The Sacrilege! [Archive] - Sawmill Creek Woodworking Community

Kim Malmberg

04-10-2014, 5:45 PM

Another illustration of why Chris Schwarz's advice is only relevant for beginners.

And who says advice for beginners isn't relevant? I have a slight problem with comments which excludes certain people from certain others. This is being from someone who has no idea whatsoever how it feels to use a pristine, new hand tool from any maker. But I certainly am a beginning woodworker.

I agree very much that many a times less is more. I also agree that if you focus on the work at hand rather than the tools, you might get something done. But even I who only use vintage tools and standard cutters, most of which have wear and tear, have been flirting with the idea of buying one newly made, unharmed quality plane with a thicker cutter, just to see if maybe the hand plane requiring very little attention might get my job done better or faster - or even both.

My point: I don't care if anyone dislikes Chris Schwartz. He's not necessarily my go to guy either. But I can't fault him for making observations which most of us surely can't be opinionated about - simply because we haven't been there. And if you really read what he writes, he is saying he loves old hand tools.

If there is one thing I really like about Chris Schwartz is that he promotes the small amount of modern era tool makers. I think it's wonderful that in this time and age we still have people and companies around who care about quality, local production and customer service. And as much as I love vintage tools, I sometimes get a bad conscience for not buying tools from these modern makers. We all know that woodworking isn't exactly the hottest hobby on the planet and therefore I think we are quite lucky to have these small companies making excellent tools and at times even improving on age old and approved designs.

Sean Hughto

04-10-2014, 5:50 PM

I hope he hasn't sunk to trolling.

i find it amusing to imagine his story with average guys who have managed to marry, smart, beautiful, sexy, competent, etc. wives, but arrive at a room where they are introduced to these two swimsuit models and told .... I don't think their actions after that mean much of anything about their stellar wives ... ;-)

men is just dogs like that ... all I'm sayin

Patrick Bernardo

04-10-2014, 6:12 PM

Hahaha, love the analogy.

I don't think he's trolling, but CS uses his blog on PW to float ideas about all sorts of things. (Remember how uptight on here everybody got when he suggested using a toothing plane on your benchtop?). It's supported by PW because it draws in readers. Just the nature of the game.

I do think that CS's books and even articles in PW are much more thought-out. Certainly everybody I've ever talked to, for instance, thinks that his Workbench book contains sound advice. I don't have his book on Campaign Furniture, but Joel at TFWW calls it "one of the most important books on woodworking to appear in the last generation." It's just that there are blogs, and there are professionally edited, published pieces. They're two different things. I bet that if you met Chris in person, he'd love the debate about the vintage vs. modern.

Jim Matthews

04-10-2014, 6:51 PM

I've seen the same response from High-Rev tuners the first time they drive an Audi.

That said, I think a properly tuned #4 with all the pieces and an original blade
is plenty useful. I remember a similar observation that confused causation with correlation:

"There are so many doctors and lawyers attending this class; so many find a satisfaction in this that is missing in their work."

My response was that there were so many doctors and lawyers attending because that's who could afford the tuition.

Pat Barry

04-10-2014, 7:20 PM

Bob Jones

04-10-2014, 7:41 PM

Ya'll are looking at it from the wrong angle. This post actually helps vintage plane users as the prices will now plummet for vintage planes as followers dump them in favor of new ones. :)

David Weaver

04-10-2014, 7:50 PM

And who says advice for beginners isn't relevant?

It's not relevant once you're not a beginner. But even if you're a beginner, there are gobs of publications that focus on techniques and less on specific tools. The draw toward shiny things does make us all want to gravitate toward tool focus when we're new. Maybe not all of us, but most of us. If it's just a little flatter, with an iron that's just a little thicker, and a little harder, and an alloy that's a little more wear resistant with an adjuster that's just a little finer and just add a pound or two....then I'll do better work with it. But that just doesn't end up being the case.

David Weaver

04-10-2014, 7:51 PM

This post actually helps vintage plane users as the prices will now plummet for vintage planes as followers dump them in favor of new ones. :)

I'm rooting for that effect!!

