Tool Quality

[Jelly]

Before I start, this isn't so much a question, as an invite to challenge my opinions; which, as far as I can see, run a little contrary to the accepted wisdom of the forum*.

Anyway, reading the posts (for there are two) on the Faithful Tools 7-piece set, there were certain statements I found myself disagreeing with, I don't mean to engage in an argument over the specifics, but I'm going to 'quote snipe' a little, to help me order my thoughts...

First, from the thread in Buying Advice:

When you think that a 'decent' brand new no 4 plane starts at over £100, then...

I'm all for the idea that you get what you pay for... However, I also subscribe to the notion that the functional benefit of improved quality is inversely proportional to the increase in price. You pay an awful lot extra to iron out minor niggles, which are perfectly deal-with-able.

Second, from Hand tools

The No. 4 however is a piece of garbage and I only really understood it was garbage until after I bought my Qiangsheng no. 4 and so could compare. Initially I thought it was just me not knowing how to set and use the plane, but now I'm convinced it's the plane.

It's an oft quoted aphorism that "a bad workman blames his tools"... Like all laconic phrases, It looses much through its lack of context**, better perhaps is "a good workman knows why their tools are to blame". Choosing to buy a better tool, may improve things; but determining why the tool is deficient, is a more worthy endeavour and may even allow you to get the results you desire in spite of the issues.

In short, I propose that "functionality" and "durablity" are the only real measures of tool quality worth serious consideration; everything else is the icing on the cake... Extranious,Delicious and very much Tempting.


*(fora, in my experience tend to have certain ideas which are taken as being axiomatic by established members; groups of people seem to be like that )

Edit:
**(and in this case, risks gaining an uneccesarily offensive connotation; So if it comes over that way i can only say sorry Fromey, I don't know your work to comment on it and the statement is not intended to be targeted or personal.)

 

[RogerP]

As a lone hobby woodworker I have no easy way of seeing tools or trying out a workmates so I have no standard by which to judge what is good. I've read reams about fettling and sharpening and have followed the advice. My tools all seemed to be working well BUT how much better the expensive stuff was I had no idea.

So I bought a top of the range plane and top of the range saw both of which were supposed to be ready for work straight from the box. They did. But in all honesty they are no better than my existing cheap fettled ones. They look prettier but they don't work any better - but at least I do now have a standard to judge my own sharpening/fettling by.

 

[AndyT]

I have some expensive tools and I have some cheap tools. Homing in a bit onto cheap cast planes, I offer this thought as an explanation of the different opinions expressed.

One way for cheap planes to be cheap is for the maker to spend no money on quality control. In the ordinary run of things, the manufacturing process will produce many specimens that are not what they ought to be in terms of accuracy and finish, but a few (by normal distribution) will be spot on. So, any one of us could be lucky enough to buy a Brand X plane which is a good plane, ready to use. If we happen to only want to use it on mild, easy to work wood, for short periods, we can be very happy with it - and could even go onto a woodwork forum and say 'my Brand X plane is brilliant - why pay more?'

But others would get something from the rest of the batch, where threads did not mesh properly, bits were the wrong shape, handles at the wrong angle, corners rough. The cheap maker sells them all, where the premium maker spots them and rejects them - which puts up his costs.

If you then compound the problem by trying to do fine work with such a dud tool - perhaps instead of just wanting to box in some pipes in softwood you are trying to make a jewellery box from yew - all those faults will really matter, and will be a big barrier to doing good work.

In your experience, Brand X stinks!

 

[Peter T]

As a lone hobby woodworker I have no easy way of seeing tools or trying out a workmates so I have no standard by which to judge what is good. I've read reams about fettling and sharpening and have followed the advice. My tools all seemed to be working well BUT how much better the expensive stuff was I had no idea.

So I bought a top of the range plane and top of the range saw both of which were supposed to be ready for work straight from the box. They did. But in all honesty they are no better than my existing cheap fettled ones. They look prettier but they don't work any better - but at least I do now have a standard to judge my own sharpening/fettling by.

I'm in the same situation as you but my experience is somewhat different.

I've built up a small set hand tools by buying stuff that looked good on the Bay. I got what looked like a nice, fairly old, Record 5 1/2. I followed all the advice on here and other internet sites and fettled the plane to what seemed like a good standard; the sole is flat to <1 thou, the frog is well seated and the face is flat, the iron is well sharp, etc, etc.

Anyway, the plane worked quite well but I struggled to get the thin, <2 thou, shavings that I thought should be possible. I changed the iron for a thicker Ray Iles and this helped, but I still felt it should be better.

