NEW - Sweet Heart Plane, disappointing

[michael case]

I purchased the new version of the Stanley Sweetheart no. 4 plane. I regret to say that it was huge disappointment. Heres how it was. The saddest thing about his plane is that Stanley really tried to get it right. Boy was I happy when I first got it home. I checked the sole against a machinist straight edge and square. It was dead flat and required no truing. If you ever trued a plane like the cheap Stanleys or Records or whatever you can imagine what a relief this was. It was heavy and well made. The handles were Cherry and the plane was very handsome. I'm finicky about sharpening and was very happy to find the iron had a flat back and was a full 1/8" thick. It was a breeze to polish the back. Again no truing required. I put it on the Tormek and put a hollow grind on it. I marched it up through the stones all the way to a surgical black Arkansas. I put the iron in the plane dialed everything in and tried it out. Heres where it got dissapointing. The iron would just not hold an edge. It chipped up in a twinkling. It gouged and tore. I put it back on to a white hard Arkansas and worked back up to the black surgical. Same thing. A few passses (over poplar for crying out loud!) and it chipped up and went dull. So I went back to square one and worked it up from an 800 japanese water stone all the way up to Arkansas Black. Same result - chip and tear. I did this three times! Chipped up and tore every time. What junk! I use this the same extensive sharpening procedure on all my tools - British-made Sorby chisels, German-made two Cherry chisels, inexpensive Marples and ironically the planing irons in the inexpensive Stanley planes. They all take and hold an edge way, way, way, better than whatever the hell kind of steel is in this new higher-end Sweetheart by Stanley. In light of all the nice workmanship evident in this plane I have no sure answer for this strange anomaly. Maybe I just got a bad one. Maybe whoever supplies the steel to Stanley is ripping them off. But, whatever the reason, the plane was absolutely useless. It was like buying a Rolls and finiding out it had an Izuzu transmission. Needless to say, it went right back to the store. Has anyone else had this experience? Anyway its a shame because the plane was really a keeper otherwise. Well I guess I'll continue to use my old cheap Stanley planes with their thin, but usuable irons while I save up to buy planes from Lie-Nielsen.

[John Coloccia]

I almost bought one some months ago. Brand spanking new at Woodcraft...they didn't even take one out of the box for display yet. He took it out and said, "Hey, John....check this out". I took a look at it, and it seemed nice. Then I looked a little closer and noticed that the sole near the throat was chipped. Thanks, but no thanks. Like you, I really wanted to like these. I'm guessing that they might generally be OK, but that they have QC issues and may be very inconsistent.

Definitely check out Lee Valley planes. I have both LN and LV planes, and I have to say it's a bit of a toss up for me. The LN are VERY nice, but I haven't found that they necessarily outperform my LV. The last couple of planes I've bought were all LV, and I'm very very satisfied. Oh, I did just pick up a LN model makers plane. LOL. Seriously, they're both very nice, and you'll save $$$ with Lee Valley.

[Tom Winship]

I just got my latest FWW today. There is a review on the Sweetheart line and it is not real flattering.
Tom

[Dan O'Sullivan]

Well I guess I'll continue to use my old cheap Stanley planes with their thin, but usuable irons while I save up to buy planes from Lie-Nielsen. MC

Why not take your old Stanleys and change the cap and iron to a Hock?? You will be surprised how well the old tools will work with an updated blade. I prefer the HC blades. Some have had good luck using the old cap and a new blade. I like Ron's blade with a new cap iron. I have an old rosewood handled 3 and 4 with new Hock blades tuned up. I beat these things to death. Lots of work on maple and walnut. Lots. No doubt the LN planes are nice. I have a low angle jack with a few blades at different angles for the wild stuff. Finding an old Stanley low angle jack is tough. Finding nice old 3,4 or 5 stanley planes in my area is easy. If you have them already, forget the new stuff ... its junk. Just refit your old planes. It might be a solution??
dan

[michael case]

Hi John, Tom and Dan,

John,I've heard nice stuff about Lee valley planes. I'll certainly take a look.

Tom, I'm going to go over to FWW and have look see.

Dan, that might be an idea. I use a 4, a 5, and 6 fore plane which takes a wider blade. The are not the nice old ones, but I already invested a lot if time truing the soles, so I wouldn't mind keeping them. How much did you pay for the Hocks?

[Mike Henderson]

Hi Dan,
That might be an idea. I use a 4, a 5, and 6 fore plane which takes a wider blade. How much did you pay for the Hocks?
Hock makes a very good blade, but also look at the LN blades and chip breakers, and the LV blades. You can't go wrong with any of them.

Mike

[Joel Goodman]

These guys have the Hocks at a discount
http://www.craftsmanstudio.com/html_p/H!BENCH.htm
I've also had good luck with thicker irons like these
http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/Merchant/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=toolshop&Product_Code=MS-RIIRON.XX&Category_Code=TR
but you may have to open up the mouth of the plane a touch -- I did!

[Jeff Farris]

Michael,

Did you return it yet?

I would try this first.

Put it back on the Tormek and grind a bunch of the tool off. I know, I know, you don't want to waste the tool steel, and it shouldn't be like this. You're right. But the reality is that in either the tempering of the blade initially or the grinding of the bevel, it is very likely that the tool edge was not treated with the same respect you're giving it. Take a sixteenth off the blade and then run it through your stones (or save yourself some time in the testing phase and finish it on your Tormek).

If it doesn't work, you have an even better argument for a refund. If it does work, you have what you wanted in the first place.

I never make a judgment about a tool's edge holding properties until I've gone through about an eighth of an inch of blade.

[Sam Takeuchi]

I agree with Jeff. It's quite common for new blades to have less than perfect quality along the edge. Unless something is really wrong with your blade, your blade should be fine after grinding off a bit.

[scott spencer]

Sounds like the bean counters and lawyers are still running Stanley. I'm afraid not much is going to change for Stanley Tool in the near future.

[George Beck]

I really try to avoid ranting and offering posts on my opinion rather than something useful, there is enough of that everywhere these days. However, at the risk of being offensive, let me say I would not buy a Stanley Plane or any other tool of theirs at any price. Stanley tool works owned the hand plane business. They made the best planes and revolutionized the market. They then decided to follow the business model of buying a recognized brand name built on quality and exploit it until by the 90's their planes were basically useless except as door stops. Many of us who started woodworking in the late 70's and early 80's were frustrated by this trend and turned to either Japanese tools or vintage tools just to get working tools. A few dedicated crafts people like Thomas Lie-Nielsen and Ron Hock and others answered the call and started, at much personal risk, making quality tools for our craft. Thanks to the promotion of Popular Woodworking and Fine Woodworking their business has grown into a nice little business. You younger wood workers are lucky to be able to buy tools that you can use right out of the box. Fine Woodworking declared years ago that all hand tools came as a kit and could not be used without considerable work. I have spent weeks lapping and truing planes just to get a mediocre tool. Even the notion here about the plane iron! Why should I spend money on a plane iron to remove an 1/8 of steel just to see if it might be workable? Now Stanley wants to price break and reclaim the products they destroyed. This happens over and over with Delta, Black and Decker, Porter Cable, Crescent and the list goes on and on.I feel an obligation to help support the folks who supported our craft and answered our needs. We cannot "WallMart" everybody! Anyway, I am an old man now and feel entitled to a few rants. I have to go chase some kids off my lawn now.

George

[James Taglienti]

In all reality George many of us younger woodworkers can't afford to buy quality right out of the box. I think that the price of the new Stanley SW line is very fair considering what they have. This is based on reviews. For a large number of woodworkers it doesn't seem outrageous to pay $175 for a 604 Bedrock and then spring for a Hock iron, while still having to fettle for a good 3 hours. The new Stanley's are $150.
I am very disappointed to hear about the poor quality steel. My rampant cynicism dictates that Stanley's customer service will be miserable. If they wanted to play with the big boys, they should have got it right.
Stanley made more than one generation of woodworkers wary of their artisan's tools and left them wishing for days gone by. Perhaps now they are just offering us an illusion in the hopes that we will bite. Perhaps we expect the steel quality of a plane that costs $100 more.
I still want to buy a premium Stanley plane and probably will in the near future.

[Jim Paulson]

Heh George,

Thanks for that comment. You were refreshing in describing the way things really are. BTW, I didn't hear you as ranting.

Maybe that's why so many of us still love the old tools, and we can appreciate the higher end tool makers who maintain the tradition of quality, when we can afford it that is. I love the quality of LN, but I still get a kick out of tuning up an old wood plane or a hand saw.

Jim

[Joe Cunningham]

I feel an obligation to help support the folks who supported our craft and answered our needs. We cannot "WallMart" everybody! Anyway, I am an old man now and feel entitled to a few rants. I have to go chase some kids off my lawn now.

George

That was awesome. :) This young whippersnapper agrees and I try to get a brand new tool each year from the guys who are making great tools now. I have a few vintage tools that I've reconditioned to usable shape and I enjoy that, but I also realize that without spending some $$$ for quality, quality will go away from the marketplace.

[Paul Murphy]

I am enjoying the Veritas planes when I can spare the funds to aquire them. They are pretty much ready to go out of the box, and you actually get what you have paid for. I also have a couple Lie-Nielsen tools, and am happy with them as well. Like a couple of the other folks, I find it quite refreshing to get a tool built to my standards, by people who care about what they produce.

[Jeff Farris]

Being a "glass half full" kinda guy, can we at least give Stanley a tip of the hat for trying to improve what they've screwed into the ground over the last 50 years?

[Chuck Tringo]

In my opinion, that is how almost everything is produced today....you find higher quality among the small privately owned businesses because they can do what they want without worrying about the 'board' or the 'stockholders'. Corporationism ruins almost everything because of this...just in the tool world you can see numerous examples of high quality private manufacturers: Lie Nielsen, Lee Valley, Estwing, Klein, Festool and then their corporationed counterparts who once were high quality private manufacturers and now, well, not: BlackandDeckerPorterCableDeWaltDeltaStanley megapooperation...need i say more? I try support smaller private businesses whenever I can be it woodworking or otherwise....last I checked Sam Adams was still a privately owned brewery....

[Matt Radtke]

last I checked Sam Adams was still a privately owned brewery....

Yup. In fact, they are now the largest American brewery in existence. A-B and Miller are now owned by foreign companies.

[Mike Henderson]

These guys have the Hocks at a discount
http://www.craftsmanstudio.com/html_p/H!BENCH.htm...
And FREE SHIPPING on the Hocks! Quite a deal.

Wish I had seen that earlier.

Mike

[Dan Sink]

Being a "glass half full" kinda guy, can we at least give Stanley a tip of the hat for trying to improve what they've screwed into the ground over the last 50 years?

Except what happens when Stanley's price undercutting allows them to reclaim the market and drive L-N, LV, and Hock out of business? The bean counters will no longer see a need to compete against high quality tool makers and the cycle starts again. Except next time maybe some future Thomas Lie-Nielsen won't be so eager to fill the void knowing that he'll just be driven out once Stanley decides they have to start producing quality tools again for a while.

Great post George! For me, its also nice to see quality tools being produced in North America. We don't manufacture much in the U.S. and Canada anymore so I happily wait a little longer to save something extra to buy my next tool if it means helping protect this small bit of North American manufacturing.

I've seen this debate quickly divide woodworking forums and it shouldn't. This is just my opinion, to each his or her own.

[Jeff Farris]

On Stanley's web site I didn't find (in an admittedly quick look) where the new Sweetheart's are being made. I hope it is here.

I think Stanley's 4 or 5 planes are going to have to go a long way down the road before they create any serious problems for L-N or Veritas.

Besides that, now that Black and Decker has absorbed Stanley, I wouldn't bet on the survival of the Sweethearts for more than a couple years, at best.

[Wilbur Pan]

According to Chris Schwarz's writeup in Woodworking Magazine (http://blog.woodworking-magazine.com/blog/New+Premium+Handplanes+From+Stanley+Works+.aspx), the irons are made in England, the plane bodies are made in Mexico.

[Sam Takeuchi]

I think those who are looking for high quality tools are probably aware of Stanley's reputation already, and those ones who see new Stanley planes and go for it probably never heard of Lee Valley or Lie Nielsen. It probably was a Stanley's attempt to dig into high quality hand plane market, but I think it's a difficult market for them. Whether it was a right decision for them or not, all in all, it's still a very tiny pocket of overall market for Stanley's product lines, failing it wouldn't tickle Stanley much I suppose.

But at the same time, I don't think it's fair to say "see how horrible this plane is?" Soley on blade performance for the initial few sharpening sessions. The fact is, this can occur on blades from reputable manufacturers, too. If there is a problem with Veritas plane's blade, and if you shoot an email to them, they'll get back to you and first suggest grinding some off the edge, too. While it may not be a common knowledge to grind edge off, especially those who are new to hand tools, this is a common practice in the process of 'breaking in' a blade. You don't need to take 1/8" off the edge, though. That's too much I think.

I don't care about Stanley's contemporary products enough to like or dislike. I'm indifferent, but I think it's kind of unfair to judge it before trying to remedy the issue. I can't imagine people coming here and saying "oh look at LV's awful quality control, they can't even make a blade right" if it was LV products. I know Stanley's reputation as hand tool manufacturer is pretty much gone, but it's kind of unfair to judge still relatively new product without doing the basic remedy. Like I said, it can happen to blades from anyone.

[Joel Goodman]

I it can happen to blades from anyone.

The difference is that with LN or LV one phone call will get a new blade sent with an "I'm sorry you had a problem" -- I doubt anyone is at the other end of the phone at Stanley who can do that.

[Jeff Farris]

I'm going to agree with Sam (since he agreed with me earlier :D ). I've got a Lie-Nielsen block plane that I've sharpened about a dozen times now, and it is just now starting to perform up to my expectations. It has been brittle and quick to dull up until the last couple of sharpenings. It can happen with any plane iron or chisel from any manufacturer.

