benefit as well ! Repeat as required.
They have a marvelous sandalwood scent....
[email protected] wrote:
> Thanks--now you made me spend MORE money! :o)
>
> Tell me,how do you guys get your wives to let you spend the money?!!
>
Pay Cash
Come home with a great bargain that you got for only $xxxxxx
Lose receipt on the way home.
;)
regards
John
"Anything for a Quiet Life"
On 20 Jan 2006 12:23:03 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>These purchase got me to wondering: Just what are the reasons these old
>mass-produced planes are better than many of the new mass-produced
>ones?
Look at the retail price for them when new, as a proportion of a
worker's weekly wage. In their day, these were expensive tools and only
owned by well-heeled tradesmen. There were cheaper options, as might
have been used by farmers and similar, but these were relatively crude
and we don't pay so much attention to them today.
It's difficult to realise just _how_ expensive a "simple" tool like this
was in its day, and how few possessions even a well-off tradesman would
have owned at the time. That box of good planes might have been a major
investment, yet nowadays we happily see a Unisaw as a mere trifling
indulgence in a hobby.
My grandfather was well off for the time. He owned a small shop, a
stable and began a lorry haulage business. Yet today (and discounting
the horses), I live on my own in a house that's about the same size he
had, have a workshop the size of his stable, and probably have an equal
weight of petrol vehicles.
For a fascinating look at 1900's life for jobbing trademen, I thoroughly
recommend "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists"
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0192804537/codesmiths-20>
"Lowell Holmes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ySrAf.165$Le2.30@trnddc04...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>I am starting to slip down the slope and have acquired several
>> handplanes. Nothing great: a Stanley #4, a block plane, and I found an
>> old Stanley router plane at a garage sale for $3.00--only one cutter
>> but it is in good condition.
>>snip
>
>
> Lee Valley has a new router plane design and their cutters will fit your
> Stanley router plane.
Someone stole both my Stanley router planes a few years ago. I've got an
ECE, but will have to look into the Veritas.
"DCH" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> You have to let her think its her idea...when I make something for the
> house...which is mostly what I do anyways...sometimes I employ the time
> honored..."new project...new tool" rule, A typical example might be...she
> sees a commercial or advertisment...and wants you to make one for
> her...you say "Well Honey, I would love to...but I would need a < insert
> tool name here > to make that...and I don't have one..
>
> Most of the time you will get the tool...and you both win...she gets the
> furniture and you get the tool...
>
When I was a young lad, starting out, I would often do projects just to buy
a much needed tool. I worked for cheap in those days. But I was able to
put together a shop in my spare time without much outlay of my meager funds.
That standard line of, "But I need a (insert name of tool here) to make this
item" became my mantra. One funny thing that happened a couple of times was
that people would show up at my shop and demand a demonstration of the newly
purchased tool. I gave it to them and they were satisfied.
I would never put up with that kind of nonsense now. But when funds are
short and tool lust is strong, we will do all kinds of thngs to improve our
shop capacity.
Cripes that's amazing! I even had an inkling of wonder about exactly those
differences between then and now, and it evens out! But, look at the current
prices of new stanley planes these days, far far cheaper.
--
Alex - "newbie_neander" woodworker
cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/
"- Colonel -" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2006012120352650073-nobody@verizonnet...
> On 2006-01-21 09:05:10 -0500, "Charles Self" <[email protected]>
> said:
>
>>> When you buy a used plane, chances are it's one of the fittest, or it
>>> would not have survived.
>>
>> True. And that's a major part of the reason that around the world, we
>> see so many old, superb houses. The poorly built houses collapsed many
>> years ago, just as the poorly made tools hit the trash bins early. The
>> good stuff just keeps on keeping on.
>
> Ehhhh...I'd have to respectfully disagree. My house is 114 years old but
> it certainly isn't "superb."
