Quality Mid Range Hand Planes ?

[wizer]

There is a thread over on the Wood Whisperer forum about the lack of mid-range planes. Something above the quality of Anant, etc but below LN, LV. Rob Lee said he tasked his designers to use 'new' materials when creating the new block planes. However, the purpose was clearly not to save the end user's money. The new offerings from Stanley are said to be aimed at the LN/LV market in terms of RRP.

So it's got me thinking. Is it possible to make such a 'mid range' plane? What materials could be used to make such a plane, other than wood? Rob said he'd never have the cheek to use injection moulding, but is there a good quality plastic/composite material that could be used to keep costs down?

Just a theoretical question, I assume these big companies have thought of this stuff already.

 

[Screw Loose]

What's wrong with Anant
my little block plane goes everywhere with me

True it doesn't hold a edge for eternity but its easily sharpened
It does not get nicked and I'm not paranoid about losing it :lol:

How about http://www.rali-uk.com/

 

[frugal]

There is a thread over on the Wood Whisperer forum about the lack of mid-range planes. Something above the quality of Anant, etc but below LN, LV. Rob Lee said he tasked his designers to use 'new' materials when creating the new block planes. However, the purpose was clearly not to save the end user's money. The new offerings from Stanley are said to be aimed at the LN/LV market in terms of RRP.

So it's got me thinking. Is it possible to make such a 'mid range' plane? What materials could be used to make such a plane, other than wood? Rob said he'd never have the cheek to use injection moulding, but is there a good quality plastic/composite material that could be used to keep costs down?

Just a theoretical question, I assume these big companies have thought of this stuff already.

I am not sure that there is much demand for a mid range hand plane. MY theory goes like this:

• An Axminster No4 bench plane is £22.

• A Stanley No4 is about £40.

• A Clifton No4 is £200

• A L/N No4 is £280

So you would be looking for something in the £100-£150 price range. the problem is that the mass market of DIYers are only ever want to pay for the <£40 market. The site chippies might be willing to pay to £100-£150 price range. And the only people who are willing to pay £200+ for a bench plane are primarily going to be enthusiasts who are not in this for the money, but for the love.

I can not see the market that they would be trying to break into. They would constantly be derided be the enthusiasts for not being as good as Clifton/LN/LV from above and derided by the DIYers for being too expensive from below.

If you are going to break into that kind of market at that price point you are going to need to be automated (no hand polishing or lapping the base to 0.00001" tolerances ). The problem with doing that is that you are then into the high R&D; high tooling costs and you will need to sell a large number of units in order to break even. The best way of doing this is too sell as many as you can as cheaply as you can.

There are a number of other barriers to entry to be considered:

- Brand image: any new competitor has to overcome the brands of the competitors. Stanley may be mocked by the people here for low quality, but it is all that the average Joe in the street has ever heard of.
- Advertising: In order to get your market out there you will need to market them. The marketing budget will be quite limited, as will the number of places you could advertise into.
- Labour costs: Clifton, LV, L/N all spend a large number of man hours in creating each plane; which is one of the reasons that they are so expensive. Stnaley can knock out cheaper planes because they use cheap labour and do not have such high tolerances. I wonder how that graph of time vs accuracy would look? I imagine that there will be not much increase in accuracy as labour time increases (Stanley) until you get to a certain point,at which point it will go up and then plateau out (Cliton, LN, LV) and then only go up slowly again (LX60).


I wonder what the total plane sales are each year from Stanley, Clifton, L/N and LV (along with Anant, Faithful, Axminster etc). I would be surprised if there were many given the nature of woodworking to become a more industrialised process (time==money). I wonder just how big the enthusiast market actually is...

 

[wizer]

Yes I see your point Frugal. I guess these large companies came to this conclusion a long time ago.

I do think that there should be a mid range. Whilst I'm not adverse to spending money, I'd be quite happy with a plane that just worked very well, without having to fettle it. It's taken years for me to get into hand planes because they were too expensive for me to take a risk on something I wasn't sure I'd ever be happy with. My initial assumption was that construction materials where a large part in the expense, but it's clear that there is a lot of R&D plus overheads.

Small scaler makers wouldn't explore this area because it's too much of a risk.

I am interested in what other materials could make a plane other than wood and metal. The sole would have to be as slippy as metal.

 

[Mr Ed]

I wonder if the new so called 'premium' Stanleys might actually fall into this middle ground?