One day I was in Axminster and had a go with an LN 5 1/2. It felt so good I had to buy one! Straight out of the box, with just a light honing of the iron, i could consistently get <1 thou shavings and produce a finer surface finish. It was so easy I was left wondering why I had spent so much time and effort fettling older planes.

Don't get me wrong, it's been an enjoyable experience and I've learned a lot, but I have to believe that the high end, expensive planes give better results that their cheaper alternatives.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Interesting question - and posed in a diplomatic and thought-provoking way, too.

I think there is still some truth in the idea of getting what you pay for. As we seem to have gravitated to discussing Bailey-type bench planes, I'll use them as my example.

Bench planes are not made in large volumes; there just isn't the market. The market for high-end ones is niche. No manufacturer can really afford the high-end machines with in-process gauging and ultra-fine tolerances used for high volume production of such things as car engine parts. The manufacturers are economically constrained to using small batch methods, and because of the nature of planes, quite a lot of hand assembing and finishing. That obviously costs money, and the more care is taken, the more it costs. There are also things you can pay for that you can't see; for example, the better makers stress relieve their sole castings to reduce (hopfully eliminate) the chances of it warping as the casting stresses relieve themselves over the first few years of the plane's life. The budget manufacturers omit that to save cost. The high-end makers use better materials (LN use manganese bronze or ductile iron, Clifton use ductile iron), the budget makers use bog-standard grey cast iron; the high-end makers invest more manufacturing time in final fit and finish, and are more prepared to reject components that are just sub-standard - adding to cost. The high end makers give very good after sales service if you should need it; buy a budget plane, and the best you can hope for is that the retailer will exchange it for another one, or give you your money back.

Way back in the 1980's when I was just starting, I bought (among many other tools) two Record planes, an 04 and an 07. The 07 was beautifully made and finished, and apart from new rosewood handles, and a Japanese laminated iron (later replaced with a Clifton iron and two-piece cap-iron), it still serves me well almost as it came from the box. The 04 was a completely different story. In my ignorance, I couldn't get it to work well at all. As my knowledge improved, I learned about sole flatness; checking with a steel rule and feelers, I got a 0.010" feeler under the rule by the mouth, as the rule sat on the toe and heel. A colleague surface ground it for me (improving the surface finish no end - it is now comparable to the 07), and replacement handles and blade helped too. Nonetheless, when LN introduced their range, I replaced it - and was amazed by the improvement in ease of use and results obtainable by the better quality plane. (I now wish I'd held off a year or two until Clifton introduced their range, but you can only buy what's available at the time.)

So even the 'volume' manufacturers' products can be variable.

Maybe one reason that older planes are liked is because they've been pre-fettled by their previous owners. There's also the point that older castings will be more stable than new ones. However, in the end, quality is slightly subjective - what is OK for one user may be inadequate for another, be it performance, ease of use, appearance or just that intangible 'feel' about a tool. A site chippy won't want to use his finest planes on a job with magnetic-fingered wazzocks about, but at home in his own workshop he may do. A cabinetmaker will have little use for cheap tools, a jobbing handyman may.

I think, on balance, you do generally get what you pay for - but there are exceptions that prove every rule.

 

[GazPal]

When "improving" old/new planes it's a case of finely balancing lever cap tension, cap iron position/conditioning, honing technique and frog position - amongst a number of other attributes. Uncovering this balance is part of the trick to having them work without flinching, but it takes all takes practice and - often more than - a little patience.

Buying a new plane can potentially help avoid the initial need to make adjustments to the tool and provide a false sense of security, but goal posts can often shift after the first number of blade whettings. The cap iron might not quite match it's original set-up. The lever cap screw may have been nudged, resulting in a change in lever cap tension, or the frog may have been inadvertently shifted in it's seat.

Sharpening and edge maintenance tend to be far more important issues.

The question regarding "how flat should a plane sole be?" pretty much revolves around the fact it should should be as flat as reasonably practicable. You shouldn't need an engineering degree, or tooling up the whazzoo in order to make these things work. Proof positive can be found if studying past craftsmanship from centuries during which wooden (Cap iron-less) planes saw such extensive use as artisans producing extremely delicate, dedicated and aesthetically pleasing pieces of work. Lazer accurate tooling is unnecessary when producing high quality work. Such quality stems from practice in tool handling combined with materials knowledge and focus upon one's chosen discipline. Without intending to sound condescending, I'm afraid there are no short-cuts if one wishes to attain such levels of work.

I'm not an advocate of buying Rolls Royce tools if they're unnecessary, but I do recommend a person buys in at as high a quality level as is reasonably practicable and affordable to the individual's wallet or bank balance. Buying in at as high a level as possible can potentially make life easier throughout the never ending learning process, but IMHO focus is better placed upon skills aquisition than potentially over emphasising the importance of tools.

