New or Refurbish?

[Jason Conwell]

I have been surfing the web and seen many people who have refurbished older planes and etc..Are these older refurbished planes up to par with the new planes from Veritas and LN? Or is it not worth the hassle and be better off just buying new planes/hand tools? If anyway has refurbished any tools was it worth it? Advice?

[jerry nazard]

Jason,

Lot's of threads on the subject, also stuff in this link: http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=103805

Many of us restore vintage tools, especially planes. However, that should never dissuade you from owning LN / LV, etc.

-Jerry

[Jason Conwell]

Thanks I will check out that thread

[Jim Koepke]

Most of the wood I have worked comes out just as smooth with my late 19th and early 20th century Stanley/Bailey planes as can be achieved by a new plane form Lie-Nielsen.

Many of my planes have required a lot of work to get past the pits on the blade or to remove rust.

It can be frustrating or a disappointment to purchase a plane seen on ebay and receive a tool with hidden damage. In my twisted way, I am often looking for some cheap parts and become disappointed when a good useable tool arrives.

I can not give an opinion on the offerings from Lee Valley since I have not had the opportunity to handle their planes.

I have handled the LN planes at a few tool shows and also own one that is not a representative size that I have been able to compare to an old Stanley/Bailey plane.

The LN planes are not only made to a higher standard than the old S/Bs, they are also a bit heavier. The Stanley Bedrock design is the basis for the LN design, but the fit and finish on the LN is still better. LN also offers additional frogs to vary the blade pitch.

The older planes can be brought up to a level of performance that is at least close to equal in most cases. Possibly the biggest difference with the LN planes is due to their weight and improved design, there is less vibration. Another way of saying this is the planes have more dampening effect due to their mass. Some people like "the feel of the wood" being transfered through the plane. This is most noticeable with wooden body planes or less mass.

My advice is if you do not have dire budget restrictions, then the LN planes are a good value. They do hold their value.

In many cases, people who do not have "budget restrictions" do not have a lot of time. If you are in a position of having some time to spare or enjoy tinkering with things, then buying old and restoring can save money. It can surely take time. It can also be very enjoyable. For me, it has also allowed me to make a few extra dollars albeit at an hourly rate that is less than required by law in every state or our nation.

An in between option is to buy a plane from one of the many sources that buy planes and insure they are all there and resell them. Some of these folks sell a complete "kit" meaning they do not do a lot of fettling, they just check and make sure it is all there and nothing is broken. Others like to do a full & complete restoration before selling.

Buying new is kind of like instant gratification, with a little delay for the delivery.

Buying old and used is like enhanced training in sensory awareness. You can get hooked on it and you will start to smell rust as you are traveling through areas with junk shops and antique stores.

This makes me think of Edward Murrow who once said, "Anyone who isn't totally confused just doesn't understand the situation."

Happy hunting,

jim

[John Stan]

I have been surfing the web and seen many
people who have refurbished older planes and etc..Are these older refurbished planes up to par with the new planes from Veritas and LN? Or is it not worth the hassle and be better off just buying new planes/hand tools? If anyway has refurbished any tools was it worth it? Advice?

In my experience, rehabbing a plane is not as cheap as you would think. For example, if you do not have in possession all the sheets of sand paper to lap the sole, expect to go to Home Depot and spend $5 - $10 on some sand paper. If you need any type of rust remover, expect to pay $10 for the rust remover. Adding a Hock blade and and chip breaker is a good idea $60 for the blade and chip breaker. So, you might end up adding another $60 to $80 on top of the price of the plane to have the materials to rehab it to perform like a new plane. Buying old planes site un-seen has its risks. I have LN, Veritas, and rehabbed baileys. In all cases the LN and Veritas planes perform a little better than the rehabbed plane. The rehabbed planes have the nostalgic factor.

My two cents.

[Tom Henderson2]

I have been surfing the web and seen many people who have refurbished older planes and etc..Are these older refurbished planes up to par with the new planes from Veritas and LN? Or is it not worth the hassle and be better off just buying new planes/hand tools? If anyway has refurbished any tools was it worth it? Advice?