All depends on where they are priced, assuming the 3d renderings ever turn into actual products...

Cheers, Ed

 

[tnimble]

What materials could be used to make such a plane, other than wood? Rob said he'd never have the cheek to use injection moulding, but is there a good quality plastic/composite material that could be used to keep costs down?

The tooling costs are fairly high for injection moulding. The number of products made can be 'relatively' low, as the quality slowly drops due to tooling wear. With casting metal a slow drop in cast quality is less dramtic. the bad castings (quite some percentage actually) can be recycled. Minor imperfections can be milled, ground or blasted away. Where as with a lot of plastics and composites the machining that can be done is limited and materials can't be recycled as easy if at all.

Also the raw material costs of the 'often' used ductile is relative low, also are th machine costs as ductile is easy to machine, requires less cutting oil and causes not a huge amount of wear on the end mills, boring tools and chisels. And ductile has been proven to be fairly stable and can take a knock in use. It rater distorts that cracks, with the distortions relatively easy to file or sand away.

 

[bugbear]

I do think that there should be a mid range.

For this to be true, you need a viable market; I think frugal clearly outlined the reasons that no such market exists.

BugBear

 

[wizer]

ok, I just thought a theoretical discussion on alternative plane making materials might be relatively interesting. I stand corrected and informed.

 

[ByronBlack]

there is a mid-range of beautiful and well performing planes, it's a small company in the UK by an interesting fella in the south-west. They are all hand-made, comes with superb blades, flattened and sharpened before delivery.

It's called 'Philly Planes'

 

[ByronBlack]

I do think that there should be a mid range.

For this to be true, you need a viable market; I think frugal clearly outlined the reasons that no such market exists.

BugBear

The points although valid, are just theoretical, the fact that there are people talking about this mid-range and poeple who want them, proves there is a market - how big or small is a different point.

There is the assumption that the hobbyist is happy to pay LN, LV, Clifton prices just because of the love. That is not true for all hobbyists, I certainly don't want to pay all that money for a plane. I for one would love a decent mid-range plane, something that can get me near the performance of the higher-end without endless amount of tuning/fettling an old stanley/record require.

Take a look at the new veritas saw for example. This is aimed at the mid-range. It's not a nasty cheap hardpoint, neither is it a highpriced LN or Wenzloff etc.. It's a good quality mid-range saw that has the same performance for less costs (check out philly's review).

I think veritas will do well with it, and I hope they contiue to extend their range of affordable high performance tools.

Getting back to Wizers questions about material. Something that hasn't been explored yet is graphites and plastics. I see no reason why they couldn't be used. They are flat, relatively easy to manufacture, cheap, and could be lapped/flattened with relative ease.

 

[neilyweely]

I am clearly not in he same league as some of the woodworkers on the forum; most of my work is structural rather than joinery. However I would've thought that there WAS a market for quality mid-range planes. The theory over the derision being aimed at the brand from above and below is a valid point, but surely there are some sacrifices can be made without compromising the performance of the plane to a large degree.
I personally am not so concerned with how my tools LOOK, as to how they perform. Whilst I do appreciate the workmanship involved with LN etc I buy the tool to do a job, rather than as an enthusiast who has a concern with appearance too.
I thought the new stanley range was going to revive the brand AND be aimed at the 100quid mark, am I wrong?

Surely I am not alone in this opinion? I know for a fact there are six or seven lads on site who would agree with me, as they have expressed an interest in the stanley range when I explained them (incorrectly?)

Just my 2p.

Neil

 

[ike]

All Stanley have to do is apply quality control and specify quality materials. Maybe bring production back to American soil. Not really much required in the design department. Lo and behold the humble Stanley No. 4 can transform to a decent 'mid-range' plane... Actually, isn't that what they used to do :? :wink:

No need to re-invent the wheel - just get to it with the spoke wrench.

A premium plastic plane...with a bubinga handle - hmm, that'd be irony for you!

 

[JohnCee]

Hello, everyone.
First post. be gentle.

I think older Stanleys/records fill the midrange slot nicely. I also think people overestimate the amount of fettling required.

Buy nice old stanley for £30 or so, have the sole reground for £20 by Ray Iles, add a new thicker blade and back iron ~£40 (Ray will even file the mouth for you if required) and voila! you have the perfect sub-£100 midrange plane.