[Jeff Farris]

The difference is that with LN or LV one phone call will get a new blade sent with an "I'm sorry you had a problem" -- I doubt anyone is at the other end of the phone at Stanley who can do that.

And the new one they send you is just as likely to need to be ground a couple times.

[Sam Takeuchi]

While I think it's good that they (LN, LV and others) will readily send you replacement, but I don't think it's a good idea to ask for replacement needlessly. It's a loss for them. While they probably consider that as some kind of investment to develop and ensure customer loyalty, asking for a replacement at the first sign of issue without trying to try to work it out is not something I'd do. If it's a genuine defect, certainly I'd ask for a replacement since no matter what I do, it wouldn't fix it, but something like plane blade, I really think it's in the area where users can attempt to fix. Maybe that's not how product was meant to be, but it happens and easily fixable without asking manufacturer to send a new one.

[Joel Goodman]

Sam. I certainly agree. I have never needed to have anything LN or LV replaced and am not trying to start a "run on the store"! But I like to know that the manufacturer is there. I did sent a Ln 62 back to have the sides ground square. They were happy to do it and I wouldn't have wanted to try it myself.

[brian c miller]

I This happens over and over with Delta, Black and Decker, Porter Cable, Crescent and the list goes on and on.
George

Technically Stanley owns Black and Decker who own Delta, Porter Cable and Dewalt... Cooper Industries owns Crescent, Lufkin, Disston, and Wiss among others.

So you should have a short list of bean couters to be mad at. :mad:

IMHO, the consumers are to blame for a lot of the issue. Every time we buy something we vote with our dollars. Take the Crescent Wrench at BORG for example.

People walk in and see the Crescent Wrench made right here in the Carolinas hanging next to the Kolbalt Chineese Knock off at a 20-30% discount. When they walk out of the store with the BORG version they vote for a poorly made wrench that is dirt cheap... There is only so much material & labors costs you can squeeze out of a wrench and after a certian point when all the votes come back for cheap the CEO's are forced to react.

If people said I'll pay and extra buck or two for a quality tool and the Kolbalts sat on the the shelf the CEO's over there would be forced to make a better product in order to compete.

[Mike Henderson]

While I think it's good that they (LN, LV and others) will readily send you replacement, but I don't think it's a good idea to ask for replacement needlessly. It's a loss for them. While they probably consider that as some kind of investment to develop and ensure customer loyalty, asking for a replacement at the first sign of issue without trying to try to work it out is not something I'd do. If it's a genuine defect, certainly I'd ask for a replacement since no matter what I do, it wouldn't fix it, but something like plane blade, I really think it's in the area where users can attempt to fix. Maybe that's not how product was meant to be, but it happens and easily fixable without asking manufacturer to send a new one.
My own opinion is that even if you can fix the "defect" you should alert the company. First, it might not be a defect and they can tell you why it's the way it is. Second, if it is a defect, it's valuable knowledge to them. It alerts them that they may have a process problem, or a material problem, or an employee problem. They may not do anything about one report, but if they get a couple more, a prudent company will start to investigate and has an opportunity to correct the manufacturing problem.

Third, it allows them to do take customer satisfaction actions. Over and over, it has been shown that if a company responds well and quickly to reported problems, it generally increased customer loyalty and satisfaction.

A good company welcomes reports of problems and defects.

Mike

[Jim Koepke]

I doubt anyone is at the other end of the phone at Stanley who can do that.

Of course they can't, the shipping charges from India are just too prohibitive.

jim

[Johnny Kleso]

You can try anneling the blade and take some of the hardness out of it..

Heat your oven to 350º and place the blade in there for 20 mins it should get a very very slight gold color you could only see in very good light.. If lacking the color add it back for 10 mins more and repeat till you see the very slight gold color.. If you get to a brown or god forbid blue its too soft..

Cheap steel has this problem too hard and it breaks..

[Jim Koepke]

While I think it's good that they (LN, LV and others) will readily send you replacement, but I don't think it's a good idea to ask for replacement needlessly. It's a loss for them. While they probably consider that as some kind of investment to develop and ensure customer loyalty, asking for a replacement at the first sign of issue without trying to try to work it out is not something I'd do. If it's a genuine defect, certainly I'd ask for a replacement since no matter what I do, it wouldn't fix it, but something like plane blade, I really think it's in the area where users can attempt to fix. Maybe that's not how product was meant to be, but it happens and easily fixable without asking manufacturer to send a new one.

One of the problems with making quality products is the impossible task of performing 100% quality assurance. It is probably impossible to sharpen, mount and make shavings with every blade that goes through the maker's facility. Even if they did, the blades may not be as likely to chip out on a piece of wood that was already smoothed by the previous blade.

There is the bean counting of customer acceptability. Knowing that most customers will already understand that the blades will not perform to their best ability until after few sharpenings. Then good service support staff comes in after that. Not people who read from a script, but people who have seen and taken care of the problem on their own.

Heck, even with older blades they have to get a few trips to the stones before they are really getting up to their optimum. If nothing else because of the pitting or the uneven sharpening done to them in the past.

jim

[Sam Takeuchi]

Yes letting the company know is a good thing, especially if the companies concerned are willing to listen to their customers. As long as there are valid concerns and issues, we all should...but not something like "there is a dent on the packaging and want it replaced". Well of course...you can let them know that the box was dented, but you don't really get much out of that I suppose :)

[Callan Campbell]

Technically Stanley owns Black and Decker who own Delta, Porter Cable and Dewalt... Cooper Industries owns Crescent, Lufkin, Disston, and Wiss among others.
I didn't know B&D owed Delta and Porter-Cable. I only knew about Dewalt. Hmm, when did that happen

So you should have a short list of bean couters to be mad at. :mad:

IMHO, the consumers are to blame for a lot of the issue. Every time we buy something we vote with our dollars. Take the Crescent Wrench at BORG for example.
I agree, once you start the market reaction at a grass level ,then do it millions of times a month, it gets noticed at headquarters.

People walk in and see the Crescent Wrench made right here in the Carolinas hanging next to the Kolbalt Chineese Knock off at a 20-30% discount. When they walk out of the store with the BORG version they vote for a poorly made wrench that is dirt cheap... There is only so much material & labors costs you can squeeze out of a wrench and after a certian point when all the votes come back for cheap the CEO's are forced to react.

If people said I'll pay and extra buck or two for a quality tool and the Kolbalts sat on the the shelf the CEO's over there would be forced to make a better product in order to compete.
But that makes the Return Aisle line so short:p:p:p

[brian c miller]

I think Dewalt was bought by Black & Decker way back in the early 1960's which at that time made mostly radial arm saws and stationary equipment.

In 2004 Black & Decker purchased of the Tools Group from Pentair, Inc. which includes the Porter-Cable, Delta, DeVilbiss Air Power, Oldham Saw, and FLEX businesses.

In Nov of 2009 Stanley Works did a 4.5 Billion all stock deal to merge with Black & Decker.

That's your history lesson of the day.

[Mike Brady]

While I think it's good that they (LN, LV and others) will readily send you replacement, but I don't think it's a good idea to ask for replacement needlessly. It's a loss for them. While they probably consider that as some kind of investment to develop and ensure customer loyalty, asking for a replacement at the first sign of issue without trying to try to work it out is not something I'd do. If it's a genuine defect, certainly I'd ask for a replacement since no matter what I do, it wouldn't fix it, but something like plane blade, I really think it's in the area where users can attempt to fix. Maybe that's not how product was meant to be, but it happens and easily fixable without asking manufacturer to send a new one.

At the first WIA conference, Tom Lie-Nielsen and Robin Lee (Lee Valley) sat on a discussion panel together. The conversation drifted towards high tolerances in today's tools. Both of these gentle commented that the high tolerances found in their products are customer driven, not design driven. They went on to say that the customer actually has unrealistic expectations about tolerances and quality and that many complaints and returns prove to be bogus. I believe "operator error" would be a popular paraphrase. The demand for these tolerances can lead to higher prices too.

I'm not able to qualify the particular complaint in this post, but I have read several reviews of the new Stanley planes that complimented the quality of the irons. I have heard the local Woodcraft staff comment that some of the new planes from Stanley have be returned because of quality complaints.

Perhaps the motto "You get what you pay for" applies here; or "Quality is appreciated long after price is forgotten".

.

[David Gendron]

I think that every time we buy non American/Canadian products, we kill our industry and economy. Every time we buy low quality products, that we know are disposable after a few uses, we kill our environment. Evey time we buy something made of plastic shit we know it won't last... We know all that, but most people are going for the cheeper possible and don't care if it end up in the trash or at the return desk of the BORG, because they think they saved money and that they can get an other cheep one that they can exchange when it give up on them... Thinking how great this company is to replace that junk with a new one...
buy local, buy from privetly own company, buy North American and we will survive!

[Joel Goodman]

AMEN to that!

[Callan Campbell]

I think Dewalt was bought by Black & Decker way back in the early 1960's which at that time made mostly radial arm saws and stationary equipment.

In 2004 Black & Decker purchased of the Tools Group from Pentair, Inc. which includes the Porter-Cable, Delta, DeVilbiss Air Power, Oldham Saw, and FLEX businesses.

In Nov of 2009 Stanley Works did a 4.5 Billion all stock deal to merge with Black & Decker.

That's your history lesson of the day.
And I thank you. I didn't realize the Stanley deal with B&D was just recently.:o I have to think that if the new, revised Stanley planes don't really catch on, they'll probably stop trying to revive their old catalog. I don't think either Lie Nielsen or Lee Valley has anything to worry about. then again, Stanley could bring back the Fiberboard Planes just to tweak Patrick Leach on a massive level.:p

[David DeCristoforo]

In Toshio Odate's book, he describes the need to "tame" a new blade by sharpening it a number of times and using it for a while. Only then would the blade begin to perform to it's potential. And he was talking about "artisan" blades that cost many, many times more than the price of a new Stanley plane.

But I am thinking that if this was the issue with the Sweet Heart planes, hey... this is the new millennium! Are we to believe that there is some impediment to correctly tempering a blade so that it will perform at least satisfactorily "out of the box"? I'm sure that Stanley (or whatever conglomerate now owns the name) did not include any information about the need to "tame the blade" in order to get the best performance out of it! And if they had, how many people would be rolling on the floor holding their sides?

I have a few LN planes and I was never unhappy with the blades. Maybe they did perform better after a few months of use but not significantly enough for me to have taken note of it. I have to agree with the idea that Stanley & Co has simply been left in the dust. It's inevitable when a company abandons quality as their paradigm and bases everything on the bottom line. Sooner or later, the demand for better quality will be met by others (like LV and Veritas) and an attempt to re-enter the arena as a maker of quality tools will be extremely difficult. When a company spends decades focusing on profit, the skills and knowledge required to produce a truly top quality product can become lost. At the same time a company like LV has spent the same decades developing ways to improve the product and building a reputation for being a quality maker. Over time, the discrepancy becomes too great to overcome simply by making a corporate decision.

[michael case]

If you read the original post you'll see that the first thing I did was to grind the blade. I took off a fair amount to create the true concave grind I prefer. The blade was then lapped and beveled several times. So I don't know how much steel I'm supposed to grind away till I have a working plane. But this also begs the question - how come I've never had this problem with any other steel on all the chisels and planing irons I own including the hardware store variety Stanleys of which I own Three?

[Don Dorn]

I feel for you Micheal - and I think you've done your part. The very unfortunate part is that the plane cost is within just a few dollars of a Veritas and a few more less than a LN. It is my hope that you could return it. If the work you did on the blade is a showstopper, I'd remind them that it was only in attempt to make it the usuable tool they advertised in the first place. Is it their expectation that you stay unhappy with the way it comes?

You have done a service to many who might be thinking about one of them - it's too bad that it takes someone having to bite the bullet in order for the others to benefit. Even though it wasn't my intent to buy one, if I were, I definately would nix it now.

[Brad Patch]

I really try to avoid ranting and offering posts on my opinion rather than something useful, there is enough of that everywhere these days. However, at the risk of being offensive, let me say I would not buy a Stanley Plane or any other tool of theirs at any price. Stanley tool works owned the hand plane business. They made the best planes and revolutionized the market. They then decided to follow the business model of buying a recognized brand name built on quality and exploit it until by the 90's their planes were basically useless except as door stops. Many of us who started woodworking in the late 70's and early 80's were frustrated by this trend and turned to either Japanese tools or vintage tools just to get working tools. A few dedicated crafts people like Thomas Lie-Nielsen and Ron Hock and others answered the call and started, at much personal risk, making quality tools for our craft. Thanks to the promotion of Popular Woodworking and Fine Woodworking their business has grown into a nice little business. You younger wood workers are lucky to be able to buy tools that you can use right out of the box. Fine Woodworking declared years ago that all hand tools came as a kit and could not be used without considerable work. I have spent weeks lapping and truing planes just to get a mediocre tool. Even the notion here about the plane iron! Why should I spend money on a plane iron to remove an 1/8 of steel just to see if it might be workable? Now Stanley wants to price break and reclaim the products they destroyed. This happens over and over with Delta, Black and Decker, Porter Cable, Crescent and the list goes on and on.I feel an obligation to help support the folks who supported our craft and answered our needs. We cannot "WallMart" everybody! Anyway, I am an old man now and feel entitled to a few rants. I have to go chase some kids off my lawn now.

George

When I first go into woodworking three decades ago, I decided I needed a plane. Purchased what looked like a number 5 Stanley, painted blue. Never could get it to work properly, eventually threw it away. I now have some prewar Stanley type 11 planes and they work very well. I too support Lie Neilsen and having a Machinist background I am familiar with surface grinding, milling. knurling and threading. Hold a LN plane in your hand and you cannot fail to appreciate their quality. I'm sure the same thing can be said of Lee Valley, I just have no personal experience with them.

