Hand planes

[gwr]

Why are old pre ww2 Stanley planes regarded as much better than the latest offerings? I believe they are mass produced in the Far East or somewhere now.

Is it the materials that get used now or the finish of them that make the difference or both ?

The reason I ask is after looking to get a couple of reasonable priced planes as I only have a Stanley 4 not sure how old but not as early as www2 and older 91/2 block plane.

On A popular auction site they regularly fetch more than a new Stanley or record. I realise the new planes would be of little use straight out the box but after a little or lot of flattening what makes people say these planes are not so good?

 

[undergroundhunter]

Don't get hung up on the pre war thing, I have post war stanleys and I have a no4 from about 1911 and to be honest in use they are exactly the same. The only difference is the post war ones took a little more fettling (not much more) to get them in tip top working condition. I do have a 4 1/2 that took considerable fettling but that's my own fault for buying a new looking plane in its box, if its never been used there is probably a reason why but in the end its a good user plane.

All my post war planes are from the 50's and 60's any later than that I cant really comment.

Matt

 

[AndyT]

Stick to planes made in USA or Sheffield. There are so many of those around that there is no need to risk post 1980s planes made in Brazil, India or Taiwan. Don't buy anything made cheaper for the DIY market - eg planes with a spokeshave blade or a pressed steel body.

In my own experience of a small selection of Stanley planes there are good planes from before and after WWII including some from the 70s with plastic handles.

I've actually only bought one new, substandard plane, an Anant bullnose. You ask what is actually wrong with a bad plane.
This one had a casting that was not straight. The plating was thick and uneven. The threaded adjuster does not contact the blade snugly. The threaded part is so far under the proper diameter that the adjuster wobbles on it - there's not enough metal there. The corners were sharp and uncomfortable in the hand. The paint is uneven. The pins which hold the removable toe are crooked.

I think these are the sort of faults you can expect on a plane made to look ok in a photo, but with no care as to its performance.

 

[NickN]

One of the best planes I used was a plastic handled Stanley of maybe only 30-40 years vintage, so the whole 'pre-war' thing is, imho, perhaps meaningful for collectors, not so relevant for users.

 

[bugbear]

Why are old pre ww2 Stanley planes regarded as much better than the latest offerings? I believe they are mass produced in the Far East or somewhere now.

Is it the materials that get used now or the finish of them that make the difference or both ?

The reason I ask is after looking to get a couple of reasonable priced planes as I only have a Stanley 4 not sure how old but not as early as www2 and older 91/2 block plane.

On A popular auction site they regularly fetch more than a new Stanley or record. I realise the new planes would be of little use straight out the box but after a little or lot of flattening what makes people say these planes are not so good?

what-makes-new-hand-planes-bad-t85883.html

BugBear

 

[G S Haydon]

Why are old pre ww2 Stanley planes regarded as much better than the latest offerings?

Because if you repeat lie often enough it becomes the truth. It's something that a beginner would say or someone with very little knowledge of tools, I probably regurgitated the same line for a while as well. Andy describes perfectly what to look for. In many ways post WW2 are better. Typically bigger wheel adjuster and you can also be sure the cutter will advance in a clockwise motion.

 

[bugbear]

Why are old pre ww2 Stanley planes regarded as much better than the latest offerings?

Because if you repeat lie often enough it becomes the truth. It's something that a beginner would say or someone with very little knowledge of tools, I probably regurgitated the same line for a while as well. And describes perfectly what to look for. In many ways post WW2 are better. Typically bigger wheel adjuster and you can also be sure the cutter will advance in a clockwise motion.

Wow - I think you've gone a little TOO early. The "clockwise" thing assumed its modern style in type 6 (1888-1892), and the adjuster got "big" in type 12 (1919-1924), which was also the first "high knob".

http://www.hyperkitten.com/tools/stanle ... _study.php

So in terms of the concerns you raise, post WW One is fine, let alone Two!!

My personal preference/recommendation is early (say pre 1955) Record - much easier to find the UK than early Stanley.

BugBear

 

[ED65]

Why are old pre ww2 Stanley planes regarded as much better than the latest offerings?

Some of it is down to the finesse of the planes themselves, and part of it is looks, but a lot of it is hand-me-down opinion from people who prefer their looks and then couldn't separate that from how they worked... and to be less charitable, some would not have known how to get the most from a metal bench plane so they were actually no judge at all of good/better/best.