 

[ike]

Another way too it - couldn't agree more.

 

[frugal]

I was trying to explain to SWMBO about the NX60 and where it fits into the market place and why people would pay £220 for one rather than £60 for a very simliar looking block plane.

Eventually between us we extended the car analogy that occured in the NX60 thread: Anant and Stanley are Fiestas, Clifton and LN are Bentleys and the NX60 would be a Ferarri.

When discussing this thread she stated that the lack of a mid range plane was then like not having a BMW in the car range.

It got me thinking, there is a demand for all of the above cars, Fiestas, BMWs, Bentleys and Ferraris, so why do I think that there is not a demand for a mid priced plan. I think it is to do with volume more than anything else. There are millions of cars sold every year, so it is cost effective to have a car for every niche, but I reckon that there are only a few thousand hand planes sold each year, and unlike the car market there does not seem to be the need or desire to change the model every 3 years. (I know that a lot of people here have dozens of planes, but my dad has still just got the same Record No4 that he had when I was a kid 20 years ago).

I think that the ultimate reason that there is not a mid range plane at the moment is that the total market is too small to have larger number of models.

There are some mid range specialists like Philly, but I suspect that his production volume is too low to affect the global market (no offence meant Philly to your product, but as I understand it you make all of the planes yourself, and there are only so many that a single person can produce in a year).

As someone else pointed out that the mid range market is also satisfied by the refurbished second hand market which also reduces the market space for a manufacturer of new planes to fit into.

I am trying to remember all of the micro-economic theory I did at A-Level 20 years ago Other things would be economies of scale (at what volumes do they kick in); retail (just how many diferent brands of handplanes do you want in your shop) and over-choice (too many products that all look and function the same at a macro level, and only differ in cosmetics, or quality which is difficult to determine on a shelf edge).

Not that I am against a mid range plane. I would certainly have more of a chance of getting one past SWMBO than I do a Clifton ("but you already have two that look just like that one!")

Although given that over the weekend: The telly broke; my glasses broke; we discovered Nursery have not taken any money for two months; and both sets of parents have arranged to spend Christmas with us... I think that new tools of any description are way down the priority list

 

[custard]

Hello, everyone.
First post. be gentle.

I think older Stanleys/records fill the midrange slot nicely. I also think people overestimate the amount of fettling required.

Buy nice old stanley for £30 or so, have the sole reground for £20 by Ray Iles, add a new thicker blade and back iron ~£40 (Ray will even file the mouth for you if required) and voila! you have the perfect sub-£100 midrange plane.

Good point, well put!

 

[bugbear]

but I reckon that there are only a few thousand hand planes sold each year

It would be rather interesting to know the combined annual sales of LN, Clifton and LV, who I guess would constitute mass market (in our market).

(I suspect that Philly, Steve Knight, S&S, Wayne Anderson etc form a tiny percentage compared to those three).

I also suspect that even the "big three" are selling tiny numbers compared to Record/Stanley in their heyday.

BugBear

 

[wizer]

When I started out, I steered well clear from hand tools because you basically have three options.

Buy the cheap rubbish and learn the hard way
Buy an old tool and fettle it
Buy top of the range planes.

I was intelligent enough to know I wouldn't stick it with a sub-standard plane, I was unintelligent enough to be able to fettle a plane to get it working well and, at that time, I could not afford the top range. For me (and I think many like me) powered hand tools and cheap machinery was a better bet than buying rubbish or unfettled hand tools. If there was a good quality block plane available for around £80 max, I'd have been more likely to invest in hand tools earlier. It wasn't until I bought a fettled block plane on here and was shown other hand tools, that my interest in hand tools flourished.

 

[Chems]

I'd be intrested in a mid price plane range for sure.

I've taken the old router of getting a Record off ebay and fettling it. Took me ages, cost me loads of time, but at the end I have a well performing plane and have learned something. I couldn't ever see myself paying triple figures for a plane. Just couldn't.

 

[matthewwh]

The latest from Stanley is that the US launch of the Sweetheart range has been pushed back to the new year. I haven't received any notification that the UK launch date has changed from April 09, which should mean that we still get a chance to see some feedback from the forums and mags over there before the UK launch.

Having a browse through their catalogue, they still do quite a few other premium tools - the Rabone range of class 1 rules and squares and the new Bailey hand clamps look very acceptable.