A hard decision...

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Pekka Huhta

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2006
Messages
412
Reaction score
0
Location
Finland
I felt like gloating yesterday, but I had a sort of a problem. I think I need your help on this one.

Should I gloat about the small box of planes that arrived from US (Rule&Level era #101, #102, #110, #220, #9½, 60½, 2x #3, #5, #6, #7, #8, #55)...

RL.jpg


... OR

about the dozen #4's I'm intending to write a review from (Anant, Kamal, Hira kanna, HBS, Lie-Nielsen, Mujinfang, Record, Stanley, Veritas, and I'm still waiting for the Clifton to arrive from Matthew)?

vertailu.jpg


What do you think?

Pekka, running already :D
 
Hi

Nice gloat , nice set of old stanley planes there , the plane you are going to write up about do have to return them afterwards, or get to keep them :?: .hc :lol: :mrgreen:
 
Pekka - you definitely have a problem and need urgent help...a redistribution of that ironmongery would go a long way towards a cure :whistle: :tool: (hammer) - Rob
 
I'll have to return most of the planes: a friend of mine bought the LN, I bought the Clifton, Stanley and HBS (what a waste of money except the Cliffie of course), I got the japanese plane as a gift and the rest got borrowed from my favourite toolshop here in Finland.

So I'm going to keep the japanese plane, sell the Stanley and HBS (if anyone wants them :roll: ) and I haven't yet decided about the Clifton yet. Possibly will sell that one as well, as I'm too fond of the old junk to start using it actively. And just keeping it standing on the shelf would feel wrong.

For years I have wanted to compare the available major brand planes just to know what's the difference, instead of flaming the Stanleys, Records and other junk planes just because "everybody knows they are rubbish". They are rubbish, I know, but I want proper proof for it :D

Pekka
 
You've dangled a big teaser there!

Some of them must be rubbish - you're covering the market from 'cheap and nasty' to 'too expensive'. But it gets interesting when you find the ones that are cheap (or dear) out of all proportion to their performance.

For example, the very cheap Mujinfangs are excellent (based on my sample of 1 and some appreciative comments elsewhere).

Bring it on!
 
Hi all

instead of flaming the Stanley's, Records and other junk planes just because "everybody knows they are rubbish". They are rubbish, I know, but I want proper proof for it

I'll have always used Stanley, its usually not the plane only the users preference , what you would like and what i would like could possible be two different strokes.


Wow!!!!!! Love the box of Stanley's

Philly eye's off. :lol: hc
 
Philly":86gufjoy said:
Look forward to your review,
Philly :D

Hey, I'm writing it in Finnish! Do you seriously suggest I should translate it? :wink: :D

head clansman":86gufjoy said:
Hi all

instead of flaming the Stanley's, Records and other junk planes just because "everybody knows they are rubbish". They are rubbish, I know, but I want proper proof for it

I'll have always used Stanley, its usually not the plane only the users preference , what you would like and what i would like could possible be two different strokes.

I should have said NEW Stanleys, Records and other junk etc...

Most of my planes are pre-WW1 Stanleys and I like them a lot. Looking at a new Handyman makes me think that if they would install a few magnets on Mr. Baileys bones and a few turns of copper wire around his coffin, they could probably power up the whole Stanley company by him rolling in his grave...

Pekka
 
head clansman":1g5ey6e5 said:
Hi pekka

pekka wrote

Hey, I'm writing it in Finnish! Do you seriously suggest I should translate it?

Yes of course .
:sign3:
I'm with HC, OF COURSE you should translate it into English!!!

While that box of Stanleys is impressive, I could never afford a c*ll**tion like that. So it's the test of the working smoothers that interests me...

Cheers, Vann.
 
Vann":3gjil3py said:
head clansman":3gjil3py said:
pekka wrote

Hey, I'm writing it in Finnish! Do you seriously suggest I should translate it?

Yes of course .
:sign3:
I'm with HC, OF COURSE you should translate it into English!!!

Just teasing, surely I'll be translating it some day. It's quite a job, I'm not even on halfway and I'm having ten pages of text already (without pictures). So you might have to wait a while.

Pekka
 
Pekka Huhta":2cogu0lv said:
[
Hey, I'm writing it in Finnish! Do you seriously suggest I should translate it? :wink: :D
Pekka

Nah! don't bother, just post original text here - us English are renown for being polygot
 
Pekka Huhta":185k44px said:
For years I have wanted to compare the available major brand planes just to know what's the difference, instead of flaming the Stanleys, Records and other junk planes just because "everybody knows they are rubbish". They are rubbish, I know, but I want proper proof for it :D

Pekka

That raises the question of how much fettling you intend to do before testing? Just hone the iron or hone and flatten the back, chip breaker, sole flatten….?
Jon.
 
jonbikebod":28ncyl5u said:
That raises the question of how much fettling you intend to do before testing? Just hone the iron or hone and flatten the back, chip breaker, sole flatten….?

There are too many planes to fettle them all. I have had to do something for some of the planes to get them working in the first place (For example the iron of wooden HBS had got stuck completely to the body and I had to chisel out a little more space, the frog adjustment screw of Stanley had to be modified to work, I had to hone a few chipbreakers to fit etc.) but it would be much too difficult to tune them all up.

And on the other hand practically any plane can be tuned to operate properly by changing the iron, filing the frog, lapping, polishing and general pimping.

So I'm going to use them pretty much as they are. As most of the planes are more or less entry level planes it would be a bit unfair to tune them all up for the best performance, as the beginner is not very likely to be able to do the same by himself.

Anyway, I will try to estimate the need for fettling for each plane in the test anyway.

Pekka
 
Therein lies the paradox. A person with the ability to fettle an inexpensive plane to a high level of performance would also appreciate the value of a LV or Clifton. It is the person without that knowledge that will buy the budget plane and then expect it to work well straight out of the box (or plastic bubble).
It will be interesting to know if any of them do.
Jon.
 
It's the same problem every time :D

To learn how to sharpen, you have to know what "sharp" is. To know what "sharp" truly is, you have to learn to sharpen.
To learn how to adjust a plane, you have to know how a properly adjusted plane behaves. To get a properly adjusted plane you will have to learn to adjust it.
To learn what's the difference between a cheap and an expensive plane is, you have to buy them both :D


This far usable planes out of the box have been the expensive ones, Mujinfang, japanese plane (both of these ones pretty esoteric for your first entry-level basic plane), Record and Anant Kamal. I just picked up the Kunz on my lunchbreak, so I don't know wether it qualifies.

Those are "usable", meaning that you are able to take a shaving with them just from the box. Any shaving, that is - none of them is capable of fine work without sharpening. Not even the expensive ones.

Pekka
 
Pekka Huhta said
Those are "usable", meaning that you are able to take a shaving with them just from the box. Any shaving, that is - none of them is capable of fine work without sharpening. Not even the expensive ones.

I am sure a Philly one will work straight out of the "box"?? :)

Nice collection.

Rod
 
Back
Top