Is it the materials that get used now or the finish of them that make the difference or both ?

People often say the material quality is part of it and there might be some truth in that sometimes, but it's very hard to notice any difference in quality of the cast iron in the frog or body castings between a $500 antique and a £25 modern plane. I think it's 99% about the machining and/or the quality of the original patterns myself. The original patterns were a little more refined and became bulkier and cruder over time, until you get to the modern ones which are visibly crude and ugly, and then not particularly well machined on top of that.

As far as the all-important cutting edges go, the irons on old planes might be better than some produced later (70s Stanley irons made in England are said to be the worst going, super soft). But your bog standard Chinese iron from today's maker is at least as hard as many a good antique Stanley iron. And the modern ones can be substantially thicker, which if the plane weren't cheap as chips and look a little crude would be being sung as a plus point, as it is for a Hock or Clifton iron.

I realise the new planes would be of little use straight out the box but after a little or lot of flattening what makes people say these planes are not so good?

You might be surprised how little fettling is required, especially given how often the You Must Fettle For Good Performance thing gets repeated. I'm not saying fettling isn't required, but a lot of it gets done without the person actually checking first if it's actually needed. Flattening soles is the number one culprit here.

With the cheaper modern stuff, like any product of a certain price level you might be unlucky and get a Monday-morning special but equally there are perfectly presentable examples out there and happy users of same. I have a no-name block plane that looks like it came straight from the same factory that produces Faithfull's offerings and it required virtually nothing other than honing the iron to work well. In fact it did take shavings with no fettling at all, just there was a little burr on the mouth that needed to be addressed and a few other rough spots. I also have two modern no. 4s that both worked quite well or very well essentially straight from the box.

Now that said, I'd much prefer to give a good older plane a new home.

Even if it was covered head to toe with rust once cleaned up and fettled (as needed, it might require very little if it was a user in its day) you'd likely end up with a better, probably lighter plane that cost you practically nothing but a little time and elbow grease to get ready. And it would win in the looks department IMO, but that's obviously a very personal thing.

 

[D_W]

With all of the planes, other than proportions, it doesn't really matter much unless there is something wrong with a plane. Wrong things I've seen on planes:
* An adjuster nub too thick for the cap iron to fit over it (very new plane - plastic handle made in england)
* twisted castings (only once - WWII era plane)
* Undesirably soft iron (only once, type 20 US made plane)

Aside from those things, what's often made out as a quality difference (which it is) is the level of finish work on the planes and the amount of milling on the frog. The quality difference is inferred to be a capability difference (which it isn't). The planes with frogs sanded coarsely work very well if nothing is actually wrong with them.

Maybe the "good plane" rate was higher on the older planes, but I prefer the newer planes when one is found good. Not newest, but just later types, WW2 or so and later. I don't care about beech handles or plastic covered knobs, or the hard rubber reform school handles - all of those things are fine with me as long as they're not actually defective. The market sees little difference in value for the various planes, too - the later types generally bring as much as the earlier types when in good shape.

 

[G S Haydon]

Wow - I think you've gone a little TOO early. The "clockwise" thing assumed its modern style in type 6 (1888-1892), and the adjuster got "big" in type 12 (1919-1924), which was also the first "high knob".

http://www.hyperkitten.com/tools/stanle ... _study.php

So in terms of the concerns you raise, post WW One is fine, let alone Two!!

My personal preference/recommendation is early (say pre 1955) Record - much easier to find the UK than early Stanley.

BugBear

Nope, just pointing out why Andy's advise is spot on! Generic comments such as "buy pre WW2 because it's better" is utter rubbish. Good tip on the Record but they made plenty of good planes well after that.

 

[memzey]

Would it be correct to say that 100 or so years ago such planes would only have been used by professionals who relied on those tools to earn their living? If so does it not follow that there would have been much less tolerance for general crappiness than amongst the modern DIYer who is looking to pick up a plane for £20 odd from his local hardware store? Not seeking to present this as a fact but merely something for consideration.

 

[ED65]

Mostly yes memzey. Going back to before Stanley Rule & Level there were "gentlemen woodworkers" and the occasional "handy man" or "home Mechanic" working at home, usually in his kitchen, but obviously they represented a minuscule proportion of tool buyers, so virtually all tool production was intended for nothing but the professional user back when so much was made from wood.