A lot depends on how much you enjoy restoring old tools, your finances, and your metalworking skills.

A new LN will only need some blade work and you will be ready to go. You will also be assured that the plane is good; so you can fairly assess your technique when using it. If you decide that handtools aren't for you, you can sell it for 80% of what you paid.

Rehabbing an old Stanley will likely require some sole flattening; some have reported good results, but you can just make things worse, too. Best to have the plane sole ground flat by a machinist; prices vary but figure $50 to $100 depending on size and who does the work.

The old stanley blades vary; some are good, some not so. And some are in good shape, some have significant problems. A replacement from Hock, LN or LV is probably $30 to $75.

Ditto the chipbreaker.

So.... just comparing initial purchase prices may not be the proper cost comparison.

I had on older Stanley #3 that I had fettled to the best of my ability; hand-lapped the sole, etc. Results were OK but not great. I bought a Hock blade and Chipreaker; big improvement. THen I sent it out and had the sole ground flat, HUGE improvement. I love it.... but in hind sight I could have bought an LN for only a bit more money and would have been able to spend a lot more time woodworking instead of plane fettling.

So consider the options and make a choice. There are some very good deals here and on Woodnet for older Stanleys; be patient and wait for one with an upgraded blade and perhaps a ground sole.

Or if you really enjoy the fettling aspect, buy one that needs some TLC and work it up to top-notch shape.

As my dad used to say, "Pay your money and take your choice!)

-TH

[Matt Radtke]

Generally speaking, I've not spent more than $35 per plane--at least the ones I've kept. The exception to that my first 5 1/2, which came to almost $50 with shipping, but I did buy that one from a dealer. Have they needed work? DEAR GOD YES, but it was a lot of fun. Amortize the cost of my buffing wheel, buffing compound, sand paper, and some scrap rosewood to fix some broken horns, and we can add about $1.5-$2 per plane. Maximum.

Remember, $35/plane. That even includes all three 7s (one with a hock blade and breaker), both 8s (one with a LN A2 blade and chip breaker), and both 4 1/2s that have come through my shop. Though that pre-WWII 8 is in sad, sad shape. You just have to be patient and look for good deals.

[Jim Koepke]

In my experience, rehabbing a plane is not as cheap as you would think. For example, if you do not have in possession all the sheets of sand paper to lap the sole, expect to go to Home Depot and spend $5 - $10 on some sand paper. If you need any type of rust remover, expect to pay $10 for the rust remover. Adding a Hock blade and and chip breaker is a good idea $60 for the blade and chip breaker. So, you might end up adding another $60 to $80 on top of the price of the plane to have the materials to rehab it to perform like a new plane. Buying old planes site un-seen has its risks. I have LN, Veritas, and rehabbed baileys. In all cases the LN and Veritas planes perform a little better than the rehabbed plane. The rehabbed planes have the nostalgic factor.

My two cents.

That is a fairly decent representation of what rehabbing is all about. Some differences are that I will use citric acid for rust removal and it is less than a buck a gallon if you can find the citric acid powder to mix your own. One person posted about using powdered lemon aide mix with good results. It can be stored and saved for later use.

Other people prefer to use vinegar. Buy an inexpensive gallon jug and do not let the wife use it for salad dressing.

I like my Hock blades, but old blades and chip breakers are usually useable. There really is not a whole lot of difference. The newer blades may be able to hold an edge better. They are also a bit thicker so there is less vibration.

One thing John did not mention is if you want to make your old rehab real nice is a can of spray paint. Some folks like to custom color their old planes, some folks think of this as sacrilege. If it is your plane, you can do whatever you want with it.

jim

[David Gendron]

Vintage planes work just as good, if you know what you are doing. In fact, I like my stanley better than my LN...
An other thing, I don't know what is your access to vintage tools, but for me it never been possible to find hand planes as cheep as other guys here are stating, when I include shipping, new blades etc... but still way cheeper than a new LV/LN.

[Jim Koepke]

You just have to be patient and look for good deals.

That should be a Neander bumper sticker.