[Tony Shea]

Just got done reading this entire thread. What a refreshing thread with rants I couldn't have said better myself. Unfortunatly it seems that us who would rather spend a little extra on quality and or locally produced items are in the minority. Heck, I'm even part of the problem once in a while when I step foot in Home Dumpot. I think we're all guilty of supporting the big man. 95% of the time I will make a consious effort to support my local economy and support the small guy making better quality products. This is in reguards to all my consumer needs, grocieries, tools, etc. And when I walk in to my local market and see a couple people who prefer to buy locally compared to the thousands parked outside of Walmart, it really hits home what this society is all about. It's truley heartbreaking to see these small locals struggling to make ends meet while SuperWalmart is leveling 10 acres of beautiful forest right next door to build their monstrosity. And then to see the local society so excited about this disaster. I just don't understand what we've become. The poor economy is also helping this sad situation as locals just can't compete with prices because they didn't hire 10 year olds over seas to make their product.

Wow, got a little off topic. Others have stated this better than I and am happy to see that people still exist that want to support the small guy making his stuff locally.

[John Coloccia]

I understand the whole Walmart thing. People just want to be able to provide the best for their families, and cheap goods does that. Not everyone appreciates fine furniture/cookware/clothes/etc. For example, I have absolutely no appreciation of a fine shower curtain. My wife does. She hates our industrial, mold free, $10 curtain. I like it just fine. Some people are happy with cheap furniture that holds up their TV, and they would not appreciate a finely made entertainment center.

It's the same with tools. Some people just don't appreciate a finely made tool. Others just can't afford them. My problem with the Sweethearts is they're priced way too high for the quality you get. If they were cheap, and you know they're cheap and will need a lot of work, then fine. It's so disappointing, though, to pay a good amount for a tool expecting a usable implement, and ending up with something that you could have paid much less for from a competitor.

In my opinion, LN and LV have some of the finest tools out there, priced quite competitively with what the old Stanleys cost way back when, adjusted for inflation. Back then, though, the only people who owned these kinds of tools were pros that needed them. How many of us inherited tools from our parents? I didn't. They were too expensive.

Now, a whole class of people that could never have afforded woodworking can afford it, at the expense of a bit more work in setting up their tools. That's fine, but the tool has to be priced accordingly. The Sweetheart block plane is priced at $100. The Veritas block plane is priced at $150. I can tell you that from what I saw, the Stanley should maybe be priced at around $30 or $40. It's not even in the same league as the Veritas, so much so that it's almost unfair to compare them, but the Sweetheart's price forces you to compare them.

Anyhow, this isn't a rant. I like that cheap goods are available to those that want/need them (although don't get me started on where the goods are coming from!), but shame on Stanley for pretending to be something they're not. It's just not how you would want companies to do business. Whatever additional bad reputation they get from this is well deserved, although it doesn't seem to be bothering their bottom line any.

For what it's worth, I think Groz does well as an inexpensive but usuable manufacturer. Their planes need some work, but you end up with a very usable tool with decent steal. Personally, I'd rather spend more and have something that's ready to use out of the box. My time is valuable to me, not just in a "time is money" sense, but in a "I only have so much time on this planet" sense.

[David Keller NC]

Hmm - Well, I maintain that this isn't a situation of "I can't afford it". There's a microscopically small group of people that are interested in woodworking that actually cannot afford a Veritas or a L-N plane, the vast majority just don't want to afford it.

There is a simple calculation that anyone can do that cuts all discussion of this point off at the knees - specifically, if you cannot afford $300 for a L-N or a L-V plane, then you cannot afford any of the materials that are required to make almost any piece of furniture, musical instrument, picture frames, or just about any other woodworking anything. So the basics are - if you really can't afford a L-N, you really can't afford to do woodworking, period. The only exception is some unbelievably basic sort of niche woodworking activities like spoon carving, small toy whittling, and rustic chair building, which require a very, very limited set of tools.

And much of the "I don't want to afford a (LN/LV) plane" is driven by an inappropriate calculation about what a woodworking handtool should cost - a smoothing plane actually should cost about $300, and that's on the low end. Anything much below this price point is not really a smoothing plane - it's a smoothing plane shaped object. And I've learned this the hard way after having (and getting rid of) multiple late-manufacture Record, Stanley, Groz and even Clifton planes.

The only reason that you can acquire a plane that is actually a plane for quite a bit less than a LN/LV is that we've a unique sitatuation in history during our lifetime - the technology change to high-speed automation for most materials that go into a house, and the furniture that adorns most houses, means that there are many hundreds of thousands of fewer people that can use or need a good plane. And since this has been a comparitively recent change - within the last 100 years, there are hundreds of thousands of very high quality hand tools laying around waiting for someone to tune them up and use them. And even then, the new high quality manufacturers' products pretty much blow away the antiques (and I use both).

So a word of finality - to those that continue to insist that it must be possible and even noble to manufacture a very high quality handplane that's a superb user out of the box for far less than a LN or a Veritas, puhleeze stop. You're wasting your money on a fool's errand, and it puts inappropriate pressure on the good manufacturers to cut corners to lower costs - you're going to ruin it for the rest of us!

[Mike Henderson]

Our whole economy is based on the premise that someone will find a way to make things better and at less cost. I don't see any reason why tools should be exempt.

The thing we have to beware of is the Chanel syndrome - if it doesn't cost a lot it can't be any good.

It is possible for companies other than LN or LV to make very good tools, and perhaps even charge less.

Mike

[Dan Sink]

Others have stated this better than I

Don't sell yourself short Tony, you did a pretty good job.

[Mark Engel]

Is it really fair to base all of these negative comments about Stanley on one single tool?

Micheal did say that pretty much everything except the iron on his plane seemed to be of high quality. It is possible that his plane just came with a bad iron. Isn't it worth a phone call to Stanley to see if a replacement iron may resolve the issue?

Stanley appears to be trying to produce a good tool. It doesn't seem fair to proclaim that they have failed based on one single example.

[Steven Hart]

Hmm - Well, I maintain that this isn't a situation of "I can't afford it". There's a microscopically small group of people that are interested in woodworking that actually cannot afford a Veritas or a L-N plane, the vast majority just don't want to afford it.


If you argument, David, is "most people possess $300, which is the price of an LN smoothing plane," then I agree. However, that $300 has an opportunity cost that differs among individuals--what you're giving up by paying $300 for a plane is not the same as some other person. Your allusion that anyone who "can't afford" a $300 smoothing plane is some sort of skinflint is not a little insulting.

I really don't see how you can make the determination that a smoothing plane *should cost* $300. If LN sold ten times as many planes this year, the price of that smoother would decrease. If LN sold one tenth the number of planes, I'm sure that self same plane would cost much more than $300. That is to say that there's nothing intrinsic to the LN smoother that "costs" $300--it's simply a price that the market for these planes supports.

[Don Dorn]

I understand your logic, but let's assume you're right and that it's just the iron. His ability to contact Stanley to remedy the situation and the ease of doing so would speak volumes too. Combine that with the not so great reviews that have been done, and I think it's fair to draw a basic conclusion - especially since the asking price is within strike distance of Veratis.

[Jim Koepke]

Our whole economy is based on the premise that someone will find a way to make things better and at less cost. I don't see any reason why tools should be exempt.

The thing we have to beware of is the Chanel syndrome - if it doesn't cost a lot it can't be any good.

It is possible for companies other than LN or LV to make very good tools, and perhaps even charge less.

Mike

I don't know Mike, the dominant force seems to be making something for less without as much focus on quality improvement.

And the cost syndrome does run deep, but we can find inexpensive goods that are of high quality.

If I could make planes as well as LV or LN and charge less at a profit, I think I would give it a go. The cost of market entry is more than I have to invest at the moment.

jim

[Jim Koepke]

There is a one page review in FWW. It does not mention blade problems, but it concludes that these could be good tools if Stanley can fix the quality problems.

jim

[Richard Niemiec]

It very well may be that there will be incremental improvements in the QA/QC of the new Stanley planes. Right now, they have obviously not gotten it right, and perhaps they will in the future if they are committed to this market niche, and it is a niche. But right now, the price differential, in my view, favors LV over the "resurrected" Sweetheart, especially since LV's QA/QC, and customer service when needed (as nobody is perfect) is great, and more importantly, earned over time by performance, not by a logo.

I think Stanley tried, and tried really hard, to design and manufacture something that gives LV, LN and others some competition. If they stick with it, and expand the offerings, something might develop, but right now I am on the sidelines until I see and hear something better about these planes. If they get it right, and perhaps price slightly lower, they might have a winner.

[Sandy Stanford]

Hmm - Well, I maintain that this isn't a situation of "I can't afford it". There's a microscopically small group of people that are interested in woodworking that actually cannot afford a Veritas or a L-N plane, the vast majority just don't want to afford it.

There is a simple calculation that anyone can do that cuts all discussion of this point off at the knees - specifically, if you cannot afford $300 for a L-N or a L-V plane, then you cannot afford any of the materials that are required to make almost any piece of furniture, musical instrument, picture frames, or just about any other woodworking anything. So the basics are - if you really can't afford a L-N, you really can't afford to do woodworking, period. The only exception is some unbelievably basic sort of niche woodworking activities like spoon carving, small toy whittling, and rustic chair building, which require a very, very limited set of tools.

And much of the "I don't want to afford a (LN/LV) plane" is driven by an inappropriate calculation about what a woodworking handtool should cost - a smoothing plane actually should cost about $300, and that's on the low end. Anything much below this price point is not really a smoothing plane - it's a smoothing plane shaped object. And I've learned this the hard way after having (and getting rid of) multiple late-manufacture Record, Stanley, Groz and even Clifton planes.

The only reason that you can acquire a plane that is actually a plane for quite a bit less than a LN/LV is that we've a unique sitatuation in history during our lifetime - the technology change to high-speed automation for most materials that go into a house, and the furniture that adorns most houses, means that there are many hundreds of thousands of fewer people that can use or need a good plane. And since this has been a comparitively recent change - within the last 100 years, there are hundreds of thousands of very high quality hand tools laying around waiting for someone to tune them up and use them. And even then, the new high quality manufacturers' products pretty much blow away the antiques (and I use both).

So a word of finality - to those that continue to insist that it must be possible and even noble to manufacture a very high quality handplane that's a superb user out of the box for far less than a LN or a Veritas, puhleeze stop. You're wasting your money on a fool's errand, and it puts inappropriate pressure on the good manufacturers to cut corners to lower costs - you're going to ruin it for the rest of us!

I'm quite certain there is a very large swath of "woodworkers" who spend every spare dime on tools and relatively little on actual project wood.

I can lay hands on FAS KD 4/4 rough sawn Poplar for about a buck a board foot. With $300 I'd have enough wood for at least three significant painted pieces, say in the Shaker style. With the same three hundred bucks somebody else can meet the UPS man at the door and take delivery of a plane.

I think your math, and your thinking, are screwed up.

Can't smooth with a Cliffy? Sumpn's wrong with that.

[Mike Henderson]

Even if you accept David K.'s premise, you have to consider people who are just beginning to do woodworking. I remember when I started out, it was daunting how many tools were needed, and the amount of money they cost in aggregate. Most people simply do not have that much money to spend.

So it's not just $300 for a smoother, it's several thousand dollars for everything to get set up if you go "top-of-the-line". I'd recommend lower cost tools to a beginning woodworker - tools that will allow them to start producing furniture and improving their skills. Over time, they may decide to trade up, or they may decide that the tools they have will do the job.

Mike

[Mike Cutler]

Mike.

I understand what David is saying and actually agree it too some extent. Quality hand planes through the years have always been expensive when compared to the prevailing wage of the people that actually used them to make a living. They were an investment.
Most of here do this as a hobby of sorts, so I see that side of the coin also.
I kind of compare it to playing a guitar. I learned to play on Silvertones and Kays and such at Sears, Thrifty's and SS Kresge. Absolute junk, but we were hard up and would play anything, we tuned 'em up and played them right there in the stores. I finally bought a Yamaha knockoff when I could afford it. more junk.
I learned to do everything because of playing those junky guitars. Adjust and file nuts and saddles, set the intonation, adjust truss rods, file frets, etc. just to get some marginal performance out of them.
My playing finally took off when I plunked down $800.00 or $900.00 in 1978 for a D-35 Martin at Nick Hanichs Music in So. Cal. I finally had a guitar in my hands that worked! and all I had to do was just play it.
For a kid working in an Alpha Beta supermarket stocking shelves this was serious jack! It was three times the amount of my parent's mortgage payment. I thought my dad was going to kill me when he found out.
Point being. Cheap tools, and cheap guitars, will only impede a person's development. Always buy the best that you can afford and learn to use them. Never be afraid to purchase an expensive tool, as long as it's the right tool for your needs. There are no viable lessons to be learned from inferior, crappy tools. As with those guitars; Better to learn to play music than just learn to overhaul and tune junky guitars.
I recently sold a bunch of LN planes. Great tools, but they just didn't fit my needs. I still have a bunch of them that better suit my style of wood working.
I still have that D-35 Martin too.;)

[Richard Niemiec]

Mike: On the subject of guitars, I don't play, but went on a factory tour at the Martin Guitar Factory in Nazareth PA, and if you haven't been I would recommend it; if for nothing else to see their museum, which has a few displays of woodworking tools but a whole bunch of guitars. What amazed me, (and the day I was there they had a gathering of the "Unofficial Martin Guitar Owners Association" or something like that) there were all these guitar players picking on these $3000 and $8000 guitars they had hanging on the wall in the company store; folks just sitting on the stools they had there and playing away. Quite something for me to see. One of these days I'm going to make a guitar and then learn how to play it.

[James Scheffler]

Hmm - Well, I maintain that this isn't a situation of "I can't afford it". There's a microscopically small group of people that are interested in woodworking that actually cannot afford a Veritas or a L-N plane, the vast majority just don't want to afford it.

