Hi Pam--welcome to the forum! This was my first purchase from Andrew. Great comminication and accomodation when I asked for other photographs. Prompt [and fairly priced] shipping and good packaging.
I think the apparent minimalization, or characterization, of laminated planes being suitable for so-called students and or one-offs illicited a poloraization of responses...but did little for advancing arguments as to real [or perceived] benefits of either types of construction [solid or laminated].
I have planes from eons back [OK, not that long but very old nonetheless] that had new soles which were attached way in the past and are still well adhered. Perhaps done to make the mouths smaller or simply to repair wear in general. As well, I have owned and abused more than a few of Steve's planes before, without problems associated with delamination or excessive movement--certainly no more than vintage planes I own.
I also own more than a few solid-body planes which exhibit various issues with movement. Some more than others and kept in the same environment. Though on the surface they look like the one right next to it in all the details which I would assume are significant [contstruction, about the same number/closeness of annual rings, sawn relationship to grain, etc.].
Perhaps my expectations of how the thread could have went were too different. But rather than people merely making unfounded characterizations about laminated planes--whether those characterizations be anectdotal and positive or negative--a bit of dialogue as to why one or the other is better would have been more beneficial to me. Phew. Talk about run-on sentances...
So I think what it really boiled down to was tradition, whether new or old school.
Take care, Mike