>
> 2' x 6" floor joists over 14' or 16' spans...piers made from bricks and
> sand lime...the floors slope and slop like a rough day at sea...but I'll
> readiy admit it's "charming" and looks "lived in!"
>
I used to live in an old farmhouse in Goode, VA that had no joists under the
first floor...4' centers with white oak logs that had been adzed or
otherwise smoothed on top. The rest of the house was a mess.
I got burned out of a neat cottage back in '84, solid brick except for floor
joists, single layer floors and 2x10 joists over a 19-1/2 span. You thought
you were on a trampoline. Entrance to the basement was by swinging through a
basement window set about 3' below ground level. House was built in '55,
1855. All sorts of neat features, including 13" thick exterior walls, a
doubled kitchen to DR wall that was about 30" thick and a 39" thick wall
between one bedroom and another, and between the living room and the DR. The
fire started in the wiring in the LR, and the 39" thick wall saved my life,
as one old lady saw the fire start about 4 a.m. in the LR, and I didn't wake
up until 7.
I know awaken at 4:00 every day.
[email protected] wrote:
> I am starting to slip down the slope and have acquired several
> handplanes. Nothing great: a Stanley #4, a block plane, and I found an
> old Stanley router plane at a garage sale for $3.00--only one cutter
> but it is in good condition.
>
> These purchase got me to wondering: Just what are the reasons these old
> mass-produced planes are better than many of the new mass-produced
> ones? Was it just because they were heavier? Because the were
> flatter? The metal was difference? Because the just felt better?
SNIP
Because only the good ones have survived.
In 50 plus years they'll probably be asking the same question, however I
fear there will be fewer good ones to survive.
regards
John
Let us know how strait and true you are at 114. :)
"- Colonel -" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2006012120352650073-nobody@verizonnet...
>
> the floors slope and slop like a rough day at sea...but
> I'll readiy admit it's "charming" and looks "lived in!"
>
>
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Let us know how strait and true you are at 114. :)
>
> "- Colonel -" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:2006012120352650073-nobody@verizonnet...
>>
>> the floors slope and slop like a rough day at sea...but
>> I'll readiy admit it's "charming" and looks "lived in!"
>>
Another point, here, too: the houses that stand, as goofy footed as they may
be, are the good ones. Everything else has collapsed.
"Charles Self" wrote in message
> Sometimes I have to wonder about the economies of scale. How much extra
per
> plane the customers keep is added to the cost because of the planes
> customers return because they're trashy (the planes are trashy, not the
> customers)? Would we pay an extra two bucks, or however much, per plane to
> reduce the crappiness?
Sad, but I'd bet the above no longer even enters the equation in today's
topsy turvy, MBA tainted, business model.
Upper management remuneration, stock price, and employee benefits/perks
appear to be foremost in current business philosophy, not product quality or
service.
Whereas if the latter two are foremost, the first three seem to take care of
themselves ... just ask Robin Lee.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05
John B <[email protected]> wrote in news:4UCAf.223934
[email protected]:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Thanks--now you made me spend MORE money! :o)
>>
>> Tell me,how do you guys get your wives to let you spend the money?!!
>>
> Pay Cash
> Come home with a great bargain that you got for only $xxxxxx
> Lose receipt on the way home.
> ;)
> regards
> John
>
> "Anything for a Quiet Life"
Greetings....
You have to let her think its her idea...when I make something for the
house...which is mostly what I do anyways...sometimes I employ the time
honored..."new project...new tool" rule, A typical example might be...she
sees a commercial or advertisment...and wants you to make one for
her...you say "Well Honey, I would love to...but I would need a < insert
tool name here > to make that...and I don't have one..
Most of the time you will get the tool...and you both win...she gets the
furniture and you get the tool...
Hope this helps...
DCH
How many dollars a day do you earn compared to how much a Stanley worker
made when he produced #4 planes?
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I am starting to slip down the slope and have acquired several
> handplanes. Nothing great: a Stanley #4, a block plane, and I found an
> old Stanley router plane at a garage sale for $3.00--only one cutter
> but it is in good condition.