I am still looking to beat my sweetest good deal. A #4-1/2 type 6, good to go with the original blade for $30. The only problem was it had a lever cap from a transitional plane. That was easily corrected.

I have since come across deals that have made more profit than this one even has the potential to do, but it is still my fondest memory of rust hunting.

jim

[Bill Houghton]

If you have more time than money, used is fine. If the opposite, buy new.

And, if you buy used, don't get caught up in this "pimp out your plane" business. Re-japanning or even painting your plane will NOT improve its capabilities.

I've done plenty of planing and have yet to spend time flattening a plane's sole. I have, I will admit, made the mistake of getting planes with soles far enough out of flat that I didn't keep them - but I buy cheap at garage sales, so it was a useful lesson for not much money.

Cleaning a plane - getting rid of rust, dirt, and dead spiders - is useful. Lubricating moving parts and waxing all surfaces is useful. Learning to sharpen (80-90% of "tuning" a plane, in my opinion) is vital. But the first two will cost you under $10, and the last is something you need to know even if you buy a high-end plane.

[Sean Hughto]

You can buy very good vintage 3, 4 and 5's (very common sizes and hence cheap) on eBay for roughly $20 to $40. In this price range, many need very little work to function well. We are not talking about electrolysis and endless hours with sandpaper lapping and lapping, we are talking about a good cleaning and sharpening that takes around an hour all tolled. These planes will work well, and can be made to work even better with a new blade like one of LN's Stanley replacement blades or a Hock. On normal, reasonable grained woods, the results will be indistinguishable from a LN or LV. The LN and LV begin to pull away when you face tasks like smoothing fiddle back, birdsay, etc. grains. For 90% of waht most fellas do, the vintage Stanley's (or similar Sargents, etc.) will performs more than adequately. That said, it's awfully nice to pull a plane out of a box, hone the blade, and have it work rather effortlessly. Nice tools are nice to use, no doubt about it.

[glenn bradley]

You're just trying to start something, aren't you? Obviously many opinions on this. Answers will vary depending what you can afford, how you enjoy spending your time and other factors. There are certainly many older planes that will perform admirably compared to "modern" planes. If well designed and put into a workable condition, there is no reason they shouldn't.

I enjoy part of my shop time by organizing things to allow a good workflow. This doesn't get anything built in and of itself but, I enjoy it and am willing to spend my time doing it. If you enjoy restoring older machines or hand tools, you will be happy doing that as part of your shop time. I don't enjoy this and a good portion of that feeling is probably that I am just not very good at it ;-)

As others have mentioned getting a nice older plane for $20 to $40 is just the start. The work that follows may be very little, it may be more than you want to put in. If you are looking for a No. 8 jointer, the starting price will probably be higher as may be the effort to get it in shape.

[David Keller NC]

This is what I'd say about the cost question:

There is a risk associated with buying an old Stanley off of e-bay. You can considerably reduce this risk by reading Jim's "What to look for" thread. However, you can't eliminate this risk, and if you buy a fair number of planes off of e-bay, odds are very good that you'll get one or more that are unfixable (cracked cast iron) or would take too much money in spare parts to be worthwhile. The way I think of it, the risk can be put in monetary terms at about 20% of the cost of any plane you buy sight unseen. My guess is that you can reduce this to below 5% of the cost by only buying planes that you can put your hands on and examine in person.

Then there is the time-is-money equation. Generally speaking, if your time is something you cost out at $25 an hour, it will be a rare pre-war Stanley that would actually be "worth it" to restore. However, if you prefer to refurbish planes rather than build other things (and there are lots of us out there that consider this work "fun"), this consideration may not apply. However, you should generally not expect to get anything close to your investment of time and materials if you then decide to sell the plane.

There is an alternative, however - you can buy a 1950's Stanley in "collector's condition" from an established dealer that is trustworthy such as Lee Richmond at The Best Things. Such a plane should be expected to have close to zero use, and will be perfect in all respects. Assuming that the metal in the blade is good, such a plane will need no extra parts and very little fettling other than honing the blade. Expect to pay about 60% more than you would for a well-used but still restorable plane off of e-bay. 60% may sound like a lot, but it usually represents only about $30-$40 extra unless you're talking about a rare model.