Brian Holcombe

04-10-2014, 7:57 PM

paul cottingham

04-10-2014, 8:14 PM

I have a couple old planes (a vintage stanley and a vintage millers falls) that I really like, but I like them more with a new LV chipbreaker and blade. Blasphemy, but there it is.
The MF is a really nice jack plane. I put a camber on the stock blade, and use it as a scrub. With the boutique blade, it is a great smoother.

Frederick Skelly

04-10-2014, 10:03 PM

Im very experienced with power tools, but just under 2 yrs into hand tools. I now have a mix of new and old planes, three of which I restored myself. I get better at tuning them each time. With your help, my sharpening has improved dramatically. But I still reach for my NEW WR #3 more often than my MF #9. Why? The new plane performs better - full width shavings that are properly thin. I think its because I havent completely figured out the tuning YET. So for me, its VERY tempting to go buy a brand new plane that is nearly perfect or an old one thats been precision ground. Not trying to be contrary here - just trying to explain one new guys experience.

Just an aside: Im learning hand craft a bit at a time by reading SMC and a swath of books, as well as video. From my knothole, I find Chris Schwartz very readable and Ive learned some things from him. In fact, I liked his Hand Plane Essentials a lot. Yesterday I ordered two more books Schwartz recommends for newbies - will they be worthwhile? I hope so, they are Hand Tools and Their Ways of Working, by Aldren Watson and Traditional Woodworking Hand Tools, by Graham Blackburn.

As always, thanks for your help, advice and friendship,
Fred

David Weaver

04-10-2014, 10:14 PM

, but I like them more with a new LV chipbreaker and blade.

Goodness, not at all. It wasn't until a couple of years ago that most of the folks here had any respect for stock irons.

Sean Hughto

04-10-2014, 10:34 PM

I set the way back machine for four years ago, Mr. Peabody: http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?138659-Are-the-thin-Stanley-irons-as-bad-as-I-tthink notice what that guy Weaver says, oh and that Hughto guy too!

hehe

David Weaver

04-10-2014, 11:26 PM

Oh, I'd hate to read anything I said before I had the cap iron thing figured out.

This was in one of my posts back then:

I suspect that, after a recent discussion about this, if there is some major secret to unlock that makes a thin iron perform as well as a thicker iron, mr. Bailey was expecting a lot more in terms of technical setup and upkeep from the mechanic than most carpenters and non-cabinetmakers were prepared to deal with.

Well, it turns out that the setup was pretty much just the cap iron. I still think the replacement irons are good gear, especially if someone is using stones that love them and taking lots of smoother shavings where such a thing as really really slow wear makes for lots and lots of thin shavings.

But I am so enamored with good stock irons now because of how well they get along with my washitas (which are perfectly suitable once tearout is handled by the cap iron)....and I take very few thin shavings now. Just a few at the end.

Funny how figuring out the cap iron eliminated all of that pondering.

Praki Prakash

04-11-2014, 12:49 AM

I bought the Watson book when Paul Sellers wrote about it on this blog. I have found myself reaching for that book as I acquire new (to me) tools and need to learn new techniques.

I don't know what CS intended accomplish with his post. I found his abrupt conclusion odd. Now I want to try an expensive plane to see if I am going to be much better at the craft than I am with my $20 Stanley.

Derek Cohen

04-11-2014, 2:21 AM

Statistics lesson #1:
Avoid drawing broad conclusions from non-representative samples.
In this case, the better conclusion would be "the type of person who is willing to shell out a few thousand bucks and a week of time to take a CS class prefers new planes."

Exactly.