Tools can only ever be a part of the overall equation and tool choice based upon personal preference. I can only ever recommend beginners become familiar with their tools and how best to maintain them, whilst trying to avoid being bogged down with finer details until they've at least accumulated a little experience.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I wonder how much of the difference in the quality of work is determined by the effect the tool has on the user's attitude? I've done rough and ready maintenance where, for instance, a quick rough mortice was needed - I've cut it with a 75p "beating chisel" or even an old screwdriver, ground on a disc cutter! The mortice was still serviceable. Not pretty. Serviceable.
I have also cut mortices in a nice piece of hardwood, on a good bench with a very sharp Ward mortice chisel - neither will ever be seen again once glued up, but I get annoyed if I go a few thou over a gauge line when working with first class tools, because I know I should have done better.
Phil.

 

[Lons]

I agree with pretty much all of that and as said, the conclusions drawn by the individual are highly subjective and determined by a number of influences and perceptions.

What is also important is that - to the user - the tool feels and looks good which gives the confidence needed to produce decent results. Nothing worse than struggling with something and feeling the tool isn't working as it should. Not easy for a beginner or occasional hobbyist to conclude whether it's the tool or operator at fault sometimes.

No substitute whatsoever for lack of skills but a beginner will find it very difficult to work with a poor or poorly set up tool whilst a good one will give him or her a fighting chance to improve. Neither will a £200 plane turn him into an expert. No need to buy top of the range but very nice indeed if you can afford it. The enjoyment and satisfaction of using a well set up tool, whatever the make is not to be underestimated and one of the reasons that many of us are woodworkers.

I do a lot of site work and my tools are also used on these occasions by my brother who isn't as careful as I am :roll: That's why my best tools don't leave the workshop and I have a range of duplicates which go in the van.

Wherever possible I try to buy what I consider decent quality for tools that are not needed for one off "throw away" jobs where cheap will suffice and this is where forum members views are of great help.

I'd compare with other activities e.g. I'm an average golfer, I use a set of s/h clubs which are decent make and quality and suit my game. They look and feel the part and give me the confidence I need to step up and hit the shot. If a duffer then I can blame only myself. A crap set wouldn't do that but neither could I justify spending £1000 on some new shiny stuff.

My camera is half decent. Doesn't make me take better photos as that's down to my ability but I really enjoy trying. Many other examples I could think of.

Cheers

Bob

 

[Elapid]

I have some expensive tools and I have some cheap tools. Homing in a bit onto cheap cast planes, I offer this thought as an explanation of the different opinions expressed.

One way for cheap planes to be cheap is for the maker to spend no money on quality control. In the ordinary run of things, the manufacturing process will produce many specimens that are not what they ought to be in terms of accuracy and finish, but a few (by normal distribution) will be spot on. So, any one of us could be lucky enough to buy a Brand X plane which is a good plane, ready to use. If we happen to only want to use it on mild, easy to work wood, for short periods, we can be very happy with it - and could even go onto a woodwork forum and say 'my Brand X plane is brilliant - why pay more?'

But others would get something from the rest of the batch, where threads did not mesh properly, bits were the wrong shape, handles at the wrong angle, corners rough. The cheap maker sells them all, where the premium maker spots them and rejects them - which puts up his costs.

If you then compound the problem by trying to do fine work with such a dud tool - perhaps instead of just wanting to box in some pipes in softwood you are trying to make a jewellery box from yew - all those faults will really matter, and will be a big barrier to doing good work.

In your experience, Brand X stinks!

I agree. I bought a cheap Faithfull pillar drill and it's perfect. I don't see how a more expensive one could be more accurate. I know I was lucky but cheap doesn't always equal bad just like some expensive stuff is just because of the name and is just rebranded cheap stuff or simply overpriced.
I think there is a happy middle ground which once you go past you don't really gain anything.

 

[Lons]

I agree. I bought a cheap Faithfull pillar drill and it's perfect. I don't see how a more expensive one could be more accurate. I know I was lucky but cheap doesn't always equal bad just like some expensive stuff is just because of the name and is just rebranded cheap stuff or simply overpriced.
I think there is a happy middle ground which once you go past you don't really gain anything.

Exactly.... but there are a couple of key points here:

Pillar drill: Whatever work you do with it, your drill is clearly capable of producing the results you expect but I am 100% certain that pushed to it's limits it will not be as solid or as accurate as my s/h Meddings.
The key here is that if a tool does what you expect of it then there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Problem is that we all need and expect different things so one size doesn't fit all.