There is a simple calculation that anyone can do that cuts all discussion of this point off at the knees - specifically, if you cannot afford $300 for a L-N or a L-V plane, then you cannot afford any of the materials that are required to make almost any piece of furniture, musical instrument, picture frames, or just about any other woodworking anything. So the basics are - if you really can't afford a L-N, you really can't afford to do woodworking, period.

I think you're way out of step with most woodworkers. $300 is a big-ticket item for me. If that was the entry level (considering that several tools are needed to do just about any project) I wouldn't be woodworking. I would need to save for a few years before building the first thing. Am I destitute? No, but there are just way too many competing priorities in life.

Fortunately, we do have quite a nice supply of antique tools at low prices, and they're a wonderful resource for those who would have to stretch for more expensive tools. If they didn't exist, I think way more of us would be building most of our tools instead of paying $300 for one plane.

I don't doubt that LV and LN planes are great. If people have the desire and the money for those planes, they should buy them. However, it is clearly possible to do great work with lesser tools (something I don't claim, but aspire to). I don't think it's right to belittle those who would choose that path.

Jim

[Wilbur Pan]

Have any of you read Chris Schwarz's and Joel Moskowitz's new book, The Joiner and Cabinet Maker (http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/Merchant/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=toolshop&Product_Code=AQ-1135.XX&Category_Code=N)? The sort version is that it's a recounting of an apprenticeship, but what's relevant to this discussion is that it shows that relatively few tools are needed to be able to make projects. Here's a list of the tools that are used in the book, and to put things in perspective, the last project that the apprentice makes is a chest of drawers.
Marking & Measuring Tools
Try square
Chalk line
2' Folding rule
Marking gauge
Panel gauge
Wooden straightedge
Marking knife

Saws
Handsaw
Sash saw
Dovetail saw
Bowsaw

Planes
Jack plane
Trying plane
Smoothing plane
Rabbet plane
Plow plane

Other Tools
Bench chisels
1/4" Mortising chisel
Mallet
Hammer
Nailset
Bradawl
Brace and bits
Turnscrew
File
Steel plate (for clinching and straightening nails)

You also need a sharpening system of some sort.

Now, of the tools on this list, one could argue that the only ones you need to be LN/LV quality are the trying plane (jointer), smoothing plane, rabbet plane, and plow plane. For the planes, that's a total of $1325 for the Lie-Nielsen #4, #7, and #10-1/4, plus the Lee Valley Veritas small plow plane. You could add sash saw and dovetail saw onto the high end tool list if you're not clever enough to start with an inexpensive Japanese saw. ;) Add in a Wenzloff dovetail and tenon saw for those who insist on using western saws, and that's another $310, for a grand total of $1635 in quality out of the box tools. If you wanted some quality chisels, that might be another $300, which still brings the total to under $2000 in high-falutin' tools. Everything else on the list you can get at the borg, and be fine with it.

Now consider our friends who use electron burning tools. I don't think anyone would argue that a typical power tool setup would look much different than this:


Table saw
Bandsaw
Jointer
Planer
Drill press
Router
Random orbital sander

If you're shopping for this list of tools, you can easily hit the $2000 mark, even with budget versions of these tools from the Grizzly catalog. No one ever seems to balk at the idea that spending $2000 on low end power tools is an outrageous sum of money, yet there seems to be this consistent feeling that a similar price for a collection of high end hand tools is out of line. I'm not sure why that is.

[Ed Harrow]

My first reaction to these planes: Why did Stanley feel the need to copy Lee Valley...

[Mike Henderson]

Regarding buying tools when first starting woodworking, I can only offer my experiences and my observations of other people who are just starting in woodworking. I attend Cerritos College woodworking program so I get to see and talk with quite a few beginners.

Most are feeling out woodworking and their capabilities - and some will stick with it, and some will not go any further. Some have a natural ability and some just can't "see" how it all works.

Most of those people start with nothing. They come to the first class with a pencil and some paper. They are given a list of tools they need for the class, but most of it is very basic stuff - ruler, combination square, etc. For some of the people, just purchasing that much is difficult. The school provides all the tools, both power and hand tools - although you soon learn the disadvantage of sharing things like planes with others (they're never sharp).

After the first class, where the students learn safety and build a few simple projects, some move on to more advanced projects, such as a simple table (like a nightstand). Those who advance usually buy a few more tools, but I've watched (and talked with) them as they debate spending even $50 for an older Stanley Bailey Jack plane. It's not the $50 - it's that they have a family and other things that also need $50. Spending $300 on a plane is just impossible for them to even think about.

When I started, I had a cheap portable table saw. Eventually, someone gave me a Craftsman contractor's saw with a burned out motor, which was a significant upgrade for me. I found a new motor and spent quite a bit of time setting up the saw. I still have that saw and have produced quite a bit of furniture with it, although I'm now planning to upgrade to a cabinet saw.

I don't think my experience or the experience of the students at Cerritos is unusual - I think that people who spend several thousand dollars when just starting woodworking is the unusual situation.

So the advice I give to new woodworkers is to buy what you can afford, even if it's not LN or LV, and use the tools to produce furniture. You'll learn a lot on the way, and the goal is to produce furniture, not collect expensive tools.

Mike

[Wilbur Pan]

After the first class, where the students learn safety and build a few simple projects, some move on to more advanced projects, such as a simple table (like a nightstand). Those who advance usually buy a few more tools, but I've watched (and talked with) them as they debate spending even $50 for an older Stanley Bailey Jack plane. It's not the $50 - it's that they have a family and other things that also need $50. Spending $300 on a plane is just impossible for them to even think about.

So my question for this student would be, would spending $300 for a tablesaw seem reasonable?

If not, then we're back to David's point -- if you can't afford that amount of money for this hobby, you won't be able to afford the wood, either.

And if so, why is a tablesaw worth $300, but not a high end plane? As I noted above, for people who are thinking about outfitting a shop with power tools, spending $2000 is pretty easy to do, but I rarely hear people gripe about the cost of power tools in that price range. But for the same budget, you can get some top quality hand tools that will do the same things an array of low end power tools can do.

[Mike Henderson]

So my question for this student would be, would spending $300 for a tablesaw seem reasonable?

If not, then we're back to David's point -- if you can't afford that amount of money for this hobby, you won't be able to afford the wood, either.

And if so, why is a tablesaw worth $300, but not a high end plane? As I noted above, for people who are thinking about outfitting a shop with power tools, spending $2000 is pretty easy to do, but I rarely hear people gripe about the cost of power tools in that price range. But for the same budget, you can get some top quality hand tools that will do the same things an array of low end power tools can do.
For people who are starting out in a traditional (power tool) program, a table saw is the center of the shop and is used on every project.

For planes, it's very possible to use older Stanley planes and produce very acceptable results, provide you have some instruction on how to sharpen and set up the plane.

Mike

[Power tools have an analogy. Very few new woodworkers buy an Industrial SawStop as their first table saw. Most buy a low cost table saw (maybe even a used saw) and only upgrade later. It's because they (and their family) just can't bite off that much money when the person is just starting out.]

[David Keller NC]

And if so, why is a tablesaw worth $300, but not a high end plane? As I noted above, for people who are thinking about outfitting a shop with power tools, spending $2000 is pretty easy to do, but I rarely hear people gripe about the cost of power tools in that price range. But for the same budget, you can get some top quality hand tools that will do the same things an array of low end power tools can do.

This is precisely the point I was making. As I noted in the post, it's quite possible to buy a decent pre-war Stanley, outfit it with a new blade (or not), and get a perfectly decent smoother that is far, far better than the junk newly-manufactured planes that are thought of as "entry level".

The difficulty I was pointing out is that one of the more common implied thoughts in these type of threads is that a $300 LV(LN) plane is somehow outrageous. It isn't, and with all due respect, $300 for a once per lifetime purchase that is a critically important tool to a hand tool woodworker is just not out of the range for the vast majority of woodworkers. Whether it hurts to spend that much on a tool rather than a new dishwasher is another question, and one I can't answer, but it really doesn't have anything to do with whether someone can't afford a Lie-Nielsen handplane. In fact, it's the definition of "I don't want to afford a Lie-Nielsen handplane".

But the idea that buying the very small handful of high-quality bench planes that are required for the purpose is budget-busting simply doesn't make sense - you only need 2 of these (a jointer and a smoother), and the third required plane (a fore plane) can be a rough-as-a-cob $20 wooden handplane from the flea market. Just the wood required for a work bench that will actually allow you to do handtool work is going to cost $300, and probably well over that.

The simple reality is that you've really 3 choices - buy high quality as you can afford it (as I've done), buy pre-war Stanley, Union, Keen Kutter, etc... for a lot less and tune them up (also done that - and it works quite well), or take a real chance that you might get a usable example of the newly-manufactured "entry" handplanes. Unfortunately, the likely answer to the last one is that you stand a substantial chance of getting an unusable example. And from the standpoint of actually being frugal with your funds, the last choice doesn't make any sense at all.

[Mike Henderson]

The difficulty I was pointing out is that one of the more common implied thoughts in these type of threads is that a $300 LV(LN) plane is somehow outrageous.
The point I have been trying to make is that for many beginning woodworkers, $300 is far beyond what they are willing or able to spend for a single plane. We don't do them a favor by suggesting they buy a LN plane as their first plane. All we do is discourage them from woodworking.

If they indicate they have that much money and are willing to spend it on a plane, then it's a good suggestion. But from my experience with beginning woodworkers, that's way beyond reach for many of them.

Mike

[In talking with beginning woodworkers, I've had the occasion to talk with them about LN planes. Many have never heard about LN before. But when I tell them the cost of the planes, their faces clearly register shock.]

[David Keller NC]

We don't do them a favor by suggesting they buy a LN plane as their first plane. All we do is discourage them from woodworking.


Acutally, what we're doing is precisely that (doing them a favor). I would bet more than a beer that what actually discourages most beginning woodworkers to the point that they drop the craft is frustration with the results that they get, not the expense. And the tools that they have influence those results greatly (as does a knowledge deficit).

This is precisely why I strongly suggest that those I've taught buy a LN or a LV medium length plane as their first one, because it will work superbly out of the box. There are few tools where one can say that, and it's easily worth the money, even for a graduate student (which is when I bought my first LN).

[Mike Henderson]

I'd take that bet. You must have wealthier woodworkers than we have around here.

Of course, most (all) of them are not hand tool only workers. Primarily, they're power tools workers. And they use the power tools at school until they can equip their shop.

Mike

[David Keller NC]

Not wealthier, just not cheap (which is independent of income).:D

[Mike Henderson]

Not wealthier, just not cheap (which is independent of income).:D
I can absolutely assure you that the woodworkers I know are not "cheap". They're good people trying to support their families and use their hobby to create something that they can use and leave to their children.

But they aren't wealthy and have to be very careful about their spending (as do I).

While LN tools are very good, our ancestors produced some outstanding furniture with Stanley, and even wooden, planes. It's not necessary for a woodworker to spend thousands of dollars on either power or hand tools to create beautiful furniture. Knowledge is more important than the cost of the tools.

Mike

[Brian Kent]

Reading all of this took a long time.

1) I can't remember if the Original Poster had a chance to call Stanley Customer Service yet.

2) It really is a gift that the old tools are still plentiful enough for a new woodworker to buy a plane and fix it up.

3) Sometimes you can get low cost and high quality - Mujingfang planes.

4) Sometimes an experienced woodworker can pass on a few key extra tools to a newcomer (happened to me - thanks Mario) to get started.

5) My first experience in woodworking was to take some free redwood from the junkyard and make a chair out of it with my dad's drill (with sanding pad) and a jigsaw. Now I can buy tools. Then I could not.

[Rick Erickson]

Agreed David. I was never a fan of hand planes because the crap I use to own came from the box stores and never worked. When I was finally introduced to a 'real' plane my attitude changed.

[James Scheffler]

Not wealthier, just not cheap (which is independent of income).:D

David,

I suspect you approach woodworking with a passion and single-mindedness that most beginning woodworkers do not have (or perhaps that they just don't know they have it yet). I would guess that's why you're not seeing the other side of this argument. That sense of purpose is what rearranges priorities and makes a person want to spend $2000 on high-end hand tools. You're argument that you only need a great jointer and smoother to get started may be true, but it still will cost close to $800 if you buy LN. That's a lot of money.

Many people will need a certain amount of experience in the craft, using hand tools, before they realize they love it enough to spend that kind of money. To many people, that's a "deplete the bank account and cancel the girls' dance lessons" kind of proposition.

I think you're correct that using crappy tools will only turn people off. That's the value of antiques - cheap but can be made to work well.

Jim

[Don Dorn]

Out of curiosity - how many beginneing woodworkers can make proper use of a LN plane as their first, and how many could keep it as sharp (or any plane for that matter) as it needs to be to prevent frustration?

[Jim Koepke]

This thread has been an interesting read and has taken some turns.

From my experience, there was no way for me to start out with an LN or LV plane. It did not mater that the resale may have been 95% or more of the purchase price. What mattered is we did not have the money to spare. A lot of my first woodworking projects were made from wood salvaged from pallets.

Fortunately a good friend did some woodworking and gave me my first #5 (a Lakeside) and a Record #778. My father gave me a few tools also, including my first Stanley #45.

Eventually, some wood was bought to make a book shelf. 4 pine 1X10s probably cost me about $20. Back then, the wife and I also had a book shelf made of recycled shelf boards and cinder blocks.

My first bench was an old pair of rickety saw horses. My wife bought me a B&D Work Mate for Christmas one year. Over the years things accumulated along with some skills. Even when it came to a time when I could afford the top of the line tools, it seemed more prudent to buy and restore older tools. Of course now, there are more in my shop than are really needed, but that was the trade off. Skills have been learned about the restoration process that would not have been learned if all my tools were acquired from today's best makers.

Finally, some of that skill and over acquisition is paying off. Some of my extras have been sold for the purpose of buying a new plane from LN that would be about the same cost or less than if bought on the used market.

It is my expectation that a new LN smoother can out perform any one of my old Stanley/Bailey planes. I would expect the LN to come off the line consistently out performing even my finest fettled plane, but not by much.