I think that too many here are reading into Chris' blog what they want to read. It's like a Rorschach card. The responses will reflect your inner psyche .... :)

On a similar note: I will be participating this weekend in the Perth (LN - but no longer called LN) Tool Event. We have Terry Gordon (HNT Gordon planes), LN Australia, Carba-tec (agents for LV), Chris Vesper, Colen Clenton, Evan Dunstone (furniture maker), and yours truly, all at the Perth Wood School, who will have demonstrations as well. My focus will be to demonstrate the use of handtools. I plan to build Shaker-style side tables since this will be a good vehicle for demonstrating tools and their use (morticing, tenoning, sliding dovetails, drawers with dovetails and grooving and shooting ends, tapering of legs ...). I plan to build one on the Saturday and one on the Sunday (in reality I will likely be lucky to complete one over the two days - that is OK as I have already completed one ala Roy, which I can break down as needed).

Now two issues occurred to me. The first is "which tools do I take along?". Do I take along the tools I have made, or do I take along the tools others can purchase? Should these be easily purchased (new, but they could be too expensive) or cheaply (on the second hand market, but may be difficult to obtain, and then they need to be fettled to be useful)? What are your thoughts?

The problem with taking my tools is that they are not the same tools others might want to obtain. Vintage tools are fine in my book (I do have a bunch), but new tools are easier to find. Perhaps I could take both? However I do want the emphasis to be on joint-making, not tools, so I decided to take along a small mix of old and new tools.

The second issue is I would like to provide help in using some tools, not just techniques with each, but setting them up to use optimally. This area is just a filler between demonstrations with building the tables. One is the setting up a smoother. I will have with me a HNT Gordon smoother (BD woodie), Veritas Small BUS, Stanley #3 with Veritas blade and chipbreaker (areas to tune, but predominantly setting the chipbreaker), and #3 LN with high angle frog. Any suggestions?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Winton Applegate

04-11-2014, 2:30 AM

David,

Slams against CS aside.
(I suppose one person is allowed to detest another person and say so if they must.)

As I read along here I was going to defend or maybe a better word for it is express my RESPECT for what you do and say about vintage planes and the fact that you have unlocked their potential and attempt to educate us lazies about it.

That, as I understand it, you have been the modern plane route along with the infill route and have found a way to leave all that behind for the simplicity of the basic stock every man's (person's) hand plane is commendable.

And the simplest sharpening method to go with it.

That's good stuff in deed.

A side note :
It drives me crazy when I am around people who do the following; and I find it is, more often than not, sales people or manipulative people who do it.
Not that you are that; YOU ARE NOT.
anyway
what drives me nuts is when some one says "absolutely" over and over to agree with what another has said or to sell them something. Especially when what they are agreeing to or selling is far short of 100 percent : good, useful, intelligent, sound, a good value . . . _______
you fill in the blank.

So . . . David
I really respect what you have to offer.
One little quibble though

Change "just doesn't' to "usually doesn't".

In my quest to conquer all the wood that was considered extreme I indeed found some definite utility in at least a couple of the "questionable improvement features" you list as being baseless.

If it's just a little flatter, with an iron that's just a little thicker, and a little harder, and an alloy that's a little more wear resistant with an adjuster that's just a little finer and just add a pound or two....then I'll do better work with it. But that just doesn't end up being the case.

OK . . . I've said too much so I will quit now.

Matthew N. Masail

04-11-2014, 2:58 AM

The second issue is I would like to provide help in using some tools, not just techniques with each, but setting them up to use optimally. This area is just a filler between demonstrations with building the tables. One is the setting up a smoother. I will have with me a HNT Gordon smoother (BD woodie), Veritas Small BUS, Stanley #3 with Veritas blade and chipbreaker (areas to tune, but predominantly setting the chipbreaker), and #3 LN with high angle frog. Any suggestions?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Hi Derek,

Just to offer my thoughts:
I would think the most informative info for beginners regarding the smoothers would be how to set up a wooden plane, and how to set up an old plane. the latter in order to give people confidence that there is nothing wrong with old tools. some might not have the ability or desire to spend 200$+ on a new one, but that shouldn't stop them!

New 'perfect' planes like the LN and LV pretty much set themselves up:rolleyes: maybe you could talk about freehand sharpening techniques for thin old blades, like in old Stanleys. like the circular micro bevel or the Paul Sellers way. I find the Sellers way (I call it that for lack of better term) especially effective with thin plane irons and chisels.