From the standpoint of how the planes work (antique Stanley vs LN/LV), my experience has been that the LV/LN planes do have a performance edge over the Stanelys. Specifically, the much thicker blades in the LV/LN models chatter considerably less on figured wood, and I find that the precision in the machining of the hgih-quality new planes allow one to get a considerably finer mouth opening. On my antique Stanelys that are in use in the shop (5 of them to date, with more in "collection" mode), the slop in the frog adjustment screws means that I can't practically close the mouth beyond about 20-30 thousandths of an inch. With a L-N, 5 thousandths is pretty much automatic, and with a purpose-made infill, about 2 thousandths is the norm.

Naturally, the mouth opening will not make one whit of difference in a roughing plane, nor a jointer. It only really matters in a smoothing plane, and only then in ill-behaved grain.

So if you want to mix your choices (antique Stanleys and LV/LN) to make the most of a limited budget, I'd consider buying a Stanley #6 in good shape and possibly replace the iron with a Hock (the hocks are way harder and will stand up to the abuse that a roughing plane endures), buy a Stanley or a Record #7 in good to excellent condition from one of the dealers, and a LV or LN for your smoothing plane.

[Mike Brady]

I suggest a bit of caution and self-examinaton regarding this topic and the various posts here. Because someone with a lot of experience with plane fettling has found enough success to claim that an old plane can work like a new one doesn't mean you will have that success. It also doesn't mean that you can't have a heck of a good time trying. One of the best reasons to work on old planes is that you learn how they go together, how they work and how they are adjusted. This is knowledge you must have if you are to be successfull with any plane, of any vintage. So when I say use caution, don't be disappointed if your fettled and Hock-bladed Vintage plane doesn't make shavings like a Lie-Nielsen.

There is much to be said for preserving old tools you come by and using them in your craft. Planes from the new makers are fabulous, but the prices are pretty fabulous too. If you can afford them and want to just (un) plug and play....go for it. Old planes and chisels can be had at a fraction of the price of a top quality new tools. Good old planes seem to be particularly cheap right now. There are many very good ones available for $50.00 or under. Old tool hunting and collecting is a whole different thing. It involves a lot of time acquiring and then working on metal, not wood. You don't even have to be a woodworker to enjoy it...but it helps.

My guess it that many of the planes that are found and put back to good condition don't get used regularly. Many of them get crowded out of use by their newer counterparts. That is true in my case, at least.

So you have a few strategies available:
-Buy a few old planes and experiment with them.
-Acquire some planes at greater cost from people who have already worked on them. They aren't much more in cost than untouched planes.
-Skip the fooling around and invest in quality modern planes.

Have fun and work some wood along the way.

[Jim Koepke]

[snip]
There is a risk associated with buying an old Stanley off of e-bay. You can considerably reduce this risk by reading Jim's "What to look for" thread. However, you can't eliminate this risk, and if you buy a fair number of planes off of e-bay, odds are very good that you'll get one or more that are unfixable (cracked cast iron) or would take too much money in spare parts to be worthwhile. The way I think of it, the risk can be put in monetary terms at about 20% of the cost of any plane you buy sight unseen. My guess is that you can reduce this to below 5% of the cost by only buying planes that you can put your hands on and examine in person.
[snip]


There is a lot to be said for being able to examine a plane up close. I have recently bought an inexpensive plane off ebay that had more hidden damage than even good pictures would show. It did have some good parts that still made it worth it for me. For someone else it would likely have been a bitter disappointment.

The lower your expectations, the more likely you will be pleasantly surprised.

jim

[Tom Vanzant]

Buying planes thru eBay can work both ways. Early in my "collection/accumulation" days, I bought a Stanley #3 that turned out to be in somewhat worse condition than I had expected, but at the same time, I had bought a #3 for parts. As it turned out, the "parts" plane became the basis for a pretty decent plane, using only the tote and knob from the other. It sometimes happens that way.
Tom

[Tom Winship]

I only got into planes several years ago. I thought I had them sharp, and found out later I didn't know anything. Bottom line is, although I know a LN out of the box will cut full width .002 shaving off cherry face, there is no feeling like restoring a "clunker", and then hearing it sing, after you have rehabbed it, sharpened and stropped it. Kinda like when your kid has gone "0 forever" in little league, and after many hours of hard work, he gets his first solid, error free base hit. You know what I mean.........