Quality: A better quality tool will normally last longer and have spares more readily available than the cheaper option. Not too much a problem for the occasional user but for a professional it means too much downtime which costs money.

The secret is to buy decent (not necessarily top range) but at very good prices.
I tend to look at what I need then buy the next size up which means I often have overspecced gear. It does last a heck of a long time though.

cheers

Bob

 

[jimi43]

If you listen to SEASICK STEVE and you enjoy that sort of music...you realise that it can be made on a broomstick, a couple of Austin hub caps and a string or two! :mrgreen:

The term "quality tools" therefore does not necessarily mean "quality results"....and the opposite also applies.

Just my personal opinion...I'm so glad I didn't have enough money to buy expensive tools when I first started out...but I did buy quality tools. Initially...I bought lots of rubbish...all from bootfairs...then from FleaBay. Some are now gone...either sold on or in parts for "when I need them"....but I rarely throw a tool away...

Along the way I found some quality tools, some by accident but eventually, because I recognised them when others didn't.

Old tools are not necessarily good tools. There were grades of quality even back then. But generally speaking...there was a period of time when good makers thrived, cost of labour was not much of a problem and materials were plenty. This is the window of time which created most of the tools I now cherish.

I am a firm believer that if you hone your skills (pun intended) from the bottom up and learn along the way not only will you appreciate a good new tool from today's growing market...you will know how to use it and look after it.

Jim

 

[Jacob]

I've got a collection of old tools which all seem OK. I've bought several high end offerings but couldn't see much point in keeping them as the extra functionality could be served by just one - the LV la smoother whatever it's called, so I've kept it and use it occasionally where the other planes won't go.
I prefer using the old Records and Stanleys wherever poss. The are lighter, easier to sharpen and adjust and more durable. Cast iron doesn't scratch like the modern soft steel planes.
The LV la smoother does work well, except, unlike the old ones, the lateral adjuster doesn't work, the blade can't be lifted out without bringing the adjuster with it, and it takes time to sharpen and re-set. And it's ferkin expensive!! Maybe they'll get better with later models.

 

[Jelly]

It would seem that my viewpoint has a lot of people who agree with it to some degree, Jacob's above post on buying several top end planes, but only retaining the one that delivered additional functionality chimes perfectly with my idea of why/when a top end purchase can justify itself...

As for the idea that top quality tools inspire people to better work, I understand that but struggle to empathise/identify with it... For Me before setting pencil to paper (or opening solid edge, should the complexity exceed my patience for technical drawing) there must first be a clear developed vision of what I'm making. It is this vision that inspires me; tools merely pass in and out of my hands as ephemera of this process of realising my vision (or nearly realising it, if I got a bit too grand). Though certainly, some tools/operations bring a little more of a grin than others (I defy anyone to not enjoy taking a long curly shaving 3" wide and tissue thin).

 

[Jacob]

.... (I defy anyone to not enjoy taking a long curly shaving 3" wide and tissue thin).

I don't look at the shavings I look at the wood surface. The shavings go in the bin where they belong.

 

[Jelly]

.... (I defy anyone to not enjoy taking a long curly shaving 3" wide and tissue thin).

I don't look at the shavings I look at the wood surface. The shavings go in the bin where they belong.

Practical as ever there, mine get saved as tinder...

I'm not one for measuring the thickness of shavings or other such sillyness; I was trying to suggest that final smoothing has a certain satifsying quality, both to the process, and the result; achiving a perfectly flat, glassy finish is itself very satisfying, be it from a coffin smoother or a 4-sider (indeed, the latter probably moreso).

 

[jimi43]

I love thin shavings which indicate to me that the surface is just a perfect...it always is.

I then throw them up in the air and measure the time it takes for them to fall...partly as a tribute to our friend David and partly because I am just a big kid.....

I have a lot of beautiful, hand finished off-cuts which I must get around to burning one day! :mrgreen: :wink:

Jim

 

[Lons]

As for the idea that top quality tools inspire people to better work, I understand that but struggle to empathise/identify with it... For Me before setting pencil to paper (or opening solid edge, should the complexity exceed my patience for technical drawing) there must first be a clear developed vision of what I'm making. It is this vision that inspires me; tools merely pass in and out of my hands as ephemera of this process of realising my vision (or nearly realising it, if I got a bit too grand). Though certainly, some tools/operations bring a little more of a grin than others (I defy anyone to not enjoy taking a long curly shaving 3" wide and tissue thin).

