PDA

View Full Version : Lie-Nielsen 'Independence' saw



Lee Ludden
03-12-2010, 12:22 AM
I recently acquired an older, but unused Lie-Nielsen dovetail saw with the Independence name on the saw. Does this have any special value to collectors? The current saws do not have that distinction.

Casey Gooding
03-12-2010, 8:35 AM
Don't know if there is any additional value as collectors item. It does mean that it is an earlier saw (earlier than now, anway). I think it's only been in the last few years that they stopped putting Independence on their dovetail & carcass saws. It stemmed from when L-N bought the Independence Saw company. It was the first modern company to start producing premium backsaws, thus starting the current golden age of handsaws we are now seeing. Original Independence saws may have some collectors value as there really aren't that many out there. Aside from mine (dovetail & carcass saw set with matching serial numbers) I've only seen a small handful of these saws. Personally, I choose to use mine. It is, after all, what they were made for.

greg Forster
03-12-2010, 9:56 AM
I sold my pre-LN Independence dovetail saw, #352( if I remember correctly), like new, on EBay 3 years ago for $125. Could you get lucky and sell the saw for a small premium?... maybe, but you'r not sitting on a gold mine. Use the saw if you want.

Lee Ludden
03-12-2010, 11:44 AM
Thanks for the feedback. I do plan on using it, but I wanted to be sure I wasn't going to make some collector cry by doing so.

James Taglienti
03-12-2010, 12:22 PM
Gee.. making the collectors cry has been a part of my M.O. for years now

george wilson
03-12-2010, 3:05 PM
Maybe in 50 years the value of a pristine saw will add some value,but then you'd miss the pleasure of using it.

David Keller NC
03-12-2010, 4:23 PM
No particular reason not to use it, but there's a roughly $50 premium on a new, unused Pete Tarran Independence dovetail saw. Note that's not the same as a Lie-Nielsen saw that says "Independence" on it.

Jeff Willard
03-12-2010, 5:16 PM
Gee.. making the collectors cry has been a part of my M.O. for years now

And why not? After all, collectors make many of us cry by buying up these fine old tools, setting them on a shelf, and never using them, increasing the cost to those that do use them to astronomical levels. Good on ya'.

Jim Barrett
03-12-2010, 7:13 PM
I have an original Independence Tools DT saw from Tarran that I purchased new in 1997. I fiddled with the idea of putting it on the shelf but once I started using it I really liked it.

Jim

Ray Gardiner
03-13-2010, 3:38 AM
And why not? After all, collectors make many of us cry by buying up these fine old tools, setting them on a shelf, and never using them, increasing the cost to those that do use them to astronomical levels. Good on ya'.


Ahh... the old collectors vs users argument. Sorry to dissapoint you, but the sort of tools that collectors chase (and pay high prices for) are seldom your average user type tools. There is no evidence at all that collectors have driven up prices. It's a myth. Don't even mention saws, the number of perfectly good user saws that are floating around for just a few dollars, no evidence there that prices have gone up. I just bought 10 saws for less than a dollar each, I'll fix them up and give them away as presents. I wonder where the collectors that are driving prices up are?

There are good reasons to keep some tools in pristine condition for historical research, Like the Seaton tool chest for example.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Just wild assertions don't count.

Regards
Ray

Derek Cohen
03-13-2010, 3:53 AM
I totally agree with Ray. For something to be "collectable", it must first of all be Rare, and that means that there are only a few - just a couple - in existence. Then it needs to be made by a Significant Toolmaker, that is, one who changed the course of history or was part of the changing course of history. Old does not count.

Sooo .....

.... not only did I purchase a NOS Independence Tools dovetail saw on eBay, a few years back (I think it was for $125), but I then sent it away for refiling (by Mike Wenzloff) AND have used it ever since. NOTHING is sacred in my shop.

IT and LN ...

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/Father%20and%20Son%20%20Independence%20Tools%20and %20LieNielsen%20saws_html_m70372640.jpg

Compared ...

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/Father%20and%20Son%20%20Independence%20Tools%20and %20LieNielsen%20saws.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

David Keller NC
03-13-2010, 10:58 AM
I would differ with Derek's definition only in that a tool must be desirable, and that the demand exceed the supply sufficiently to push the price well above what an equivalent tool can be made for. One example is the L-N 25th anniversary bronze 4-1/2 smoother - they sell for about double to triple what the purchase price was in 2006, and considerably above what it would cost if L-N had added it to their regular line.

But I would also add that there's no shame in collecting anything, tools or otherwise. And were it not for collectors, we would not have reference books like Guide to the Makers of American Planes, nor would significant examples of the work of specific makers have been preserved. All tools, save perhaps for an anvil, are used up after a period of long use, and the information about how they were made is obliterated.

But that doesn't mean that an owner shouldn't choose to use a particular tool - that's up to them. While I would argue that putting a Cesor Chelor cown molding plane to use may not be the best economic choice (a crown modling plane of his in undamaged and original condition is worth upwards of $15,000), I'd defend to the last the right of the owner to make that choice.