[Richard Niemiec]

I've gotten skunked on ebay virtually every time I've bought something; all were parts planes. I prefer to fondle tools before purchase, and tend to estate sales and auctions for tools. The more common planes you can buy in the classifieds below or over on Woodnet (a little more active market for hand tools there) from regulars who give the tools the once over and tune them a bit; which is worth something, and generally you'll pay less in forum classifieds than on ebay.

[Brian Kent]

I have enjoyed fixing up old planes. My strategy, based on what I got from Sawmill Creek: Buy one great new plane and then use it as a standard to learn what a good plane should work like. Then get whatever is interesting used and see if it is fun to fix them up.

I enjoy it, and am now doing the same with hand saws.

[Bill Whig]

Several folks have remarked that the old Stanely planes do not cut as well as those by LN and the like. In his book on Classic Hand Tools, Garrett Hack points out that the old Stanley hand tools were designed to cut soft woods. Thus, I will suggest, maybe a side-by-side comparison is unfair.

As far as buying old tools: I say buy most of what you can find (I go to auctions) and if you're satisfied with 2 out of 3 purchases then I expect that on the average, you have done pretty well. I have come home with some stuff only to throw it away, but on the average I've done pretty well at the auctions. Of course, if I price the time I've spent at them at $25/hr, then I've done terrible.

Deep down, I think that owning expensive new tools ought to be a "rite of passage". Give a 16 year old a new sports car and what has he, or she, got to look forward to--I mean to work for.

Lots of opinions out there. I'm just happy to be here sharing my passion for old planes.

Peace,
Bill

[Jim Koepke]

Of course, if I price the time I've spent at them at $25/hr, then I've done terrible.

Peace,
Bill

I have always wondered who was going to give me that $25/hr if I weren't out hunting for rust or rehabbing an old plane.

Certainly not my wife.

Being in a different position, I kind of think of my retirement as paying me to go out and look for them old buckets of rust.

jim

[John Coloccia]

All I can think to say is there is no Stanley on the planet, I don't care how nice it is, that is as nice as a couple of the Veritas planes I have, specifically my smoother and my block plane. It has nothing to do with restoration. It has to do with there are designs out there that aren't 100 years old. Nothing against old Stanleys, and I own a couple myself, but there's something to be said for updated designs and better machining.

I don't think this is an either/or decision. Restoring old planes doesn't need to be a religion. If I find something I like at the antique store, and it looks to be salvageable, I pick it up and bring it back to life. If I need a plane I don't have for some project, I'll just call Lee Valley or LN and order it. Sometimes, I'll order the LV or LN regardless because that model happens to be much nicer than the old Stanleys, even when they were new.

So to answer your question, I'd say "New AND refurbish!"

[James Taglienti]

Several folks have remarked that the old Stanely planes do not cut as well as those by LN and the like. In his book on Classic Hand Tools, Garrett Hack points out that the old Stanley hand tools were designed to cut soft woods. Thus, I will suggest, maybe a side-by-side comparison is unfair.


In that regard I'm going to have to say that Hack is dead wrong. Leonard Bailey, the guy who originally drew and developed the plane that we all know and love today, was a cabinetmaker in the Northeast. To imply that he designed his planes solely around softwoods seems silly. Perhaps the miserably thin irons were for softwoods. The wider the cut, the more the chance of deflection, which explains why I have never met a #2 or #3 that i didn't like. I have had 4 #4 1/2 planes and sold them all but one. Just too wide for the thin iron- especially with the frog moved forward and the blade that much more unsupported. I'm starting to believe that the "Adjustable frog" was more of a machining convenience than an end user bonus. With a thicker iron it seems to work well.