Winton Applegate

04-11-2014, 3:15 AM

. . . in the way of pointers and advice.

"which tools do I take along?". Do I take along the tools I have made, or do I take along the tools others can purchase? Should these be easily purchased (new, but they could be too expensive) or cheaply (on the second hand market, but may be difficult to obtain, and then they need to be fettled to be useful)? What are your thoughts?

You couldn't handle a direct mind meld. You would be driven mad.
Barking mad to use professional jargon.

Here is a highly filtered inkling of what I am thinking . . .

The tool question is inversely proportional. The least tools require the higher skill level.
For the highest skill level, leaving all crutches behind, but not pleasing the vendors, I would say use this

http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy298/noydb1/IMG_0331_zps599bc024.jpg (http://s801.photobucket.com/user/noydb1/media/IMG_0331_zps599bc024.jpg.html)

That's Spot, my pet rock portraying the role of "The Ultimate" expert's woodworking tool.

But if you don't want to show off then maybe go for the non show-off route and use one of these.

http://www.highlandwoodworking.com/flexcutright-handedcarvinjack.aspx

Graham Haydon

04-11-2014, 5:27 AM

It is unlikely that anyone would be limited by a new or vintage plane. The choice of what the user prefers is their own choice. The only issue I ever see with vintage is that you normally need to do a small amount of work. To those with experience this is easy. I think if you are new buy one new decent plane and then buy your vintage using the new as your benchmark. If you prefer vintage you can then sell the new plane for as much as you bought it for. Once you have found your preferred type you can then get on with the job of making things. Only through making and practice will you find what works well for you.

David Weaver

04-11-2014, 8:12 AM

The problem with taking my tools is that they are not the same tools others might want to obtain. Vintage tools are fine in my book (I do have a bunch), but new tools are easier to find. Perhaps I could take both? However I do want the emphasis to be on joint-making, not tools, so I decided to take along a small mix of old and new tools.

gahhh...etiquette at a white collar tool show is to use the tools sold at the show, isn't it? :)

Old and new is the nicest thing to do in terms of consideration for the newbies. They can make their own decision then.

David Weaver

04-11-2014, 8:14 AM

David,

Slams against CS aside.
(I suppose one person is allowed to detest another person and say so if they must.)

As I read along here I was going to defend or maybe a better word for it is express my RESPECT for what you do and say about vintage planes and the fact that you have unlocked their potential and attempt to educate us lazies about it.

That, as I understand it, you have been the modern plane route along with the infill route and have found a way to leave all that behind for the simplicity of the basic stock every man's (person's) hand plane is commendable.

And the simplest sharpening method to go with it.

That's good stuff in deed.

A side note :
It drives me crazy when I am around people who do the following; and I find it is, more often than not, sales people or manipulative people who do it.
Not that you are that; YOU ARE NOT.
anyway
what drives me nuts is when some one says "absolutely" over and over to agree with what another has said or to sell them something. Especially when what they are agreeing to or selling is far short of 100 percent : good, useful, intelligent, sound, a good value . . . _______
you fill in the blank.

So . . . David
I really respect what you have to offer.
One little quibble though

Change "just doesn't' to "usually doesn't".

In my quest to conquer all the wood that was considered extreme I indeed found some definite utility in at least a couple of the "questionable improvement features" you list as being baseless.

OK . . . I've said too much so I will quit now.

I'm struggling a little bit to find something where a new tool allows someone to do finer work (presuming that the "old" tool it's compared to is undamaged).

And don't accuse me of not being lazy. I can cut a good honest swath right through the definition of laziness :)

I don't know that manipulative is quite right, but I did get sent to "time out" when I was in school for being an instigator. Sometimes I could tell people wanted to cause trouble, and they just needed someone to give them an idea on what to do. I usually steered clear of making the trouble on my own, though :) So if I can instigate the use of old tools, that's good. If someone's got no interest after getting the information, that's OK, too (which is where I differ from someone in sales - that and I usually stray away from giving advice that would provide any personal gain to me).