Derek Cohen
03-13-2010, 12:08 PM
I would differ with Derek's definition only in that a tool must be desirable, and that the demand exceed the supply sufficiently to push the price well above what an equivalent tool can be made for. One example is the L-N 25th anniversary bronze 4-1/2 smoother - they sell for about double to triple what the purchase price was in 2006, and considerably above what it would cost if L-N had added it to their regular line.

Hi David

Let's take the case of the LN Anniversary Bronze as an example. I have one. I use it. I bought it to use, knowing that the value would go up and that if I decided to sell it, then I would make a little on the deal. There was no way that the price would not go up ... and I was right. Nevertheless, I do not see this plane as a collectors item. Yes there is a demand - now. But in a decade or so the plane will be a novelty, the interest will no longer be there, and the selling price will level off or drop back. The problem with this plane as a collector's item is that the company exists (!) and has the capability of producing more of these items.

You may as well rate the LV stainless steel Edge Plane in the same category. It is another Anniversary tool that was made in limited numbers. I think that even fewer were made. And similarly, the value has increased - again for now - but unless they are seen to be significant tools, tools that ushered in a new era, or were used by a significant person, then they too will be mere novelties in the decades to come. By the way, I have one of these as well. It is rather magnificent.

Of the tools I own, perhaps the most "collectable" is the smoother made by Jim Krenov. Now this is significant because there will not be any more made, and the toolmaker was a very significant individual. As yourself, which would you rather own: the LN or the JK?

I was thinking of Cesor Chelor when I answered in my previous post. Here was a molding plane (it turned up on eBay about 6 months ago) that was quite ordinary in looks, but it just happened to be built and used by a significant historical person. And there are very few in existence. There certainly will not be any more.

I smile when I read on the forums someone not wanting to use a tool because it is old and may be devalued. Stanley chisels are a case in point. Certainly in the past 5 or 6 years alone their price has gone up and down. One minute they are desirable, the next not, then again they are. Some will argue that it is the state of the economy that causes this. And to some extent it does. However I think that it is more a case of fashion dictating the price. There are just too many Stanley chisels around for these to be enduring collector items, unless they are rare. Mint, unused Stanleys are rare and, thus, collectable. The rest are fashionable.

Regards from Perth

Derek

David Keller NC
03-13-2010, 3:21 PM
The L-N anniversary plane's a special case. 500 were made, and the molds and patterns were destroyed after production. L-N has been pretty clear that there will be no more - ever. Veritas has a been a bit more vague about the SS edge plane, but the indications are similar. Exactly how far these will go up in value is uncertain, of course, but they will never be as inexpensive as they were when new.

Both of these are most definitely collector's items - because collectors want them. Paul Hamler's repro of the stanley/miller light plow is another example - they are desirable collector's items, even though they are copies of the original.

But there are other, antique tools that don't fit the definition of significant advancement in tool design, used/made by a historicaly significant person, or that ushered in a new era, but they are still hotly collected. Examples include infill planes made by the Henley Optical company in the 1970s, many of the Norris infill planes, Spiers infills, Ultimatum and Sims-pattern braces, and even the Stanley/Miller plows. There are lots of others, of course.

But you're quite right about one thing - light use on an already used tool doesn't really affect the value. But doing most anything to it to make it more usable or to restore it does, sometimes drastically. One could sharpen the blade of a Cesor Chelor plane and try it out on a piece of wood, but flattening the sole (if it's a bench plane), replacing the blade and/or wedge in a molding plane, heavily cleaning it, or in the worst possible case, sanding it and re-finishing it will drastically reduce its value in the collector's marketplace.

Believe it or not, that last example did actually occur a few years ago - the rather foolish owner was offered a near fortune for a Chelor plow plane as-is, but decided that it would be worth even more if it "looked new". He sanded it and removed all signs of patina from the plane, and refinished it in polyurethane. As you might it expect, it was gleaming like a cockroach after this treatment, and the owner was somewhat dumbfounded when it brought 10% of the originally offered amount in a major tool auction. There have also been other examples of American 18th century planemaker's products that suffered a similar treatment, with similar results.

But I think you're quite right about Stanley everlast chisels - simply honing and using an already-used set of these won't appreciably affect their value. But re-handling them, taking the body of the chisel to a wire wheel or buffer, or sharpening up and using a set of these that have the original factory grind on them would be a financial mistake worth a few hundred dollars.

I think your point is well taken, though - there are many newbie questions about fettling a work-a-day tool and whether it will reduce the value. Certainly, it will reduce any potential collector's value, but if the tool is simply valued as a working tool, it doesn't make any difference.

This might surprise you, but I would rather have the L-N anniversary than a Krenov plane. I had multiple chances on the Krenov planes, and passed up all of them. They'd have been reasonably good values as collector's items, but Jim didn't sign many (any) of these planes, and as a result selling one of them as a collector's item takes a lot of provenance documentation. In my particular case, I find Krenov-style planes wholly unappealing, and I also find Krenov's work wholly unappealing. Because I follow the rule of "collect what you like", I had no interest in his planes offered for sale in the last few years.