From my starting point though, it would not have been possible to go the LN or LV route. When I started, I didn't even use hand planes. Everything was sanding.

My first tools were an accumulation of things gathered over the years. A hand saw and electric drill. My first real tool buys were due to a service award gift certificate at work. It was enough to buy a circular saw, a reciprocating saw and a random orbital sander. Fortunately, my wife has done some wood working and still likes to do a few crafts and thought these were good purchases.

I wanted to build things and I was off to the races.

If someone wants to work wood, it will not be the tools that stops them. If they get the bug to make things, hammer, nails, saw and sandpaper will give them some satisfaction. Desire will build the rest.

jim

[Karl Wicklund]

Jim, I'm glad I read your post before I wrote myself. You said much of what I was going to say.

If a person is setting up to go into the trade, I can see getting top-of-the-line-amortized-over-a-lifetime equipment. For me, there is something far more satisfying in fixing up an old tool, or making do with a funky one than going out and buying the shiny new ready-to-go out of box one. That seems like cheating somehow. Perhaps this is my Norwegian farmer roots coming through. Maybe I'm more of a putterer than a woodworker?

[Rob Fisher]

So here is my perspective. I am a beginning woodworker. I have built a few things, a blanket chest out of reclaimed pine from industrial pallets and a funky shelving unit from bad BORG plywood. Both of those were built in my Dads shop with a few corded tools and virtually no neander or hand tools.

Now that I have my own shop I am slowly acquiring tools and setting it up. This does not currently include many stationary machines, just hand tools corded and neander and a lunchbox planer and SCMS.

As I acquire my hand tools I have gotten a few new, mostly inexpensive tools (like narex chisels) and most everything else is used, because I cannot afford the new ones. I would like to have a LN jointer plane, but the 22" woody that I picked up for dirt cheap will be my jointer plane for the foreseeable future. And I am ok with that. As time and finances allow I may pick up newer tools.

And the comment about not being able to afford the wood to make the projects is just nonsensical. Cheap, quality wood, can be found in many places from pallets to craigslist (I also have baltic birch available locally for a very reasonable price). My current workbench is a solid core door, gotten from Habitat for Humanity's restore, setting on an old steel frame used as a desk in my old office. Not ideal but it works until I can make my own workbench (which by the way will be made from construction lumber, probably Doug fir).

All of this is to point out that as a beginner who loves woodworking and appreciates good tools, I simply cannot afford any of them at this point. But I can afford to learn how to tune and fettle old planes.

Rob

[David Gendron]

I started wood working part time 2 years ago, and never tought of buying lower quality hand tools, My point was that I could learn better with good tools like LN/LV or other quality tools for that mathers. I work only with hand tools because I don't have the money to buy power tools and to be honest, I don't care anymore about power tools... I also don't regret the choice I made of going the top quality tool route, I do include vintage tools in that description, like older Stanleys etc. I agree with the fact that we should always buy the best tool we can afford. Also regarding problems with tools like the plane iron we are talking about in this thread, if every body whom had a problem whit LN bad batch of chisels a few years ago had said that LN tools are just junk, we would be pretty unlucky today! But instead, people gave them a chance by contacting them and seeing what they could do for them! Shwarz, in is review of some of the new stanley tools was pretty happy with the products. I think in the case of the new Stanley line of SW Hart tools people don't want to believe that they could do a good product since they made such bad tools in the last 50 plus years! I don't think however that a company these days, with all the technology available, wouldn't be able to produce a hi quality product if they wanted, at there first try!
just my thought!

[David Gendron]

I think today with all the info accessible on the net, magazins and books and forum like this one, and as a beginner woodworker it is totally possible, that's exactly what I did since I live in the boonies, I don't have access to work shop like others who live down south. So I am totally self thought, and I thunk I'm doing all right!!

[Jim Koepke]

I agree with the fact that we should always buy the best tool we can afford.

My most recent big expense for a tools was a Stanley/Bailey #8 Jointer. My wife agreed we could afford to spend $50 for that. She would not have agreed to let me spend the money needed to buy a new one from LN or LV.

So, the old pre 1900s #8 was the best I could afford and it is a very nice plane.

jim

[David Gendron]

I agree with you Jim! And that #8 is as good or better than a new LN/LV one, and think it worth more than 50 bucks!

[george wilson]

I used nothing except wooden planes for many years. They can still be had reasonably,and are capable of doing perfectly fine work.You can also still get good old saws reasonably,too.

I think that mastering the use of wooden planes with no adjustment knobs adds to the skill of a woodworker. Some old time cabinetmakers have remarked to me that they only ever use wooden planes. It is less easy to damage an expensive piece of furniture being made with a wooden plane.

[michael case]

This is quite a thread and there's an awful lot to think about here. For one thing I never looked at Lee Valley Planes which everyone here seems to agree are real quality. I just got off their website. The #4 LV is only $195.00. The Stanley is $175.00. Only a $20.00 difference! Well that makes it a no brainer doesn't it? I also noticed that what I thought of as the unique and intelligent new Stanley design looks just Like the Lee Valley. Well, read threads and learn. Thanks to everybody for all the thoughts and perspectives.

[John Coloccia]

This is quite a thread and there's an awful lot to think about here. For one thing I never looked at Lee Valley Planes which everyone here seems to agree are real quality. I just got off their website. The #4 LV is only $195.00. The Stanley is $175.00. Only a $20.00 difference! Well that makes it a no brainer doesn't it? I also noticed that what I thought of as the unique and intelligent new Stanley design looks just Like the Lee Valley. Well, read threads and learn. Thanks to everybody for all the thoughts and perspectives.

That was exactly my point before, Michael. The Stanley are so poor that no fair comparison would ever compare them to Lee Valley. Maybe to Groz, and WoodRiver, but not Veritas. Their price forces the comparison, though, and once you do there remains very little good that can be said about them.

Not to mention that Veritas planes are mostly made in Canada, if not all of them. I'm not sure where the Stanley's are made, but I want to say India. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

[David Keller NC]

From my experience, there was no way for me to start out with an LN or LV plane. It did not mater that the resale may have been 95% or more of the purchase price. What mattered is we did not have the money to spare. A lot of my first woodworking projects were made from wood salvaged from pallets.

What I'd say is that you did exactly the right thing. If someone doesn't wish to spend the cash to purchase new, high quality tools, then the route to go is to purchase antiques and learn to restore them to usability. Unfortunately, I learned the hard way that trying to make a kit of new tools fit my budget (in graduate school) was a really dumb thing to do. Those tools are all long gone - among them the Stanley "contractor grade" hand planes that I didn't know better not to purchase.

That experience was what prompted me to save my nickels (and I do mean nickels - grad students live very close to the ground) and buy my first LN.

At the time, the information necessary to fettle either a wooden plane or a pre-war stanley was just not available, or at least not readily available to me. This was, of course, pre-internet days.

So the detail of what I recommend to beginners is that they buy a LV or LN as their first plane, or buy a restored and fettled pre-war Stanely, which are available from several dealers. Most (but not all) of these folks just simply do not want to spend any of their time initially learning to tune tools, regardless of income.

But I do universally tell them to scrupulously avoid the "second tier" planes - Borg stanelys, groz, anant and now "SW Stanelys" and Woodrivers. A restored and tuned pre-war stanley is a considerably better value investment. Unfortunately, a heck of a lot of these newbies will simply not consider anything other than new - which props up the market for crappy, low-quality plane-shaped objects.

[Joel Goodman]

The #4 LV is only $195.00. The Stanley is $175.00. Only a $20.00 difference! Well that makes it a no brainer doesn't it?

LV and LN are both excellent companies. You might want to consider LV low angle smoother ($189) or BU smoother or BU Jack as well ($215 each). I have the LN low angle jack ($245) and it's a terrific plane. Do a search here and look at the bevel up vs bevel down plane discussions. There are advantages to both. Also Derek Cohen's website has information and reviews of the LV offerings.

[David Gendron]

All Veritas planes are indeed made in Canada. As for the new SW Hart, Irons(blades) from the UK, and the rest manufactured in Mexico!

[Chuck Tringo]

Not to mention that Veritas planes are mostly made in Canada, if not all of them. I'm not sure where the Stanley's are made, but I want to say India. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

95% of Lee Valleys Veritas branded products are made in Canada (and I think that includes 100% of the Planes), I have seen a small few branded Veritas that are made in the USA (not a bad thing either) and I believe their pull saws are made in Korea or Taiwan (I dont have mine in front of me now :rolleyes:). From what I have read, the Stanley SW are made in Mexico and the blades are made in England.

[Matt Radtke]

Really, both main points here are correct: Using the best tools, no matter what the field is, makes the work better. And I completely agree with the guitar analogy, especially with all the crappy ones I've bought and the bad habits I've picked up from them.

But Mike makes a point that rings more true in the real world. I would like to use myself as an example. When I found out about Woodcrafts 20% of LN sale, I got not only approval, but BLESSING, from SWMBO. Started shopping and put a 4 1/2 in my cart. As I started entering my credit card number, I canceled my order.

Could I afford it? Certainly. Why didn't I buy it? Windows. We had two crappy, starting to rot windows. That ~$300 was almost the same cost as a new window. The window was a need.

Will I have a LN 4 1/2 someday? Yup. Are there more important things to buy first? Yup. Will my pre-WWII Stanleys work just fine until that day? Yup.

Opportunity cost. What a b***h.

[Sandy Stanford]

Acutally, what we're doing is precisely that (doing them a favor). I would bet more than a beer that what actually discourages most beginning woodworkers to the point that they drop the craft is frustration with the results that they get, not the expense. And the tools that they have influence those results greatly (as does a knowledge deficit).

This is precisely why I strongly suggest that those I've taught buy a LN or a LV medium length plane as their first one, because it will work superbly out of the box. There are few tools where one can say that, and it's easily worth the money, even for a graduate student (which is when I bought my first LN).

The renowned Alan Peters worked the shank of his professional career, if not all of it, with Record hand planes.

Let us know if he appeared to be hamstrung to you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4N0KHV0n1g

[Mark Maleski]

The renowned Alan Peters worked the shank of his professional career, if not all of it, with Record hand planes.

Let us know if he appeared to be hamstrung to you.[/URL]

Sandy, you seem to be suggesting that Alan Peters was a rank beginner - I don't think that's the case.

[Sandy Stanford]

Sandy, you seem to be suggesting that Alan Peters was a rank beginner - I don't think that's the case.

I am suggesting that people need not be deterred from woodworking by the fact that they can't spend $800 on two hand planes.

That, and every plane in one's arsenal need not function as a smoother. Not all planes need to take a half-thou shaving.

[David Gendron]

+1 for Sandy's comment. And actualy if the wood is behaving, not even your smoother as to take such a thin shaving! Thin shaving where it doesn't belong, is just a waist of time! And also a great plane doesn't have to be a new expansive plane, any of the early type Stanleys, Miller Falls etc are as good or better than the new LN/LV and there vallue, not money wise but quality wise is the same!

[Mike Henderson]

Cerritos College teaches a semester course in hand tools. Over that semester, the students learn how to sharpen, set up, and use hand tools. They build a project with nothing but hand tools.

For chisels, the school recommends the Irwin blue handle. For planes, they used to recommend Record, but now recommend older used Stanley planes.

If they required students to buy LN planes and chisels, they would never hold the course because they wouldn't be able to get a quorum of students (there's a minimum number of students or the class is cancelled). It's hard enough to get people to purchase everything needed for that class. There's a lot more than just the chisels and planes - there's also sharpening equipment, marking gauges, scrapers, etc., etc. And then there's the cost of wood.

Students really like the hand tools class but cost prevents some from taking it. And that's with state tuition, maybe $120 for the semester class.

Mike

[David Gendron]

Mike do the school have a bank of tools that the students can borrow/rent for the class?
I know that there is some school who offer some tools to be used by students.

[Mike Henderson]

Mike does the school have a bank of tools that the students can borrow/rent for the class?
I know that there is some schools who offer some tools to be used by students.
Yes and no. The school has hand tools, but they're for the use of all students in the school. If some of the hand tool students took the tools for the hand tool class, none would be available for other students in other classes. Also, the school doesn't have that many planes (for example) - just a couple of each size.

Part of the learning in that class is that you have a plane and they go through how to set it up (flatten the sole, for example). You come out of the class with a prepared plane (and other tools). And you learn how to use the tools. It's a good class but it is somewhat expensive because of all the tools and equipment.

Of course, if someone has been doing woodworking for a while and just wants more instruction in hand tools, it's generally not as bad because they often have many of the tools.

When I took the class there were maybe three students who came to class with LN planes and chisels. That's out of maybe 20 students in the class. All of the LN people were professional people (I remember one was a CPA and one was an engineer) who were taking the class on the weekend.

Mike

[I'll add a comment that I feel very fortunate to have been able to attend Cerritos. The instructors are very knowledgeable and there were a wide variety of courses. The courses are directed towards preparing students to work in industry so it's mostly power tool oriented. There are two paths through the classes, one for cabinets (like kitchen cabinets) and one for furniture. I never took any of the cabinet classes but they have some amazing equipment targeted at that area - equipment that takes sheets of melamine and cuts it automatically based on the CAD specifications. Also, CAD classes. And they just added some CNC equipment that will do amazing stuff.
On the furniture side, there's a wide variety of classes - tables, chairs, chests of drawers, carving, veneering, hand tools, and I don't know what else.
Unfortunately, with the budget problems in CA, they no longer offer weekend classes, only classes during the week and in the evening.]

[Derek Cohen]

The renowned Alan Peters worked the shank of his professional career, if not all of it, with Record hand planes.