Sean Hughto

04-11-2014, 8:42 AM

I'm struggling a little bit to find something where a new tool allows someone to do finer work (presuming that the "old" tool it's compared to is undamaged).

YES, THIS. We don't have to try to devine "better" by fickle choices of newbies who can have as many planes as they like (i.e., are not limited to one). We can get specific and empirical: Take like planes and run them through their paces. What can a LN 5 do that a Stanley 5 cannot, or do better? What can a Veritas LA jointer do that a Stanley 7 cannot, or do better? Etc. ad infinitum.

If more expensive and fancier means better results, does that mean we should all aspire to Norris infills and what have you?

I used to think that the one place where something like an LN might actually perform better was in smoothing super difficult grained woods. I haven't done the the tests, but I'm skeptical about even that these days.

So why do I have LNs in addition to my vintage planes? They are a bit tighter feeling in use in some circumstances, for one - not that this affects the result really. Things like far less backlash on the depth adjustment wheel and so forth. They are also often a bit more foolproof having been made to tight tolerances with somewhat superior castings and materials - again, the cut is not affected. I can get a used base model Honda accord that is nice to use and gets me there everytime; I can get a brand new luxury model Honda Accord that gets me from place to place no better and not particularly differently as far as aesthetic feel, but sometimes, leather seats and such are nice, even if unnecessary.

glenn bradley

04-11-2014, 8:46 AM

Here, perhaps, is the key sentence:

"They will wait for me to sharpen them and then pick them out of my tool chest. "

Too true :D. I can certainly see why he shelved the article several times. As with Festool, EZ Smart and Old Arn, discussions of new versus old in the hand tool arena causes even the meekest craftsman to rise and voice his opinion. Some hornet's nests should not be poked :D.

Mark Engel

04-11-2014, 8:47 AM

What I have observed is this: The students with the super-tuned vintage handplanes almost always tend to use – over and over – my Lie-Nielsen and Veritas planes during the class. They will wait for me to sharpen them and then pick them out of my tool chest.

CS is not saying that all the students grab his 'new' planes, just the ones that have spent time and effort to 'super-tune' their own vintage planes. I would maybe count myself in that group. If given the opportunity to "use my tools. You don’t have to ask. Just take them and return them when you are done.”, I would take advantage of that opportunity in a heartbeat. Wouldn't you like to have the chance to compare the vintage plane that you have worked so hard on with a properly tuned premium plane? I know I certainly would.

According to that blog, CS allows students to use his premium tools, I don't see anything in that blog that indicates that he pushes them to do so. He actually states that he does not.

Cody Kemble

04-11-2014, 8:51 AM

I think CS blog posts get a stronger response than the great BU vs. BD debate.

Daniel Rode

04-11-2014, 9:15 AM

That's really the point. All else (like cost) being equal, I would be very likely to choose a new premium plane. They are beautifully designed and manufactured and I'm sure they are a pleasure to use. The one exception might be the weight. The premium planes are often heavier than their vintage counter parts and sometimes a lighter tool is an advantage.

I look to the 100+ years that vintage Stanley Bailey style planes have been in the hands of craftsman. Homes and museums are filled with the things made with these tools. I can't point to one that would have been better if only they had a LN jointer or a LV BU smoother.

YES, THIS. We don't have to try to devine "better" by fickle choices of newbies who can have as many planes as they like (i.e., are not limited to one). We can get specific and empirical: Take like planes and run them through their paces. What can a LN 5 do that a Stanley 5 cannot, or do better? What can a Veritas LA jointer do that a Stanley 7 cannot, or do better? Etc. ad infinitum.

If more expensive and fancier means better results, does that mean we should all aspire to Norris infills and what have you?

I used to think that the one place where something like an LN might actually perform better was in smoothing super difficult grained woods. I haven't done the the tests, but I'm skeptical about even that these days.