David Marcus Brown
03-18-2010, 11:18 AM
This might surprise you, but I would rather have the L-N anniversary than a Krenov plane. I had multiple chances on the Krenov planes, and passed up all of them. They'd have been reasonably good values as collector's items, but Jim didn't sign many (any) of these planes, and as a result selling one of them as a collector's item takes a lot of provenance documentation. In my particular case, I find Krenov-style planes wholly unappealing, and I also find Krenov's work wholly unappealing. Because I follow the rule of "collect what you like", I had no interest in his planes offered for sale in the last few years.
I've got a plane made and signed by Jim and I'm proud to own it. However, I don't use it.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8IRp609izmw/Rd5aeuEjbsI/AAAAAAAAAIQ/rfAEmdW2M_k/krenov5.jpg

I wouldn't call Krenov's style polarizing so I'm a bit surprised at your finding it wholly unappealing but your preference is your own. I also have a L-N anniversary plane and thoroughly enjoy using it. The recent addition of a 55deg frog has made it an even better smoother.

george wilson
03-18-2010, 11:33 AM
I feel about the same as David about Krenov's work. It just doesn't move me.

I cannot see how anyone could say that collectors haven't raised prices. On the other hand,without collectors,we wouldn't see many of the rare items that they bring to light. So,there are both sides to that issue.

David Keller NC
03-18-2010, 12:17 PM
I've got a plane made and signed by Jim and I'm proud to own it. However, I don't use it.
I wouldn't call Krenov's style polarizing so I'm a bit surprised at your finding it wholly unappealing but your preference is your own. I also have a L-N anniversary plane and thoroughly enjoy using it. The recent addition of a 55deg frog has made it an even better smoother.

You've a relatively rare item as I understand it - many of Krenov's planes aren't signed. Should be worth quite a bit in the years to come.

I would say that my taste in furniture is not shared by most folks. I don't like much in the way of rectilinear designs, nor do I like the somewhat modern taste for uniformly smooth, satin or matte surfaces on bare, un or minimally ornamented forms. I particularly don't like Danish Modern, Arts and Crafts, and most of the "Studio" furniture being made today.

My taste runs toward 18th century designs, ornamentation, and form. I'm one of the few that thinks that simplicity in design and unornamented form are not virtuous or noble, though I do believe that there are some forms and styles that are over-ornamented - most American Victorian would fall into that latter category.

However, there's one extreme paradox here - I do (sometimes) like certain Shaker designs, though they are usually quite austere.

David Marcus Brown
03-18-2010, 12:28 PM
Knowing a bit more about your tastes certainly helps to explain your feelings towards Krenov's work. In some ways his style is quite similar to the Danish aesthetic but his work differs primarily by being more rustic and somehow not feeling modern. Both styles are simple and understated.

george wilson
03-18-2010, 2:33 PM
Simplicity can be nice,like a Norris or Spiers plane. It depends upon the basic design. I have made some very fancy things,like the inlaid guitar. I've done that for the challenge,and the chance to design ornamentation. But,for myself,I wouldn't make a guitar that fancy.

One thing I don't care for is the use of spalted wood. That can really cool off a design.

I agree,David,I'd rather be surrounded with designs other than Danish,and ESPECIALLY not Arts and Crafts,etc. They don't make me feel warm and comfortable. And,I do like some Shaker things.

Joel Goodman
03-18-2010, 2:47 PM
What is it about the Shaker furniture that makes it so appealing? The clean lines and simplicity appeals to those with a "modern" taste, but yet it also equally appealing to folks who favor a more "classical" style. Perhaps the fact that it transcends tastes and styles is a sign of really great design?

David Marcus Brown
03-18-2010, 2:50 PM
What is it about the Shaker furniture that makes it so appealing? The clean lines and simplicity appeals to those with a "modern" taste, but yet it also equally appealing to folks who favor a more "classical" style. Perhaps the fact that it transcends tastes and styles is a sign of really great design?

Just what you need, nothing that you don't? Certainly not as boring as furniture made from 1x2's (This-End-Up).

David Keller NC
03-20-2010, 9:25 PM
I suspect the reason that I like -some- shaker things is the proportions, because at least in the early part of the Shaker period, the furniture has a heck of a lot in common with 18th century forms, but without much in the way of moldings.

And it's not the simplicity thing that I like about shaker stuff. Despite the shaker's expressed desire to avoid "fancy things", much of their furniture was finished in bright colors, and if you know where to look, there is quite a bit of "unnecessary" ornamentation - the flame finials on Shaker rockers, for example, and the brightly-colored tape weave seats. They also came up with a few original designs that were just plain cool - like bent-wood boxes.

The adversity to most Arts & Crafts furniture in my case has to do with what I perceive as really heavy, rectilinear proportions, and the exposed joiner. To me, tusk and through-tenons just look unfinished. Sort of like the current craze for gold or silver-gray in cars. To my eye, a silver car looks like someone forgot to paint it.