The performance of your plane will depend a lot on the "type." Some types have a much better frog/blade seating. In my opinion type 9 is the best. They only manufactured this frog for 5 years but it's still very available. This plane does not have a screw-adjust frog. The frog seats very solidly on the sole of the plane, and on some types it just kind of "hangs in the air." Even a minute amount of flex here can really upset me when i'm planing.
To address the question of old vs new is going to upset me. I think these old stanleys work just fine if you have the time to bring them back to life. And it can't get much classier than brazilian rosewood, black japanning, and shiny brass fittings.

[David Keller NC]

Actually, the Stanely line of handplanes based on Leonard Bailey's designs were most definitely designed to work softwoods - this is not in doubt.

The reason is that by the mid 1870's when Leonard was applying for his patents most furniture was made in water or steam powered factories. All of these factories had big (and dangerous) planers, jointers, bandsaws and the like.

I've seen estimates that by the late 19th century, more than 95% of the demand for hand tools were the carpentry and related trades, which almost exclusively used softwoods for their work.

[Bill Whig]

In that regard I'm going to have to say that Hack is dead wrong. Leonard Bailey, the guy who originally drew and developed the plane that we all know and love today, was a cabinetmaker in the Northeast..

Well, here is the remark in its context on p. 112 (hope the link works). I know no more.

http://www.amazon.com/Classic-Hand-Tools-Garrett-Hack/dp/1561582735/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266864712&sr=8-1#reader_1561582735

(sorry it only seems to go to the book)

Best,
Bill

[James Taglienti]

Well david I couldn't find ANYTHING in Bailey's patents about which woods his planes were designed for... I was hoping I would... but I did find some advertising claiming that they could be used for all sorts of woods... but advertising is just that. I still maintain that the planes weren't designed solely for softwoods. And while pine was a very popular wood in the northeast, anybody who has been there would note that many of these old buildings from before the turn of the century are entirely decked out in all of the hardwoods that you can imagine. I guess these craftsmen carried two sets of planes... one for hardwoods and one for softwoods.

[Jim Koepke]

Well david I couldn't find ANYTHING in Bailey's patents about which woods his planes were designed for... I was hoping I would... but I did find some advertising claiming that they could be used for all sorts of woods... but advertising is just that. I still maintain that the planes weren't designed solely for softwoods. And while pine was a very popular wood in the northeast, anybody who has been there would note that many of these old buildings from before the turn of the century are entirely decked out in all of the hardwoods that you can imagine. I guess these craftsmen carried two sets of planes... one for hardwoods and one for softwoods.

I can get some nice shavings from oak with an old type 6 Bailey plane. I usually do not try and take an eighth of an inch of in a single pass. That is why we have handsaws.

I have never seen a carpenter plane 2X4s when they were framing a house.

jim

[jerry nazard]

I use a lot of white oak in my projects, and I have Bailey planes that get used all the time. If Bailey planes were not designed to plane hardwoods, were there planes manufactured at that time that were?

[James Taglienti]

Perhaps some british infill planes, many seem to have a steeper frog... the bailey pattern plane really took over after the turn of the century and there weren't many others, aside from wood bodied planes, which also have a 45* frog, and the woodies were really dwindling too. People were essentially done trying to outdo the Bailey design, but many tried to improve on it and circumvent it's patents. There are a number of Bailey style planes, transitional and iron, that have a tapered iron. That's the closest american made planes have come to being "designed" for hardwoods, if you would consider that a designator. In truth, the statement that Bailey planes were engineered for softwoods is pure conjecture at best. Like I said earlier, the iron is the only performance limiting factor in these planes.

[David Keller NC]

And while pine was a very popular wood in the northeast, anybody who has been there would note that many of these old buildings from before the turn of the century are entirely decked out in all of the hardwoods that you can imagine. I guess these craftsmen carried two sets of planes... one for hardwoods and one for softwoods.

Sure, but realize that by the mid-point of the 19th century, most of the interior harwood trim, stair treads, etc... were milled in a factory instead of by hand. Much of the softwood components such as floor boards window casements, etc... were also factory-sawn, but not to the tight specifications that we have today for dimensional lumber. So in many cases these components were fitted on-site by carpenters.