>
> These purchase got me to wondering: Just what are the reasons these old
> mass-produced planes are better than many of the new mass-produced
> ones? Was it just because they were heavier? Because the were
> flatter? The metal was difference? Because the just felt better?
>
> One would assume if you install a nice blade, like a Hock blade, into a
> newer plane, it should cut well--but I am not going to waste my money
> buying a cheapo Buck Brothers or something and then have it cut for
> crap.
>
> Is it true old planes are better or is it urban legend? I guess the
> same could be said for other hand tools as well (saws, chisels, etc.).
> I can see why the metal used to make saws and chisels can have an
> impact because inferior steel won't take and keep an edge and 'good
> grade' steel may be very expensive but I don't see how this could be
> the case for planes since the metal that does the cutting is the blade,
> and a Hock takes care of that, doesn't it?
>
On 20 Jan 2006 15:35:10 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>All this said, I never hear about anything other than Lie-Nielsen or
>Veritas or Knight planes as examples of fine quality modern planes.
>Are there others as well?
There are loads of high-end plane makers. However they're a small niche
market, so you won't see them advertised widely. Read FWW, look at
catalogues from the top toolshops, or just Google and you'll see them.
Holtey, St James Bay, Steve Knight, Gordon (?) - the Australian guy with
the Chinese pattern woodies.
Sadly many of these planes are just _too_ well made. Something like a
Holtey is made to be perfect, because it's accepted that it's a purely
decorative piece. I don't understand this desire - the desire to own the
best and shiniest Norris plane ever made, when it isn't even a Norris.
The Norris A5 I use the most has a bent adjusting screw, because someone
dropped it. It still works (just a bit stiff) and it still works as well
as a Norris ought. However that damage probably knocks a couple of
hundred off the "collectible" price of the thing. Oh dear.
I know people who use Holtey tools day-in, day-out (mainly luthiers)
Interestingly though, they're nearly all using custom tools made
specially for them by Holtey and the excess finish was never asked for
or applied to them.
> Is Clifton any good?
Clifton were produced by a well-respected UK hand tool retailer and a
well-respected industrial toolmaker in partnership, intending to make
simply the best bedrock-pattern iron-bodied plane they could. In all my
experience with Cliftons, then they've been excellent.
That said, there are reports from some US users of build quality and
accuracy being off. Whether this is just the flat earth society
measuring the irrelevant, I don't know.
The Clifton "Victor" iron is one of my favourite irons and I use it in
around half of my Stanley-pattern planes. It's not laminated, nor is it
A2 steel, but as a "classic" heavyweight iron made from traditional
steels it's the best around. I use laminated irons (Samurai or
Sweetheartt) in my fine smoothers, but these in most of my bench planes.
Much better than Hock. The Victor is very thick though. Retro-fitting
it to old planes often needs some mouth opening, and some people might
not want to do that to the rarer plane bodies.
> How about the new Stanleys?
Woof.
> Are wooden planes better/worse than metal ones?
Depends what you're doing and what you're used to. They're a totally
different shape to handle. I think you need to accept that, and use them
for what they're best at. I haven't found a use for a Stanley
transitional yet.
Most of my wooden planes are old moulding planes (couple of hundred).
Many of these are worn-out pigs to use, but they cut a shape that I
want. I've also got a mixed bag of weird planes, some of which I made
myself, that are spindle rounders, chair seat hollowers and the like.
Next up are my Japanese planes. These work best when working on a
Japanese-style bench, with Japanese-style timber. Not a great deal of
use flattening an oak table, but the only thing for shaping an oval onto
a sword scabbard made of lime.
European (ECE) woodies have the advantage of easy adjustment (better
than the Stanley pattern) and light weight. I don't use these much, but
one of these as a scrub plane is by far my most powerful non-powered
plane for quickly rough-shaping timber. I plane barn beams with this
when timber framing - I don't want to carry a Stanley around for that
long.