So why do I have LNs in addition to my vintage planes? They are a bit tighter feeling in use in some circumstances, for one - not that this affects the result really. Things like far less backlash on the depth adjustment wheel and so forth. They are also often a bit more foolproof having been made to tight tolerances with somewhat superior castings and materials - again, the cut is not affected. I can get a used base model Honda accord that is nice to use and gets me there everytime; I can get a brand new luxury model Honda Accord that gets me from place to place no better and not particularly differently as far as aesthetic feel, but sometimes, leather seats and such are nice, even if unnecessary.

Doug Bowman

04-11-2014, 9:24 AM

But is it a "Bedrock" rock? Otherwise I do not think you will get acceptable performance from him. ......... 😳😁

James Conrad

04-11-2014, 9:29 AM

His point and purpose of the post is right there at the end:

"Get a ton of handplane information from my book “Handplane Essentials,” on sale in paperback at..."

jamie shard

04-11-2014, 9:45 AM

The fact that he is saying this during the season of LN roadshows is... perhaps just a coincidence.

David Weaver

04-11-2014, 9:50 AM

I haven't done the the tests, but I'm skeptical about even that these days.

for good reason. There is no difference in either a LN or a plain stanley (in decent shape) to handle difficult grain.

That said, the LN bench planes are fine pieces of gear, I really like them a lot. If I had infinite money, I would've kept mine, but I'm to the point where I prefer the overall experience (quick sharpening, ease of mind if they get a few dots of rust, etc) of the vintage planes.

But I must give LN credit, when they were focusing on bringing good capable planes to market, before they got into this whole excess gadget and road show stuff, I was impressed - they did a good job. The high priced gadgetry that they're adding on now, and running around demonstrating their 8 as a smoother, etc, and telling people that the cap iron is too fiddly - not so much. (not to mention the fact that they put a video out suggesting that people shouldn't grind their irons). They're in the weeds now, but their bench planes are still great if that's your desire.

Sean Hughto

04-11-2014, 10:41 AM

CS from 2010 had it about right:

The final revelation came when I put Krenov’s handplane through the same paces as I did the other tools. By comparison, Krenov’s small polishing plane (7 1/2″ long) is crudely made – the wooden stock looks like it was roughed out with a band saw and knife. The chipbreaker on the iron was roughly ground with many little facets. The mouth was tight (1?32″) but not extraordinarily so. When I disassembled the plane I found that the bed down by the mouth had a layer or two of blue painter’s tape affixed there, perhaps to close up the throat.

But the plane held its own with every other plane on my bench in terms of performance. As did my “work-a-day” tools from Veritas and Lie-Nielsen. The same goes for other high-end tools I’ve already written about: the Ray Iles A5, the Clark & Williams smoothing plane and the new Bridge City variable-pitch plane, which I had only limited time with. Even my vintage Stanleys had nothing to be ashamed of.
I discussed this finding with several toolmakers, none of whom were surprised by it. Robin Lee, the president of Lee Valley Tools, summed it up this way: “The wood doesn’t care.” And he’s right. Thomas Lie-Nielsen, founder and owner of Lie-Nielsen Toolworks, put it this way: “A plane is just a jig for a chisel.” And he’s right, too.

If your planes meet the minimum basic requirements of a plane: a sharp cutter that’s firmly secured at an appropriate angle for the wood you’re working, the tool will do an excellent job. So if you think that buying a very expensive plane will make all lumber bow down before you and your tool, think again.

popularwoodworking.com/tools/tool-reviews/test-driving_exotic_infill_handplanes

David Weaver

04-11-2014, 10:55 AM

Sean Hughto

04-11-2014, 11:11 AM

Side note, the "plane is just a jig for a chisel" thing wears me out. It's really not, it's an oversimplification of how important the plane's design is, and chisels generally aren't used like planes and certainly don't have the tearout mitigation that a double iron has.

Kind of a semantic quibble, no? We have all seen plane shaped objects that do not work at all. I think the TLN's quip assumes a "good" jig, if you will. And I don't think he means chisel literally, but just as a shorthand for a good piece of steel with a sharpened edge.