Regardless, the market for cabinetmakers who would primarily work hardwoods was less than 5% of the total by the mid to late 19th century, and there is also little doubt that the design choices appropriate for a softwood plane are different than for a hardwood plane. That doesn't mean that either plane won't work on the other type, just that it's optimized for the purpose for which it was intended.

One very clear example of these types of choices are found in wooden molding planes. Those intended for joiners (carpenters) had irons that were pitched at 45 degrees - this choice allows a substantially lower force to take an equivalent shaving, but also results in more tear-out. Cabinetmaker's planes were pitched at 50 to as much as 60 degrees. The advantage was that the pitch angle resulting much less tear-out of figured and hard woods, but at a cost of considerably more effort required to work the stock.

[James Taglienti]

I don't know... I am assuming that you get your percentages from a reputable source. Regardless my original argument is that Bailey style planes were not designed for hardwoods. The notion you are conjuring is that hardwood was factory milled and thus didn't need further smoothing. If a surface planer made today leaves marks on a board that are noticeable after finishing, I think we can Imagine what kind of surface your belt driven behemoths would leave- an unacceptable one. Even more unacceptable at the turn of the century when a glass smooth surface produced by hand tools was the norm.
As far as the molding planes go- sure, many are a high angle. But they are no more "designed" for hardwoods than Bailey planes are for softwoods. The high angle is primarily for the grain changes in the wood that cannot be compensated for simply from planing in a different direction- most molding planes only go one way.

[David Keller NC]

I don't know... I am assuming that you get your percentages from a reputable source. Regardless my original argument is that Bailey style planes were not designed for hardwoods. The notion you are conjuring is that hardwood was factory milled and thus didn't need further smoothing. If a surface planer made today leaves marks on a board that are noticeable after finishing, I think we can Imagine what kind of surface your belt driven behemoths would leave- an unacceptable one. Even more unacceptable at the turn of the century when a glass smooth surface produced by hand tools was the norm.
As far as the molding planes go- sure, many are a high angle. But they are no more "designed" for hardwoods than Bailey planes are for softwoods. The high angle is primarily for the grain changes in the wood that cannot be compensated for simply from planing in a different direction- most molding planes only go one way.

No, the point is that there wasn't nearly as much need for cabinetmaker's planes in the time period that L. Bailey designed his planes as there was for carpenter's planes, mainly because the vast majority of furniture was made in factories with power (though water power) with industrial equipment. There was still a large demand for carpenter's planes, however, because power equipment wasn't portable until some time after the advent of electricity and the electricity grid.

You might be surprised about this - "Even more unacceptable at the turn of the century when a glass smooth surface produced by hand tools was the norm." Glass-smooth was far from the norm during this time period unless one is talking about very high-style furniture, and most of it was not made with much in the way of hand tools. As for the interior of homes of the period, very little was as smooth and uniform as it is today. After visiting (and working on) some 20 of the Victorian houses near me, I can confidently say that molder/planer marks were left on nearly every surface of the interior woodwork - it seems that our desire for sanded/smoothed surfaces on woodwork in modern homes just wasn't that important back then.

Anyway, enough discussion. Time to move on to different subjects.

[James Taglienti]

Agreed. Or agreed to disagree rather.

[Randy Klein]

It's like everything else in life: time vs money. Only you can decide where on that continuum you should be. At the time extreme, scour the local sales/auctions or ebay and then spend more time refurbing. At the money extreme, visit your favorite retailer (LV, LN, or the custom makers) and plunk down the cash. There is an in between though if you visit reputable resellers like WaltQ and others who have done the leg work for you. All you need to do is fettle.

Just don't let anyone else's decision about where they fall on the continuum affect yours.

[Kirk Amidon]

In addition to the time v money equation, there is, at least for me a great deal of satisfaction in using a tool which was acquired as a pile of rust. I have a #3 which was in very sad shape, but which cleaned up nice and now pulls some fantastic thin curls, and has become a favorite smoothing plane. Knowing that I was able to give this tool new life somehow is very satisfying to me.