My very best smoothers are either a Norris or a very good Stanley (both
iron) or a couple of Steve Knight woodies.
>I am still very new to this aspect of woodworking. Heck, I just made
>my very first handcut dovetail joint last week.
Congratulations! Now do it very, very quickly. Then do some more, very,
very quickly too. You'll be doing them quickly and not so well. Then
you'll get better at them. IMHO you can't do a good one slowly and you
certainly can't learn to do good ones slowly. Don't fiddle with them -
that never works. Mark it out as crudely as you like, then saw it
exactly in one pass (that "exact" thing takes a bit of work). It's all
about whacking it with the saw, yet having the cut land exactly where
you wanted it. It's certainly not about trimming to fit afterwards.
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:53:24 +0100, Juergen Hannappel
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> European (ECE) woodies have the advantage of easy adjustment (better
>> than the Stanley pattern) and light weight. I don't use these much, but
>
>Are you speaking of "Reformhobel", with screw adjustment?
This sort
http://www.fine-tools.com/G301047.htm
The screw adjuster (like the GTL planes) has a big advantage over
Stanley of not having backlash in a fork lever.
I know the wedge system too, but those offer no advantage over old
English planes that I can buy locally for pocket-change.
My best scrub plane is an ECE with a horn front handle, a hornbeam sole
and wedge adjust. The iron is a '50s laminated Marples though - better
than the standard irons, as I find those a bit thin and bendy.
On 20 Jan 2006 12:23:03 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>I am starting to slip down the slope and have acquired several
>handplanes. Nothing great: a Stanley #4, a block plane, and I found an
>old Stanley router plane at a garage sale for $3.00--only one cutter
>but it is in good condition.
>
>These purchase got me to wondering: Just what are the reasons these old
>mass-produced planes are better than many of the new mass-produced
>ones? Was it just because they were heavier? Because the were
>flatter? The metal was difference? Because the just felt better?
>
What you are seeing is a cumulative effect of "value-engineering" over
the years. Various cost-saving measures, looser tolerances, more
inexpensive alloys got applied to those designs, a little at a time until
you went from something that was rock-solid and well-built to the flimsy,
poorly made specimens one gets today. Along the way, users became less
demanding as power tools began taking more of the jobs of hand planes and
the primary purpose to which handplanes were applied was by home handymen
to plane down sticking doors. Many of the buyers of modern handplanes had
no idea of what planes are capable, I know that until I started making
furniture, I had no idea.
... snip
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
> Nope. The cheapo new one is different in other ways than just the
> blade. Looking at metal planes, you need to consider the type of metal
> used in the casting (ductile cast iron or brittle, bronze, etc.), the
> cast quality (voids, impurities), the machining of the base (smoothness,
> flatness, sides square to sole).
>
Notwithstanding the bottom of the barrel stuff - there has always been cheap
junk, even in the "good old days" - I should think that the quality of the
metalurgy today is superior to that of 50 years ago.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:45:26 -0500, "Frank Arthur" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>How many dollars a day do you earn compared to how much a Stanley worker
>made when he produced #4 planes?
I live 30 minutes from Stanley headquarters in New Britain, CT.
I don't think Stanley makes ANYTHING here anymore, it's all Chinese
and Mexican. That said, I'll bet the people making Stanley stuff
today still make the same hourly wage they did in 1910. <G>
Hint: Stanley HQ is all cubicles...
Barry
On 21 Jan 2006 19:13:57 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>Thanks--now you made me spend MORE money! :o)
>
>Tell me,how do you guys get your wives to let you spend the money?!!