Robert Hazelwood

04-11-2014, 11:19 AM

Fairly soon I should be able to see if this comparison holds true for me; I recently acquired my first premium plane, a LN #4. I have a couple of other premium specialty planes, but my bench planes have all been vintage Stanley so far- #4, #5-1/2, and a #7. I've spent a lot of time getting these in shape (mostly trial-and-error and messing around, since these were my first real planes) and I've got them working pretty sweetly. I can confirm what others have said about the chipbreaker enabling these planes to work difficult grain; honestly, I don't even think about grain direction much when planing anymore- except for the 5-1/2, where blade camber prevents the chipbreaker from getting very close to the edge. These planes work very well for what I might call functional planing- getting a board to dimension, squaring an edge up, removing pencil/tool marks, etc. But I still have some slight troubles with my Stanley 4 in taking very fine, full-width shavings for finishing a surface. And, at random times it leaves inexplicable plane tracks, despite my having rounded and cambered the iron, and even rounding the corners of the chipbreaker. On occasion I will resort to smoothing with the #7 as it just seems to work better despite having no camber and sharp corners- I can't really explain it.

So I bought the LN #4 specifically to use for these very fine smoothing cuts. I figure the Stanley will still see a lot of use, just left to a slightly coarser setting. This should reduce the amount of fiddling with setups, and reduce the amount of sharpening for each blade. I still need to do the final prep work on the LN's blade, and then I guess I'll see if there's anything magical about the premium plane, or if setting for very fine shavings is just fiddly business in general...

Adam Cruea

04-11-2014, 11:22 AM

I venture to say, that everyone here would also choose to use the new plane if it were available for them to do so, simply because it is new and different. I bet even David would sneak a new LV or LN plan out for a test drive given the opportunity. The real question is would he keep going back for it or would his curiosity be satisfied by the one test drive. I bet, just like Lays potato chips - you can't eat just one. In fact I would be highly disappointed in the experts here who wouldn't test drive the newest model time and time again given the opportunity - after all, what kind of expert can you be to not know anything about the subject except what you have read from other 'expert's?

Curiosity would be satisfied, and that's based on personal experience.

I've tried LN and LV planes. Yay! Bells and whistles! Cool factor.

Then I go back to my old, crusty hand planes, thank them for being useful and trustworthy, and go back to work. The only exception where I'll drool over a brand-new premium plane is when it costs less than the tried-and-true; like the LN/LV shooting planes. You can get a Stanley shooter for $1500, or slap down $200/$500 for a better plane that's been re-engineered to be more than just heavier and tighter tolerances (mainly, in this case, the blade-holding amphibian has been remade with something better).

Please keep in mind, I prefer driving my Harley-Davidson over my wife's Cadillac any time of the year. Rain. Cold. Heat. Wind. Don't care. I'd gladly take the minimalist, non-luxurious ride. Some people are like that.

Jim Koepke

04-11-2014, 12:22 PM

286982

Out of curiosity a new plane would be picked up and given a test ride. This is one of the reasons for me to travel to a Tool Event. They always perform quite well and the cutting action is dampened by the weight of the plane and the iron being bedded solidly.

There is a difference of feel between wood bodied planes, old bench planes and the new offerings. For me the old planes look nice with their 'layers' of history. It is fine with me if someone wants to strip off a century of patina and make it look shiny new again.

The Bailey shape is also pleasing to me.

The new planes do have a lot going for them. Tighter tolerances for their adjustments. Extra features like the set screws on the Veritas planes to hold lateral adjustments.

Same with my old chisels, they are a bit dull with pits and imperfect surfaces. They work just the same.