To enlarge on that point though, if tools are solely the process of completing the project then there could be an assumption that little pleasure was gained in the using of them and possibly the actual making process. I know someone who thinks exactly that way and he therefore uses the quickest possible method including extensive work with a belt sander. Not my place to say that's right or wrong as he's the one happy with it and he produces some good stuff - but not for me! Many people on here speak of "the slippery slope" and I'm sure that much satisfaction / pleasure is gained by aquiring tools, fettling and maintaining them. Then follows even more enjoyment using them to produce a unique or personal object.

My point was very simple in that if a tool looks and feels the part and is sharp and finely tuned then I find it difficult to understand how anyone wouldn't enjoy using it, as opposed to say rusty, blunt and badly set which makes the job horrible. To me that seems very simple. If say a beginner uses the later then he will give up, cut himself or at best struggle to produce anything decent where with the former, he is much more likely learn, be successful and enjoy the whole process.

I have many tools I use only for work. They do the jobs they're intended for, and well but I detest using them. e.g. cement mixers, stillsaws, demolition breakers, wacker - I hate using them and certainly do so only because I have to - A bit like my mate mentioned above.

It's certainly a major part of the reasons I work with wood. If it wasn't I'd just buy the finished items in - it's quicker and probably cheaper if you count up the value of your workshop.

cheers

Bob

 

[Richard T]

The plane that cuts with a square ground iron, the one that leaves the smooth, flat finish and makes the full width wispy shavings if you like; the smoother or the panel (usually) has to be up to the job and therefore is going to be expensive. Unless it is found, made or stolen.

How many of us I wonder have tried to use a standard #4 as a full, straight - across smoother and found it wanting? Getting increasingly frustrated and disappointed that it just won't make those full width, smooth cuts like the really expensive planes do. If only it was more often admitted or explained that such 'smoothers' really have to be used with a slight camber too, we'd all avoid a lot of heart ache, confusion and gnashing of teeth.

But even as such, an old Stanley or Record is going to be better at it and generally fettle - up better than a thrown together, modern, cheap clatter box.

Jacob's BU 'smoother' (as LV market it) is essentially a large mitre plane. With a bed angle of 12 degrees it will pare through end grain better than most. Knots are end grain - it will pare through them too. The worst. Compared to a box mitre, ancient or modern, for what it's capable of I think it's pretty good value. When I bought mine it was a mere £150 -unfortunately I think they quickly realised they could charge more. It's such a good thing.

 

[Jacob]

...
How many of us I wonder have tried to use a standard #4 as a full, straight - across smoother and found it wanting? Getting increasingly frustrated and disappointed that it just won't make those full width, smooth cuts like the really expensive planes do. If only it was more often admitted or explained that such 'smoothers' really have to be used with a slight camber too, we'd all avoid a lot of heart ache, confusion and gnashing of teeth.

All my planes (inc. the LV smoothy) have cambered blades. No point in having a dead straight edge unless you only plane board edges. Even then not essential.
Straight blade edges are usually just another inconvenient aspect of the honing-jig / flat-stone syndrome.

 

[morfa]

Oooer, I'm being quoted. Worth pointing out/reinforcing a number of things:

• I'm very much a beginner, I was just really repeating stuff said on various places about buying decent quality tools and adding my own tool related bias (I'm a fairly competent DIYer and have used plenty of crap tools and plenty of good ones as well).
• I generally like to buy good quality stuff in all walks of life, as I've found that it lasts longer and does the job better, 9 times out of 10.

Also I did point out that it's possible to get decent planes on ebay for £25, decent chisels for £5, which will all do the job fine, I'm quite sure. It's what I'm doing and it seems to be working quite well so far. Currently looking at a nice no 5, pre 1939, record for £30 (£20+£10 p&p) on ebay, so it's possible to buy what you need cheaply.

Personally I've bought a number of tools (some of them quite expensive) from B&Q (yeah, I know, I know) which are quite frankly awful. For example a Stanley plane, which I bought a few years back to trim a door down so it would fit a shed. I got it cause my Dad had a old Stanley plane at home, which he uses from time to time for DIY. It did, to be fair do the job, albeit very crudely. I've come to try and use it recently for more delicate stuff and even with quite a bit of sharpening I still can't get it to do the job. Ditto paintbrushes, I've used a mix of stuff over the years, but recently I splashed out on some Wooster brushes and the difference is massive. I'm also finding the same with drills, I've been using borrowed cheap ones bought by my father in law at Makros, but I've just bought my own Makita 10.8v drill driver and the difference is massive (with the Makita being a big improvement).

Happy to be quoted by the way and enjoying the discussion, learning a lot from it. I started out on usenet back in the day, this place is *very* tame and well mannered in comparison.