That's easy, I keep the books. :-)
Actually, both my wife and myself abhor debt and neither of us are going
to do anything to screw up the budget. We both spend money on our hobbies,
but neither of us let it get out of hand.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 14:02:59 GMT, "Charles Self"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>But, then, the handplane market seems to have pretty well petered out,
>except for true enthusiasts,
I also collect fountain pens. You can easily make a $1000 fountain
pen, with just one old guy in Vietnam and a pot of lacquer. If you have
a really good idea, then you can change the $10 pen market overnight
too. What you can't make an impact in is the $100 market. They need to
be both superior, and mass-produced. Even the big names like Sheaffer
and Parker have lost their way at this level.
"- Colonel -" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2006012106533550878-nobody@verizonnet...
> On 2006-01-20 15:53:50 -0500, [email protected] said:
>
>> I guess I am asking if a cheapo Buck Bros. plane from Home Depot will
>> cut as good as an old Stanley if both were equipped with a Hock blade?
>
> Once, in my younger and stupider days, I bought a Buck Bros. plane at Home
> Depot before putting a straight-edge on it. When I got home, I did. Not
> even close. That plane went back to HD the next day.
>
Sometimes I have to wonder about the economies of scale. How much extra per
plane the customers keep is added to the cost because of the planes
customers return because they're trashy (the planes are trashy, not the
customers)? Would we pay an extra two bucks, or however much, per plane to
reduce the crappiness? It is obvious SOME of us will pay considerably more,
as evidenced by Veritas and Lie-Nielsen planes, where economies of scale
must be much less.
But, then, the handplane market seems to have pretty well petered out,
except for true enthusiasts, so the overall chances of increasing sales at a
better quality point and a very few bucks more are probably not worth the
bean counters' time.
Brooks Moses <[email protected]> wrote:
>I happen to have a reprint of a Montgomery-Ward catalog from Fall of
>1894 handy, and it's got some Bailey planes in it just like the #5 I
>picked up at an antique mall a few weeks ago. Here's the price list:
>
> Bailey Adjustable Iron Planes:
> Smooth plane (iron), 8 inches long, No. 3 ........ $1.37
> Smooth plane (iron), 9 inches long, No. 4 ........ $1.50
> Smooth plane (iron), 10 inches long, No. 4 1/2 ... $1.70
> Jack plane (iron), 14 inches long, No. 5 ......... $1.70
> Fore plane (iron), 18 inches long, No. 6 ......... $2.16
> Jointer plane (iron), 22 inches long, No. 7 ...... $2.40
> Jointer plane (iron), 24 inches long, No. 8 ...... $2.96
>
>So, what's the equivalent value today? There's a handy online tool at
>http://www.eh.net/hmit/compare/ which compares these sorts of things.
>So, plug in $1.70 in 1894 (for a No. 4-1/2 plane), and today that's
>worth $194.75 if one compares it using the average unskilled labor rate
>then and now.
>
>And I see in my Lee Valley catalog that the really nice Veritas No.
>4-1/2 smoothing plane costs $195 today.
>
>Startling coincidence, innit?
>
I suspected as much. But good to see actual data that supports what I
suspected to be true! Thanks for posting that.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
On 21 Jan 2006 19:13:57 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>Tell me,how do you guys get your wives to let you spend the money?!!
Divorced 8-)
[email protected] (in
[email protected]) said:
| These purchase got me to wondering: Just what are the reasons these
| old mass-produced planes are better than many of the new
| mass-produced ones?
It could be because the poorly-made old ones took the path that the
newer poorly-made planes will follow: to the scrap heap.
The good old planes and the good new planes were/are/will be afforded
appropriate TLC and in another hundred years people will hold up a LN,
LV, or Clifton plane and ask the same question.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
"George" <George@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Frank Arthur" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> How many dollars a day do you earn compared to how much a Stanley worker
>> made when he produced #4 planes?
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> These purchase got me to wondering: Just what are the reasons these old
>>> mass-produced planes are better than many of the new mass-produced
>>> ones? Was it just because they were heavier? Because the were
>>> flatter? The metal was difference? Because the just felt better?