Let us know if he appeared to be hamstrung to you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4N0KHV0n1g


Charles

You love to cite well-known woodworkers, as if they prove a point for you. What point are you trying to prove here? Alan Peters used machinery more than handtools. He was damn good with handtools, and could make them sing, but he used a LOT of powertools (including power routers) and LOTS of heavy duty machinery. Read "Cabinetmaking - the professional approach". I have. Further more, that Youtube clip does not show Alan using any handplanes, especially Record handplanes (yes I know he favoured a #7 ... incidentally, he had other handplanes as well). Have you watched the full DVD version of that clip. I have. :)

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Keller NC]

The renowned Alan Peters worked the shank of his professional career, if not all of it, with Record hand planes.

Let us know if he appeared to be hamstrung to you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4N0KHV0n1g

Of course not - but there's a big difference between an experienced person that knows how to diagnose and fix problems with a new or used handplane and beginners.

Heck, you could theoretically grind a screwdriver into a perfectly usable chisel, provided you were willing to heat-treat it and spend zero dollars on a critical woodworking tool. But that doesn't mean I'd recommend that procedure to a beginner.

[Sandy Stanford]

Charles

You love to cite well-known woodworkers, as if they prove a point for you. What point are you trying to prove here? Alan Peters used machinery more than handtools. He was damn good with handtools, and could make them sing, but he used a LOT of powertools (including power routers) and LOTS of heavy duty machinery. Read "Cabinetmaking - the professional approach". I have. Further more, that Youtube clip does not show Alan using any handplanes, especially Record handplanes (yes I know he favoured a #7 ... incidentally, he had other handplanes as well). Have you watched the full DVD version of that clip. I have. :)

Regards from Perth

Derek

Of course he used power equipment. So what? So do 99.99% of the professional woodworking crowd.

The issue being discussed in this thread is how to spend a finite amount of money. You've received a lot of the tools you own at no charge. Having to budget tool purchases is something you don't have to worry about. If you want something, it's either given to you in return for an internet review or you simply buy it.

Is an L-N a 'better' plane than an old Record? Why, yes it is. Does that mean one has to have an L-N to do good work? Why, no it doesn't.

[Derek Cohen]

Mmm ... Charlie, showing your colours again - as soon as I point out your broken record, you answer with another - no, if I want something, I do not go out and write a review. That is slander, by the way.

It is impossible to miss your posts on a forum since they all say the same thing - usually something dismissive.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Sandy Stanford]

Mmm ... Charlie, showing your colours again - as soon as I point out your broken record, you answer with another - no, if I want something, I do not go out and write a review. That is slander, by the way.

It is impossible to miss your posts on a forum since they all say the same thing - usually something dismissive.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Yep, showing my colors again.

Any of it untrue?

Care to address the specifics of what I've said?

[Sandy Stanford]

Of course not - but there's a big difference between an experienced person that knows how to diagnose and fix problems with a new or used handplane and beginners.

Heck, you could theoretically grind a screwdriver into a perfectly usable chisel, provided you were willing to heat-treat it and spend zero dollars on a critical woodworking tool. But that doesn't mean I'd recommend that procedure to a beginner.

It's simple David. Some people have to work wood under economic constraints.

Another truth is that a lot of people spend healthy sums on tools and have almost nothing left over to use to buy wood.

I don't think somebody has to be of the caliber of Alan Peters to coax reasonable performance out of a Record handplane. It's beats the hell out of nothing.

[Bob Easton]

Well....
It was an interesting thread until the guy with too much caffeine showed up and started making things personal.

Can we calm down and behave like decent adults?

[Sandy Stanford]

Of course not - but there's a big difference between an experienced person that knows how to diagnose and fix problems with a new or used handplane and beginners.

Heck, you could theoretically grind a screwdriver into a perfectly usable chisel, provided you were willing to heat-treat it and spend zero dollars on a critical woodworking tool. But that doesn't mean I'd recommend that procedure to a beginner.

It's simple David. Some people have to work wood under economic constraints.

Another truth is that a lot of people spend healthy sums on tools and have almost nothing left over to use to buy wood.

I don't think somebody has to be of the caliber of Alan Peters to coax reasonable performance out of a Record handplane. It's beats the hell out of nothing. Will a Record take a half thou. off a block of Ebony? Nope, probably not. For a lot of us though this is not an angst inducing moment requiring the spending of great sums of money on a plane that will.

[Derek Cohen]

Yep, showing my colors again.

Any of it untrue?

Care to address the specifics of what I've said?

Oh Charlie, I am going to waste as little time on this and you as possible. You enjoy stirring - that is all you do on forums. I rarely ... very rarely .. ever read anything you write that offers actual advancement to a discussion. Muck raking is your forte.

I have written many reviews. Out of about 30 reviews I have completed, I was asked to write a grand total of two - never kept that secret, nor that I was "paid" with the tool. I will not do any more of those as the effort involved removes all the fun (which is why I write) and creates an opening for the Charlies of this world to offer more dismissive remarks. All the remaining reviews (especially including all the Veritas tools) I did as a hobby. I do not get paid to do reviews. Do I get "free" tools? Sure - I provide pre-production advice and testing to Veritas for some of their tools. None of this is a secret. I am not the only one doing this. When that tool is later produced I generally get one. Do I write these up? Only the ones that I think are interesting and will interest others.

This is all on record on many forums since you raise the same old same old all the time. B-o-r-i-n-g.

When are you actually going to offer a constructive, helpful piece of information instead of something that is twisted and dismissive? Don't bother to answer, because I will not.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Bob Easton]

Point ... counter point ... point ... counter point.

Have we had enough yet? I have!!!

[Sandy Stanford]

Oh Charlie, I am going to waste as little time on this and you as possible. You enjoy stirring - that is all you do on forums. I rarely ... very rarely .. ever read anything you write that offers actual advancement to a discussion. Muck raking is your forte.

I have written many reviews. Out of about 30 reviews I have completed, I was asked to write a grand total of two - never kept that secret, nor that I was "paid" with the tool. I will not do any more of those as the effort involved removes all the fun (which is why I write) and creates an opening for the Charlies of this world to offer more dismissive remarks. All the remaining reviews (especially including all the Veritas tools) I did as a hobby. I do not get paid to do reviews. Do I get "free" tools? Sure - I provide pre-production advice and testing to Veritas for some of their tools. None of this is a secret. I am not the only one doing this. When that tool is later produced I generally get one. Do I write these up? Only the ones that I think are interesting and will interest others.

This is all on record on many forums since you raise the same old same old all the time. B-o-r-i-n-g.

When are you actually going to offer a constructive, helpful piece of information instead of something that is twisted and dismissive? Don't bother to answer, because I will not.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Buy Lee Valley/Veritas tools!!

How's that for constructive?

No need to beat around the bush by 'reviewing' their equipment is there?

[Kent A Bathurst]

Buy Lee Valley/Veritas tools!!

How's that for constructive?

No need to beat around the bush by 'reviewing' their equipment is there?


Ya go away for a day or so, and you miss a great food fight.

Sandy - I read the info on Derek's site, including the LV tool reviews. Never caused me to buy a LV - don't own any, but do own LN - but Derek's information certainly helped me understand the issues involved.

I bet you also have insightful points on your site - where can I find it? I'd be interested.

[Mark Maleski]

Buy Lee Valley/Veritas tools!!

How's that for constructive?

No need to beat around the bush by 'reviewing' their equipment is there?

I think this post is unreasonable and unfair.

[Sandy Stanford]

I think this post is unreasonable and unfair.

The problem with Derek's advice and counsel is that it's basically always the same.

Some people simply can't afford a complete outfitting through Lee Valley, Lie Nielsen, Clifton, etc. (and in Derek's case an emphasis on Lee Valley).

Some of us, me included, can afford a bit of a mix (I have two Lie Nielsen tools - a skew block and a 66 beader). Everything else is Stanley/Record.

Other have to make do with Stanley, Record and maybe not so much of them. Woodworking on a shoestring. Been there, done that. And over again.

The Lee Valley/Lie-Nielsen broken record gets old. Both make excellent gear. Buy either if you can afford it. At this point, both brands and companies are well-trusted and it would be difficult to go wrong. If you aren't happy with your purchase they've both proven they'll make you happy or refund your money.

FWIW, "Alf" has written reviews on a couple of Quangsheng (Wood River) planes over on the UK Woodworking forum. She has no vague/shady/half undisclosed/semi-ongoing/or outright connections with any tool manufacturer. The reviews are well written and also for lack of a better term, "real."

Cheers,

SS

[Sandy Stanford]

Well....
It was an interesting thread until the guy with too much caffeine showed up and started making things personal.

Can we calm down and behave like decent adults?

No, but you can pour me another Cup o' Joe please.

[george wilson]

I think that often the wife of the woodworker MIGHT be a reason why some guys don't buy expensive planes. No insult is intended. This is just from some personal,and observed situations.

My EX was very frugal about saving money,although her salary was close to what I was making at the time. A $175.00 purchase was a big deal to her. It was really silly,too,because we had MUCH more money than we needed to live on.

I have some friends who have more money than I'll ever see. They have a daughter who has so many kinds of private lessons that it seems like every minute of her day is occupied. They have a very expensive house and cars. The poor guy(who has all the money) wants to have a little shop in their 2 car garage. He's got a FEW cheap things like a lunchbox planer,and a little borg saw. His wife is obviously opposed to his interests,mentioning the EXPENSIVE tools,and the mess(there isn't any) in their garage!!. They want to buy one of my handmade violins for the daughter,which cost plenty. Meanwhile,she plays a $2000.00 violin. I think she's 14.

[Dave Anderson NH]

I will issue this warning once. This thread and the members involved will refrain from personal attacks and if they choose to add new posts, they will continue in a civil manner. I am an inch away from doing some serious editing and deleting. Don't push the edge of the envelope folks, it will not be tolerated and I will retaliate for any Terms of Service violations.

Tone it down!

[Richard Niemiec]

I, for one, happen to find Derek's posts, as well as his writings on his website, quite informative and unbiased. Indeed, and with specific regard to tool reviews, my own experience with many of the tools reviewed fully squared with his observations of the tools in use. Derek is always willing to share his experience and techniques, which are almost universally delivered sans agenda, and if I may add, without animus, and I find those characteristics to be quite a bit more compelling than those who deliver theirs having one and with some.

[george wilson]

I think that all with any sense can see that Derek has not gained his skills and talents by being handed everything. I certainly was not,nor encouraged to go my own way by my parents.

Someone knowledgeable has to evaluate tools. If Derek has been invited to do so,it is due to his own talent and industry,observed by the manufacturers.

[James Taglienti]

What makes a Lie Nielsen plane perform better than a Stanley with an upgraded iron? They are essentially a copy of the Bedrock design. I have used both. I prefer Stanley planes because they are cheaper and there are many many more available. You can't walk into a flea market and pick up a Lie Nielsen for $10. The perfectly machined this-and-that is hype. The bronze bodies are pretty, and a bit heavier, so what. The mystique and the pride are my best guesses. Why would i want a perfectly flat sole? nothing I am planing is going to be perfectly flat. The iron won't allow it. The wood will move imperceptibly overnight or in a matter of moments, it is it's nature. Lie Nielsen doesn't even have that great of steel.
I like their rabbeting block plane, the Sargent 507 copy, because it is cheaper than the original. If their #72 is less than $300, ill buy that and sell the Stanley. We are not working on spaceships, we are working wood that is constantly moving, much more that the 2 thousandths that we all seem so obsessed about. Spending over $1500 dollars on a set of bench planes is frivolous at best, and foolish at worst. Nobody should care if the sole of their scrub plane, jack plane, or scraper is dead flat. It's absurd. I spent $400 on a 125 year old craftsman made infill smoother. It is 7 1/2 inches long, 2 3/4 inches wide, and weighs 8 pounds. It is adjusted solely by my mallet. It works like an absolute dream. That plane was worth every penny. If I want a Bailey type plane with an upgraded iron, I'll buy a Bailey type plane and a Hock iron, for a quarter the cost of a bronze trophy.
I'm done.

[george wilson]

I hardly EVER use my few Stanley planes. I make planes myself. I do have several LN planes,though,because I just like them. I THINK they MIGHT be cast thicker than the Stanley's. Probably tolerances are held to tighter specs. Blades are better.

I don't have their ordinary Stanley bench plane models,so may be wrong. I can't recall what all I have,either! My favorite is my miter plane copy. I also have a block plane with cast iron body. It seems heftier looking than the Stanley block planes I do have. My first LN plane was their open side block plane with angled blade,a gift from my wife and a few friends. Also,I have their side rabbit bench plane,and their side rabbet block plane. Another is their scraper plane,about 10" long,with the tilting handles. Also have their 3 shoulder planes,though I don't really need them. I am a tool hog!!! My brass shoulder plane,posted here in the FAQ section is perfectly satisfactory.

I bought about 13 LN planes between my toolmaker's days,and my home shop. Liked them all.Sitting here inside,I'd have to go check what I have here. I can't recall model numbers,either.

I wouldn't mind having a low angle jack plane,though I find my miter plane works quite well on figured woods. We had the low angle jack plane at work. It would even do curly maple very nicely.

Generally,I just think they are heftier,blades are thicker,and tolerances tighter.

Really,I enjoy using old wooden planes too. Was stuck with them for about 17 years as Instrument Maker,after all. There is an English coffin smoother,that has a thick iron plate forward of the blade. On top of the body,there is a screw for loosening the thick iron front sole so you can adjust it. I looked for one of these for years,but never could find one in this country. Finally,I took an old plane,and made one out of it. You can adjust the iron sole to the thinnest throat. I should post a picture of it,but I've gotten so far out of posting pictures that I probably have forgotten how!!

That plane is my favorite wooden smoother. In England years later,I was in an English flea market,and FINALLY found one. But,the body was cracked,and they wanted so much for it that I didn't buy it. Mine was just as good anyway. Nothing complicated about this type of plane.

I learned about this type plane from a very old English furniture conservator who worked in Williamsburg when I was first there in 1970. He was the entire furniture conservation shop at the time. He really loved that type plane. I used mine for years,and still have it.