 

[AJB Temple]

For the record (see what i did there) I was given my first plane which was a No 4 when I was in my mid teens and it was from the early 1970s but had never been used so was about 10 years old when I got it. Stanley, plastic handles. It was fine then and is fine now and has shaved a hell of a lot of wood. I have a few hand planes of varying qualities and sizes and with a bit of attention to set up and sharpening they all work perfectly satisfactorily. People seem to obsess over planes but as long as they are broadly decent quality the vast majority can easily be made to work well.

 

[skipdiver]

For the record (see what i did there) I was given my first plane which was a No 4 when I was in my mid teens and it was from the early 1970s but had never been used so was about 10 years old when I got it. Stanley, plastic handles. It was fine then and is fine now and has shaved a hell of a lot of wood. I have a few hand planes of varying qualities and sizes and with a bit of attention to set up and sharpening they all work perfectly satisfactorily. People seem to obsess over planes but as long as they are broadly decent quality the vast majority can easily be made to work well.

Agreed. I also have a plastic handled No 4 i bought new mid 70's. It works ok, although i prefer my 4-1/2, which is an earlier model i inherited.

 

[Bm101]

Does it essentially come down to production standards versus demand? The way I have it in my mind (probably mistakenly!) is a bit like this. As handtool use fell in favour of electrical tools for the professional market in general, less money is invested by the toolmaker in handtools. There's less return so less investment. The way I understand it it's a very gradual curve at first. So any fella making a living from it has to decide where to invest his money as at any time in history but all of a sudden there's huge time and labour savings to be made for the investment in power tools. The likes of Stanley capitalise on this of course. So your slightly later plane might be better than your earlier ones because improvements were made. The raised ring round the front knob was designed to stop the knob splitting for example. But the planes are still in widespread use. The working fellas all have them and still use them. There's no fascination with having a older one. It's a tool that does a job to earn money. No mystique about it. But then, many years later, you get the DIY explosion. This is where things change. All of a sudden you have a market again. But mostly it's a small money market, these people are not going to invest money into 'antique' tools. Much in the same way that people ripped out or boarded over their fireplaces etc the trend is for the modern. By now the accountants have had their say and production values have dropped off. Castings are no longer left to settle for a while then finished because whats the point in that? Loses money and there's no market for it. Same guys doing it for a living are still using their planes when needed but they are professionals and can tune sharpen etc without thinking about it. About this time production falls right off. World economics means it's cheaper to move production abroad. Quality control falls further.
But wait! What's that Horn sounding over the hill? It's the rise of the hobby woodworker. (Tooooot!) No need to make money, not a professional. The Market appraises. Lie Nielsen arise, Clifton, Veritas all rub their hands together and rightly so the world would be a poorer place without them. As tools accumulate value the collectors appear like wraiths. The myth arise that that the older the tool the better.
I bet I'm not the only one who has heard that older steel is better. I have come to think this means that tool production was better until the 70's odd and then it fell a*se over tit.. Then you had a modern resurgence. Same thing.

I'd love to hear how you guys who actually know what you're talking about view this. I'm sure I'm wrong on a lot of fronts and tbh I'm not actually sure why this subject interests me as much as it does. But it does.

In the end, I'm guessing it comes down to a game of averages.
I'm happy to admit I know nothing. It's purely guesswork!

Regards as always
Chris.

 

[Steve1066]

Why are old pre ww2 Stanley planes regarded as much better than the latest offerings? I believe they are mass produced in the Far East or somewhere now.

Is it the materials that get used now or the finish of them that make the difference or both ?

The reason I ask is after looking to get a couple of reasonable priced planes as I only have a Stanley 4 not sure how old but not as early as www2 and older 91/2 block plane.

On A popular auction site they regularly fetch more than a new Stanley or record. I realise the new planes would be of little use straight out the box but after a little or lot of flattening what makes people say these planes are not so good?

It's all rubbish. Does not matter if if 100 years old or 10 minutes old, cost £5 or £500. It's how you set it up and uses it that mater.
The old saying a it's a bad craftsmen that blames his tool is very true.
It's just tool snobs and collecters trying to justify the money they spend and out do each other.
I

 

[skipdiver]

I have a very heavy and solid (read expensive) Makita electric planer that i bought because it speeded up the fitting of the many doors that went into a house build. My hand planes were often neglected, except for a bit of final fettling. I then used it to trim PVC windows that had been made a bit tight when i did those for a while. I haven't touched the electric planer for years now, much preferring to use a hand plane now that i have the time and no cost pressures to consider.