>>>
>
> First, crappy planes were made back when, just as they are made now, and
> for the same reason - to meet the standard of a user who did not demand
> the finest hand-finished and fettled hardware for the price that such
> commanded. You'll have to look to find one of any age, because most were
> trashed. The user of a crummy tool had two choices, fettle to a higher
> standard, or pitch it. I've got a couple of old thin metal types on my
> shelves as hand-me downs, but they have some hours in them, where I've
> worked the frog, the bed, and removed manufacturing uglies like grinding
> burrs. One of jacks has a Hock iron, which still makes it no match for my
> LV or LN planes, though it's a good deal more useable than when I started.
> The smooth is just a dust collector.
>
> As to cost and quality, there are a couple of roads available there, as
> well. Back when I worked in a stamping plant making parts for Fords, of
> steel produced in the Ford steel mills - Henry liked vertical
> integration - we were obliged to reject some rolled stock because the
> number of defects was too high. That steel was resold to Cadillac division
> downtown, where hand finishing was the norm, and each stamping was filed,
> bumped fitted and sanded to a different standard at a higher price. No
> way you could do that for a Ford, or even a Mercury, where the standards
> of material and manufacture were higher than the Ford of similar body
> style. Imagine the Lincoln plant was the same as Cadillac.
>
> When you buy a used plane, chances are it's one of the fittest, or it
> would not have survived.
True. And that's a major part of the reason that around the world, we see
so many old, superb houses. The poorly built houses collapsed many years
ago, just as the poorly made tools hit the trash bins early. The good stuff
just keeps on keeping on.
[email protected] wrote:
>All this said, I never hear about anything other than Lie-Nielsen or
>Veritas or Knight planes as examples of fine quality modern planes.
>Are there others as well?
Clark & Williamson, Holtey, Anderson, HNT Gordon, ECE, Shepherd.
> Is Clifton any good?
Heard mixed reviews on them. Lots like them, but some claim that
current manufacturing standards have dropped. No first hand experience
here, just what I've read.
> How about the new
>Stanleys? Are wooden planes better/worse than metal ones?
>
>I am still very new to this aspect of woodworking. Heck, I just made
>my very first handcut dovetail joint last week. It took me a heck of
>a long time to cut it and the pieces don't fit like a glove, let me
>tell you! But it worked. And I can only see me getting better at it
>as time goes on. I am planning on making a drawer, of sorts, as my
>first "project" using dovetails. I know it will probably be a nasty
>looking thing, but it'll be better than nothing.
and it gives a great sense of accomplishment. Ain't it grand? With
practice, they will only get better.
>I am beginning to find hand tools very interesting and that is why I
>want to learn about such things as the quality of modern hand planes.
>I guess I am being impatient. I need to scrounge garage sales and eBay
>to get good deals because I don't have the money to plop down $250 for
>a hand plane!
>
>If I did that, the wife would have my left nut, too.
Better pass on the Holtey's, then, or she might take off your left nut
at your armpit!
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Andy Dingley <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> European (ECE) woodies have the advantage of easy adjustment (better
> than the Stanley pattern) and light weight. I don't use these much, but
Are you speaking of "Reformhobel", with screw adjustment? Normal
continental european style (or at least german DIN plane style) is
adjusted with the hammer.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
[email protected] writes:
[...]
> These purchase got me to wondering: Just what are the reasons these old
> mass-produced planes are better than many of the new mass-produced
Well, none of my new planes (4) is worse than any of my old planes
(10), and the old ones somethimes needed (or still need) work to get a
mouth that is not a gaping 1/4" or even 1/2"...
But then, the new ones are very nicely made chinese (or taiwanese
style) planes and a japanese block plane, the old ones european style
wooden ones with lots of wear.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I am starting to slip down the slope and have acquired several
> handplanes. Nothing great: a Stanley #4, a block plane, and I found an
> old Stanley router plane at a garage sale for $3.00--only one cutter
> but it is in good condition.
>snip
Lee Valley has a new router plane design and their cutters will fit your
Stanley router plane.