[Richard Niemiec]

What makes a Lie Nielsen plane perform better than a Stanley with an upgraded iron? They are essentially a copy of the Bedrock design. I have used both. I prefer Stanley planes because they are cheaper and there are many many more available. You can't walk into a flea market and pick up a Lie Nielsen for $10.

True, Stanley planes are cheaper and I've never seen a LN bench plane on sale for $10.


The perfectly machined this-and-that is hype.

I have bought plenty of Stanley planes where the frog mating surfaces have been off, and off considerably. Performance of these planes are marginal at best; I've never had that problem with a LN bench plane. Hype, well, I don't think so.

The bronze bodies are pretty, and a bit heavier, so what. The mystique and the pride are my best guesses. Why would i want a perfectly flat sole? nothing I am planing is going to be perfectly flat. The iron won't allow it.

I am not a big proponent of flatness being the true determinant of a well performing plane, if it works, it works.

The wood will move imperceptibly overnight or in a matter of moments, it is it's nature. Lie Nielsen doesn't even have that great of steel.

LN irons are far superior to the original Stanley irons

I like their rabbeting block plane, the Sargent 507 copy, because it is cheaper than the original.

That's why I bought mine, agreed. And its the same reason I bought my LN 98 and 99.

If their #72 is less than $300, ill buy that and sell the Stanley. We are not working on spaceships, we are working wood that is constantly moving, much more that the 2 thousandths that we all seem so obsessed about. Spending over $1500 dollars on a set of bench planes is frivolous at best, and foolish at worst.

Some might say that buying over/under engraved shotguns for $1500 when a $400 Mossberg does the same job is frivolous/foolish, but its done all the time. America is a free country, last I noticed.


Nobody should care if the sole of their scrub plane, jack plane, or scraper is dead flat. It's absurd.

Agree that scrubs, jacks or scrapers don't need to be flat, but absurd, I don't think so as quite likely when the old Stanleys left New Britain they were pretty darn flat. But on the other hand, why would LN NOT make soles on newly manufactured planes flat??

I spent $400 on a 125 year old craftsman made infill smoother. It is 7 1/2 inches long, 2 3/4 inches wide, and weighs 8 pounds. It is adjusted solely by my mallet. It works like an absolute dream. That plane was worth every penny.

And you are likely right about that plane, and that's your opinion to which you are entitled to without being labeled as foolish or frivolous for the way you spend your money.

If I want a Bailey type plane with an upgraded iron, I'll buy a Bailey type plane and a Hock iron, for a quarter the cost of a bronze trophy.

And my #3, #5, #6 and #7 are just that, a mix of Type 11 and 16 Stanleys with Hock irons, and they work just fine for me too.

I'm done.

Everyone is entitled to spend their dollars as they see fit without being labeled as a fool or dilettante. My experience with planes, acquired over 20 years of using them, allows me (and perhaps you as well) to take an older, well engineered plane of various manufactures (e.g., Stanley, Sargent, MF, Union, Record, etc.) and tune it up for optimal performance. Not everyone who is just starting out can do that. LN and LV serves that market, as well as "our" market for Sargent 507s or Stanley 72s (I don't remember that LN makes a version of the #72, unless its in development) or 98/99s. To each his own.

RN

[David Gendron]

So, to be back on track here, I read a post on a blog called "Wood Therapy" about the New Stanley planes, that is from the post:

" Now.... despite any reviews of the new Stanley sweet heart planes you may have read take it from me. My new No.4 Stanley was well machined with a dead flat sole! It required no honing or tuning up straight out of the box. It is a heavy beast , which is what I want in a hand plane. The Asheville Woodworking school where I teach is outfitted with LN planes, a high quality plane for sure, but at a third of the price I could not tell much difference in the two. In fact I actually much preferred the new Stanley due to it's weight and the Norris style adjuster which allows very fine micro adjustments to the blade depth. It is a whole lot of tool for $180 (LN planes from $240 and up!)".

I don't know the guy, and I don't know how reliable his review is but...
On an other topic, I ordered a set of 4 planes from DL Barrett & Sons, all wooden plane, a fore plane, a try plane, a jointer and a smoother. They should show up at my door in about 10 months and they will cost me... Well, a lot to some people and nothing to other! Sure I could of bought some from the bay and fixe them up and may have decent planes or not! But I choose to go Canadian and new!
I don't have money in my bank account and I'm a full time dad at home wile my wife is working as a teacher. We set our prioritys the way we set them and we are happy with our choices!
Have fun in life, anjoy what you are doing and do your best doing it!
Cheers!

[Jim Koepke]

It is interesting how deep our passions for working wood takes us even into the realm of the tools we choose.

I am somewhat agnostic when it comes to the new versus old tool debate. I like the lines of the old Stanley/Bailey. The Bedrocks are a slight improvement over this in a few ways. I do not know how much improvement Veritas or Lie-Nielsen might be over those.

My advice is usually simple, if you have time and a desire to learn, buy the low priced antique that will need a tune up or one that someone else has tuned. If you have the money and do not want to spend the time, buy the new quality. I think either way, it is money well invested. It is not the tool that will magically do the work. Either tool one buys will need to be maintained. So eventually, one will have to sharpen a blade whether they buy new or old.

People are correct when they say there is nothing special about shavings in the less than a thousandths of an inch range. They all end up in the fire place since there isn't a market that finds them special enough to pay money for them. What is special is the surface that is left behind when such a miniscule shaving is coaxed from the surface of wood.

Such a thin shaving is also useful in that it can tell the user about the blades condition. It can also tell the user if the bottom of the plane is even from side to side. Call me crazy, but after working an edge with a #8, I follow up with a #7 that is set to take as thin of a shaving as it can. It usually takes about three passes before the plane will take a continuous shaving. I have not done a lot of research on this, but it seems it is from high and low spots that were not eliminated because of a thicker shaving.

A plane can be all bright and shiny, but that is not what makes it a good plane. What makes it a good plane is what it can do to the surface of wood in the hands of the craftsperson using it.

This thread started out with a declaration of disappointment in the quality found in new offerings of Stanley planes.
I am saddened by that also. I was considering their revival of the #62 low angle jack plane. It seems Stanley hasn't been able to solve a few quality issues. So instead a similar plane will be purchased from one of today's makers that most agree do not have problems with their quality.

As many already know, what cost more today may be worth more tomorrow. What cost less today is often worth less or even worthless tomorrow.

jim

[Paul Murphy]

Everyone is entitled to spend their dollars as they see fit without being labeled as a fool or dilettante. My experience with planes, acquired over 20 years of using them, allows me (and perhaps you as well) to take an older, well engineered plane of various manufactures (e.g., Stanley, Sargent, MF, Union, Record, etc.) and tune it up for optimal performance. Not everyone who is just starting out can do that. LN and LV serves that market, as well as "our" market for Sargent 507s or Stanley 72s (I don't remember that LN makes a version of the #72, unless its in development) or 98/99s. To each his own.

RN

Richard you've summed up my situation perfectly. I don't know the first thing about a Sargent or a Union, or how to whip any of them into shape. I wouldn't know which ones to seek, or which to avoid for that matter. I thought about buying an older plane for $50, a Hock or LN blade & chip breaker, and then lapping the sole, filing the mouth, filing the bedding of the frog, de-rusting, repainting, and then of course having to run down that part that isn't quite right. Well it sounds like $120 or more, and a whole lot of work that I've never done. Spend another $70, and I can be using a plane that requires no work, no troubleshooting, no dissapointments(unless you count my own skill). I'm grateful to have at least 2 sources for planes that are ready to work, and a joy to use.

[Derek Cohen]

Planes.

There are so many choices, so many reasons why we make our choices, that being dogmatic in this regard is going to create disagreements. As it does.

I love handtools, and I woodwork for the love of it. I am in the fortunate position of having a wide array from which to choose - even so the planes I have are selected to represent the ones I will use. I try not to collect planes that will not get used (although I do have some on shelves for reference purposes when I write articles ... I think of this as being my "library").

I am also sure that some would find my choice of planes to be the cat's whiskers, while others will experience them as frustrating. And vice versa - I doubt that many planes that are set up for the typical US woods would work optimally on the typical Australian woods. It is horses for courses.... just one example of why I would never attempt be adament that others adopt my choice. The context is important.

By-and-large I need planes with high cutting angles. A great deal of our local woods have a higher-than-average percentage of interlocked grain, and some have a very high percentage. The choice of steel is also influenced by the woods I work. They can be quite abrasive (containing quite high levels of silica), and for the reason many in Oz have turned to steels beyond A2, that is, to D2 and HSS. A2 is fine with me - a good compromise of edge retention and ease of sharpening. I do love working with O1, especially in chisels, but they end up requiring more sharpening time. The exception are Japanese chisels. They really are amazing!

The choice between BU and BD is not a true reflection of what suits me best. To think that way would be an over-simplification. I use both equally as smoothers, and I use BD more frequently for most other bench uses. It is really about cutting angle, and it is often easier to achieve a high cutting angle (e.g. 60 degrees) on a BU plane. Nevertheless, I have a number of BD planes with high bed angles and these get used as much. The thing is, a BU plane with a high cutting angle is easier to push than a BD plane with the same high angle. Also a narrower blade is easier to push than a wider blade. Consequently, many of the BD planes I have are either razees from HNT Gordon or they are razees that I have built.

Metal versus wood? I think that is just a personal choice. Actually I love using my woodies, and probably prefer them over my metal planes. But sometimes it comes down to my mood, and sometimes which ever plane has a sharp blade.

Stanley planes? I own and use them. Not a lot, for the reasons I have outlined above. Here's a recent story about one: Bob’s Stanley #3 http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Commentary/BobsStanley3.html

My favourite Stanley is a #62 I restored. I use this one a fair amount. I also enjoy using a LN #4 1/2 with a 50 degree frog (mainly on softer woods). But my absolute best "Stanley" is a BU infill conversion of mine. This is one of the very best smoothers I have ever used ... and it cost nothing ...

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/GalootSmootherII_html_318dbbc4.jpg
http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/GalootSmootherII.html

Other favourites include a mesquite-bodied jack I built - this one has a 5/16" thick D2 blade!!!! Nothing stops it!

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/BuildingAJackPlane_html_m4a188386.jpg
http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/BuildingAJackPlane.html

... a junior jack I found ..

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/Newblade1.jpg

Interesting story about it: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Commentary/APlanefromMatjiesfontein.html

... and a jointer I built ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/My%20planes/Jointer.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Ray Gardiner]

Hi Derek,

I think you pretty much summed it up, no point being too dogmatic about choice of tools, there will always be a wide range of opinions.

Generally, I don't comment on plane threads, I make a few of my own and have a smattering of stanley, records and such. My son has a pretty good selection of LN that currently live in the workshop, I like the bronze bodied #4 best of those. Although the LN scrub is nice too. Still can't get the #9 to work as well as it should on end grain..

Anyway, going back to the original post that started this thread the major failing of the new stanley seems to be the A2 blade is not holding an edge and chipping badly, even on soft timber. I would suggest that this is not a failing in the design of the new stanley, but a quality control issue, specific to the A2 steel used. I have seen plenty of anecdotal evidence of chipping problems with A2 blades, from other makers.

So I think it's is a bit unfair to condemn outright the new stanley design per se. A bit of improvement in the QC of the A2 steel used for the blade and it might well be a viable option for many.

Might be an aftermarket in 0.128" 01 steel blades...

Certainly a step in the right direction anyway.

Regards
Ray

[Daniel Shnitka]

Money will come and go. Sometimes you blow your money on something that in hindsight you think could have been saved or more wisely spent. You become wiser for the mistakes you make in life.

One previous poster touched on it in an earlier post, time. We only have so much time on this planet. The time I have left is not going to be spent dealing with customer service whose job it is to run interference for the decision makers higher up. My time is to valuable to be wasted in frustration with the dealers of junk. Wisdom which I don't have enough of tells me to make choices. One choice is not to spend time in the company of people of poor character or to have a tool of poor quality. Life is to short. And to have the quality tool for the work in front of me when I need it (not just because I want it).

Sawmill Creek forum is filled with many people wanting to help others with their chosen hobby or craft. This is demonstrated everyday on this forum. You see the thousand of posts that have taken countless thousand of hours to create. And it takes time to read them. Evey now and then there is a diamond of a post, something said that resonates with the audience. This original thread dealt with the issue of the poor quality of a currently manufactured plane iron from Stanely This thread is such topic that many of us agree with, because it has an over arching theme dealing with value, quality and trust.

Value because the price is out of line for the quality the plane iron. The trust is violated because the company is trying to market itself and brand on a reputation that had been built decades earlier. The uninformed may still buy Stanely but the number of nieve shopper is shrinking.

The big players have lost sight of some if not all their pride in making a quality product.

Now, as never before, there exist a comunication vehicle, like this forum, and the many others like it on the internet. Now there is input from us, the consumer and the big players are at a genuine loss on how to deal with us the contributors and the the silent readers that are not without shopping with their feet.

This thread has gone on for five pages, based on a single poorly made plane iron from a big player, Stanely. It has and will continue to grow and perhaps become viral. And Stanely can not do a damn thing about it. The horse it out of the barn because they, Stanely did not build a better barn, a better stall or have better trained horse. Reputation is everthing.

[Derek Cohen]

....Anyway, going back to the original post that started this thread the major failing of the new stanley seems to be the A2 blade is not holding an edge and chipping badly, even on soft timber. I would suggest that this is not a failing in the design of the new stanley, but a quality control issue, specific to the A2 steel used. I have seen plenty of anecdotal evidence of chipping problems with A2 blades, from other makers.