Power tools usually speeded things up and allowed you to earn a living a bit easier. I went from a handsaw and mitre box to Knobex saw, then onto a chopsaw for skirtings and archi's. Stanley Yankee was replaced with cordless drill.

I think hand tools have had somewhat of a revival among hobbyists and some DIY'ers but if i were to go on site now, i bet every man and his dog would have the latest power tools and every labour saving device they could lay their hands on. The push for greater speed and greed of developers has pushed it that way. You can now pick up a screw and drive it straight into wood, with no pilot hole and no countersink as the screw will do that for you. The need for speed has driven the power tool market to the detriment of hand tools and their use. I've worked with site joiners that didn't have a handplane in their toolkit. If there is no mass market for decent affordable handplanes, then they won't be made, so you get the cheap tat a one end of the spectrum and the very expensive ones at the other aimed at the few more discerning customers. The bit in between is not as well served as it once was but is a bit better lately.

 

[Steve1066]

I have a very heavy and solid (read expensive) Makita electric planer that i bought because it speeded up the fitting of the many doors that went into a house build. My hand planes were often neglected, except for a bit of final fettling. I then used it to trim PVC windows that had been made a bit tight when i did those for a while. I haven't touched the electric planer for years now, much preferring to use a hand plane now that i have the time and no cost pressures to consider.

Power tools usually speeded things up and allowed you to earn a living a bit easier. I went from a handsaw and mitre box to Knobex saw, then onto a chopsaw for skirtings and archi's. Stanley Yankee was replaced with cordless drill.

I think hand tools have had somewhat of a revival among hobbyists and some DIY'ers but if i were to go on site now, i bet every man and his dog would have the latest power tools and every labour saving device they could lay their hands on. The push for greater speed and greed of developers has pushed it that way. You can now pick up a screw and drive it straight into wood, with no pilot hole and no countersink as the screw will do that for you. The need for speed has driven the power tool market to the detriment of hand tools and their use. I've worked with site joiners that didn't have a handplane in their toolkit. If there is no mass market for decent affordable handplanes, then they won't be made, so you get the cheap tat a one end of the spectrum and the very expensive ones at the other aimed at the few more discerning customers. The bit in between is not as well served as it once was but is a bit better lately.

I am a site carpenter/ shop fitter and uses my faithfull no4 and faithfull block plane pretty much every day, and have bone for 10 years when I got them to replace my stolen Stanley planes, which were made in the 90s. I will admit that I only use them for cleaning up after the power tools.
But there nothing wrong with them, there just as good as any other hand plane you can get for a lot less money.

 

[gwr]

Thank You for all the Input folks from reading it all there is some mixed opinions on this as there is with most things.

I can't justify a new Ln / Clifton or the likes but will keep looking for decent used models as It seems the new Stanley/Record is a lottery to whether you get a reasonable one or not.

 

[Vann]

It's all rubbish. Does not matter if if 100 years old or 10 minutes old, cost £5 or £500. It's how you set it up and uses it that mater.
The old saying a it's a bad craftsmen that blames his tool is very true.
It's just tool snobs and collecters trying to justify the money they spend and out do each other.
I

I think you're wrong Steve. It's quality control.

I think if you bought 100 new Stanley planes back in 1917, you'd have maybe 1 or 2 shitters in there. If you bought 100 new Stanleys today you'd maybe get 10 that weren't shitters (just a rough estimate).

Just things like seasoning the castings so they don't keep stress relieving (i.e. moving) after they're machined - and general attention to detail.

People pay ridiculous prices for rarer old planes. But people also pay more than is necessary for a shiney new plane, which is also ridiculous, as it's the blade that does the cutting, not the chrome/paint. I don't know about American made Stanleys, but in Britain it seems quality control was declining seriously at Stanley from early 1950s, and at Record by the end of 1950s. There were many good planes made later than that, but the chances of getting a good one decrease slightly decade by decade.

If you keep an eye out for an older plane that isn't collectable, you should get a reasonable plane at a very reasonable price, and have less hassle getting it to perform well. Or buy a new one with a consumer guarantee - so you can exchange it a few times until you get a good one.

My tuppence worth.

Cheers, Vann.