So I think it's is a bit unfair to condemn outright the new stanley design per se. A bit of improvement in the QC of the A2 steel used for the blade and it might well be a viable option for many. ....Regards Ray

Hi Ray

I agree. I came in late here but if I had offered an opinion at the start it would have been to (1) grind the blade back a little as it is not uncommon to find the heat treatment leaves an overhard edge (.. but that was done without success), (2) return the blade for another (as the blade was faulty, not the plane), (3) exchange the plane if they did not have a replacement blade (as I have heard that Stanely do not have individual blades for sale, and the only blades available are those that come with the plane), and (4) return the plane and get something else (probably the Veritas, which is closest in price).

I must add that I have experienced very few problems with A2 blades from both LV and LN over the years. Attention gets drawn to the Veritas planes I have, but I have several LN planes with A2 blades at low angles (60 1/2, 60 1/2R, and 103 - the latter is about 10 years old), plus my Stanley #62 has a LN A2 blade ... and not to forget the bronze LN #4 1/2 I mentioned in an earlier post. In memory, the A2 blade on a Veritas NX60 block plane chipped when new (mentioned in my review) but has not returned in 18 months of use after a slight grind back, and is a blade that gets very sharp, and holds an edge superbly. More relevantly, I use an A2 blade in my Veritas LA Jack at 25 degrees on a shooting board. This has slammed into hardwood endgrain on many, many occasions without chipping. This combined experience strongly suggests that the criticism levelled at A2 blades (when ground under 30 degrees) is misdirected.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Sandy Stanford]

I purchased the new version of the Stanley Sweetheart no. 4 plane. I regret to say that it was huge disappointment. Heres how it was. The saddest thing about his plane is that Stanley really tried to get it right. Boy was I happy when I first got it home. I checked the sole against a machinist straight edge and square. It was dead flat and required no truing. If you ever trued a plane like the cheap Stanleys or Records or whatever you can imagine what a relief this was. It was heavy and well made. The handles were Cherry and the plane was very handsome. I'm finicky about sharpening and was very happy to find the iron had a flat back and was a full 1/8" thick. It was a breeze to polish the back. Again no truing required. I put it on the Tormek and put a hollow grind on it. I marched it up through the stones all the way to a surgical black Arkansas. I put the iron in the plane dialed everything in and tried it out. Heres where it got dissapointing. The iron would just not hold an edge. It chipped up in a twinkling. It gouged and tore. I put it back on to a white hard Arkansas and worked back up to the black surgical. Same thing. A few passses (over poplar for crying out loud!) and it chipped up and went dull. So I went back to square one and worked it up from an 800 japanese water stone all the way up to Arkansas Black. Same result - chip and tear. I did this three times! Chipped up and tore every time. What junk! I use this the same extensive sharpening procedure on all my tools - British-made Sorby chisels, German-made two Cherry chisels, inexpensive Marples and ironically the planing irons in the inexpensive Stanley planes. They all take and hold an edge way, way, way, better than whatever the hell kind of steel is in this new higher-end Sweetheart by Stanley. In light of all the nice workmanship evident in this plane I have no sure answer for this strange anomaly. Maybe I just got a bad one. Maybe whoever supplies the steel to Stanley is ripping them off. But, whatever the reason, the plane was absolutely useless. It was like buying a Rolls and finiding out it had an Izuzu transmission. Needless to say, it went right back to the store. Has anyone else had this experience? Anyway its a shame because the plane was really a keeper otherwise. Well I guess I'll continue to use my old cheap Stanley planes with their thin, but usuable irons while I save up to buy planes from Lie-Nielsen.

The fifth post in the thread after the original post had it right - try grinding the cutter back. If that didn't work, ask for a replacement cutter. If the body was machined as accurately as you indicated it was, you should have kept it IMO.

All the rest of the posts, mine included, were a bunch of unnecessary Sturm and Drang usually about higher end brands (or thinly veiled tool show-and-tell) that you would have presumably bought in the first place had they been in your price range.

If you've spent five minutes on any woodworking board on the 'net you know already know that Lee Valley and Lie-Nielsen make good planes. And if for some odd reason you don't know what one of these brands looks like, they have great photographs of each and every item in their line on their respective websites, so no need for the ubiquitous in situ photos people waste bandwidth posting.

[Maurice Ungaro]

Enough! I can read no more of tis thread.

[Sandy Stanford]

Enough! I can read no more of tis thread.

I thought for a minute you were the haute couture dude.

But that's Emanuel Ungaro I think....

[Maurice Ungaro]

I thought for a minute you were the haute couture dude.

But that's Emanuel Ungaro I think....

Yep, Emanuel's the dude. I'm only related to him. Design must run in the family - my father was a furniture designer, and my oldest brother designed kitchen cabinets.

[Richard Niemiec]

If you've spent five minutes on any woodworking board on the 'net you know already know that Lee Valley and Lie-Nielsen make good planes. And if for some odd reason you don't know what one of these brands looks like, they have great photographs of each and every item in their line on their respective websites, so no need for the ubiquitous in situ photos people waste bandwidth posting.


Funny, I took the time to review the entire thread and didn't see any pictures of a LV or LN plane. Is there some other point being made here that I'm missing, other than the quite obvious one at the end of the axe that is being ground?

[Harry Hagan]

This "Editor's Review" just appeared on the Fine Woodworking website featuring the Stanley - Sweetheart No. 60-1/2 Low-Angle Block Plane. :(
http://www.finewoodworking.com/ToolGuide/ToolGuideProduct.aspx?id=33328

[Jim Koepke]

This "Editor's Review" just appeared on the Fine Woodworking website featuring the Stanley - Sweetheart No. 60-1/2 Low-Angle Block Plane. :(
http://www.finewoodworking.com/ToolGuide/ToolGuideProduct.aspx?id=33328

I am kind of curious about what is happening at FWW. This review says the blade is bedded at 20°. I thought the low angle block planes had bedding angles of 12°.

I also read their review of the DX/NX60 and found their blade width did not agree with what is on the Lee Valley site.

I do not like sloppiness in my evening news and I do not like it in tool reviews.

jim

[Matt Radtke]

I do not like sloppiness in my evening news and I do not like it in tool reviews.


To paraphrase Mark Twain (I believe): "If you don't watch the news, you are uninformed. If you watch the news, you are misinformed."

[george wilson]

I just got a FWW,although I haven't renewed my subscription. there is a review of the new Stanleys in it.

Apparently there are 2 block planes,one at 12 and one at 20 degrees. No mention of blade widths of any plane,though. What puzzles me is that the reviewer said that the BU # 62 low angle jack plane couldn't be made to take an even shaving the full width of the blade "Because the bed wasn't fully machined across its width." Ridges were left on the sides of the bed,apparently .0025" high.

I am not sure if the language here is correct. Machining is done with cutters. Grinding is done with grinding wheels. I am wondering if he meant that the bed of the plane wasn't GROUND all the way across ??? This left higher ridges on the beds edges? I think he means that.

If so,is Stanley so incredibly mismanaged as to send a defective plane to a major magazine for evaluating to the World????? I've heard of things like that happening before. For example,a submitted car wouldn't start. But,a simple plane should not have been sent out with a glaring mistake like that. Maybe they should start using pigeons to check out parts like some manufacturers did many years ago. They were pretty reliable!!

I just find it hard to believe that no one at Stanley bothered to LOOK at the samples they sent. If that is the case for such an important occasion, I am left wondering what kind of fouled up planes would the average customer get sent?

The #4 smoother had a slightly concave sole,but was easy to lap out.

There are apparently 2 full revolutions of slop in the Norris type adjuster. Maybe,after some use,it might get even sloppier? I'd suppose so!!!

Another major,and STUPID flaw is that the block plane's sliding gap will not slide all the way to the blade's edge.

Personally,I intend to stay strictly away from these planes,based upon what the reviewer,Chris Gochnour said.

Is this what we are supposed to get for "buying American"? At least Buying an American name?


We had an annoying fiasco a few weeks ago. We bought a little $5000.00 New Hermes computer controlled engraving machine. It COULD NOT be made to engrave in the right spot. My wife bought it for our home jewelry business. The software was bad,too,according to one of our very intelligent computer geek employees. We were paying him wages for at least 2 weeks to fiddle with it.

I can solve mechanical problems of all kinds,but on computers,I'm a newbie at best. The little laser alignment gizmo The ill trained salesman,after MANY,MANY calls from my wife,and finally me,told us to BEND the laser into alignment. I took the cover off the laser housing. It was full of wires,too. There was NO way that the laser would be bent. It was jammed tightly into a plastic casting,and was enclosed in a THIN brass can.
Understand,my wife and the employee had worked on this problem for WEEKS. We also did not get a training DVD,and a wrench,and some other stuff that went with the EXPENSIVE little machine.

The salesman promised a few times to send a new machine,because out business's future depended upon getting the machine to work. We had another $5000.00 worth of silver castings that had to be engraved,and a major show coming up in less than a week.

FINALLY,instead of sending a new machine,he has a tech call me. Together,we adjusted the laser correctly. If this had been done in the first place,the whole ordeal,and the money we were losing would have been avoided.

If these Stanley,and New Hermes examples are what we get for buying American,I'd rather buy foreign,sorry. If they can't cut it,let them die.

[Chuck Tringo]

Well George, to be fair, Stanleys aren't American, theyre made in Mexico and the blades are from the UK. Just because the fat cats reaping the profits from a poorly manufactured item are in America, doesn't make the item American in my book. When I want to buy American hand tools, I buy LN or Blue Spruce or another that is actually manufactured in the US. Sorry to hear about your engraving machine....I would check the paperwork and see if it actually is manufactured in the US, likely not I would bet....

[Rod Sheridan]

I started woodworking in high school shop class, it was an effort in frustration.

Squares that weren't, planes and chisels that were so dull they were uncontrollable, and back saws that were missing teeth or bent.

It was so difficult to make a board flat, square and parallel that I almost gave up.

My father was an electrician so he didn't have many wood working tools, however he only bought very good tools. He couldn't afford to do otherwise.

He had a couple of planes, some chisels, saws etc, and he set out to help me with my shop class problem project.

I was amazed, a plane could cut in a repeatable manner, a chisel could actually pare a shaving off, as opposed to hacking off a ragged hunk of wood.

The experience developed a life long love of wood working, and a love of good tools and machinery.

My father in law is a retired master cabinetmaker who spent most of his life in England. He has a fantastic collection of high quality hand tools.

I was admiring a bull nose plane of his and remarked how nice it was. His response was that it should be, it was many days wages when he served his apprenticeship.

I think that was Mike's point, that a good plane would be in the $300 range today simply because of the costs of designing and making a quality product. Notice that it has become less expensive, it's no longer days of wages, it's hours of wages for a tradesman.

When I began woodworking as an adult, it was a hobby, however I tried to purchase quality tools, even if I had to save for months to buy a set of chisels.

So yes, people who are just starting out buying wood working tools probably are surprised to contemplate spending $30 on one chisel, however they would also be surprised to find that I spend that and more, on a pair of Klein pliers, as opposed to the budget crap.

10 years of industrial use later, my Klein pliers work like new, and I tend not to lose them because I'd have to cough up another $30 or $40 for a new pair.

I haven't regretted spending more on tools, I've only regretted spending less.

Regards, Rod.

[Jim Koepke]

IWhat puzzles me is that the reviewer said that the BU # 62 low angle jack plane couldn't be made to take an even shaving the full width of the blade "Because the bed wasn't fully machined across its width." Ridges were left on the sides of the bed,apparently .0025" high.

[snip]

If so,is Stanley so incredibly mismanaged as to send a defective plane to a major magazine for evaluating to the World?????

[snip]

I just find it hard to believe that no one at Stanley bothered to LOOK at the samples they sent. If that is the case for such an important occasion, I am left wondering what kind of fouled up planes would the average customer get sent?

[snip]


I think that if it was ever discovered that the marketing department at Stanley did not send out a random sample for review and instead sent out a "specially adjusted" copies to the reviewers, they would deserve more criticism than they have already garnered.

The particular plane in question should never have been put into a box at the factory that made it. The bigger problem is it would not surprise me to find that this is representative sample of what buyers should expect if they buy one of the new Stanley planes.

The problem is the infinite quest to knock every penny out of production costs. When lowering the cost of manufacturing is more important than assuring the quality of the product, the product will reflect this choice.

When a corporation wants wage slaves instead of thinking workers, they will have workers who will keep their heads down and not rock the boat by calling attention to a glaring problem.

jim

[David Gendron]

Rob, my that was and electrician, and I still have the 2 Klein pliers he gave me 20 years ago and they are the best pliers out there! And I'm with you on good quality tools, and that include good vintage tools as well.

[Rod Sheridan]

Rob, my that was and electrician, and I still have the 2 Klein pliers he gave me 20 years ago and they are the best pliers out there! And I'm with you on good quality tools, and that include good vintage tools as well.

Thanks David, and yes I like good vintage tools as well. I recently acquired a 100 year old Stanley #7C plane for use in the shop.......Rod.

[george wilson]

My point is that if an American company is taking the responsibility to have these items made,they should also take care that their products are properly made.

I was well aware that the Stanley planes were made in Mexico,and the blades in England.

After the frustrating episode we had with the engraving machine,and their sloppy customer service,I am out of patience and sympathy with American manufacturers who do not stay on top of their responsibilities to the customers they wish would buy their products.

I think my post was perfectly fair in those regards.

I have also gone to buying Hondas after my Ford van required a new power steering pump,new tie rods,new window raising motors,computer replacements,and other repairs I can't even recall,at 55,000 miles. Even the original equipment General tires came apart like retreads. I had a friend tell me that he lost 4 General tires on 1 trip because they flew apart.

It is too bad that we are being out worked by other countries because of poor management,greed,etc..

Obviously,there are a few very small makers in the USA who make fine products,stay on top of quality control,and give good customer service. Regrettably,they seem to be in the minority. My wife and I are small manufacturers of jewelry. Every piece is carefully put together and inspected. If there is ever a problem,we ship out a replacement at once,no questions asked. That is how you keep your customers and expand through good word of mouth.

Wee,too,have to buy some foreign components,such as stones. They are carefully selected for size,color,and no damage when they are put into our jewelry.