It all kind of makes me think of a shaving commercial from half a century past:

My new chisel of super steel holds the keenest edge forever. The surfaces are like mirrors. I was so entranced at my smiling reflection that I didn't even notice the end of my finger went missing.

jtk

Dave Anderson NH

04-11-2014, 12:47 PM

I have followed this thread with interest not because of the discussion of the main topic, but rather because of the attitudes expressed by those posting. I'll be right up front and say I haven't read Chris Schwarz's blog in a couple of years, nor anyone else's for that matter. I just don't have the time and besides, I'd rather work wood than BS and obsess about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. What I note is that there is disagreement with one man's opinion and a subtle underlying question of whether or not he has the right to express that opinion because of his status as a blogger, former magazine editor, and public personality. Right now, I'll make my bias clear. Chris Schwarz, or anyone else for that matter, is entitled to their opinion and the right to express it. On a forum like this one, as opposed to a blog, the only restrictions to that right are politeness, decency, and following Terms Of Service requirements. You as individuals have the right to disagree with his opinions and post that disagreement, but you have no right to restrict his right solely based on his profession or his status. Life is too short to get your jockeys or boxers in a twist because of something posted on the internet.

For Derek. When I do demos of actually making something useful, my kit limitations are usually based on what I need rather than any consideration of whether or not it is a currently available item or an older used tool. You might have to make a different choice if you are being sponsored or having travel subsidized. The real golden rule being that he who has the gold makes the rules. For me it comes down to convenience, space and weight limitations, and quite often a whim. I don't really feel that I have to make rational reasoned choices all of the time. Any chance you might have a spare pet rock I could borrow Mister Applegate?

Kees Heiden

04-11-2014, 12:57 PM

Hi Dave, completely agree with you. I started this thread because I had the naughty feeling it might throw up some sparks. I'm afraid I like a bit of controversion. Overall, I have nothing against Chris Schwarz, on the contrary, I enjoy his writings. There is often something new or unexpected. I don't need to agree with everything.

Bruce Mack

04-11-2014, 12:59 PM

My hobby, sometimes obsession, is woodworking. I am self taught with lots of help from books, magazines, forums, and trial-and-error.

When, in 1990 I acquired a Paragon plane from Garrett Wade and a new Stanley block plane I was disappointed. No feathery shavings, but great chatter and chips. At this remove I don't know how much I suffered from poor technique or from poor tools. A new Lie Nielsen #62 low angle jack plane had me smiling, same technique and jig-bound sharpening, much better tool. I have since acquired lots of hand skills and am pleased by how often projects come together well. I remain an amateur and do not presume expertise.

I have the money for new tools, L-N and Veritas, and enjoy them all. I have no need or desire to be a reenactor or fettler when I can buy contemporary tools that are wickedly fun 15 minutes out of the box.

The irreverent and sharp out of the box Chris Schwarz has stimulated our woodworking community.

David Weaver

04-11-2014, 1:00 PM

Kind of a semantic quibble, no?

Yes - my gripe is that it's one of those easy to say things that I hear a lot of people who have never made a plane repeat, and it's often used in the context of either the iron being the most important thing, and the rest of the parts being throw away. I just don't love generalizations like that. In something like a japanese plane, the iron will outlast the dai if the dai is conditioned with some regularity. In a western plane, the plane should outlast the iron. It leads to the notion that the iron is more important than the rest of the plane in japanese planes and the converse in western planes. In both cases, it's important that both parts are executed well enough as a plane (and not as a chisel), and that the aspects of the iron (and hopefully double iron) are made with respect to their use for planing (failure occurring due to wear) and not chiseling (failure often due to something else).

I'm going down a rabbit hole here a little bit because it's an irk of mine that saying such a thing to beginners belies how important the design of the entire plane is.

Steve Voigt

04-11-2014, 1:11 PM

Now two issues occurred to me. The first is "which tools do I take along?". Do I take along the tools I have made, or do I take along the tools others can purchase? Should these be easily purchased (new, but they could be too expensive) or cheaply (on the second hand market, but may be difficult to obtain, and then they need to be fettled to be useful)? What are your thoughts?

I think you should take all three (new, used, shop-made).

David Weaver

04-11-2014, 1:13 PM

You as individuals have the right to disagree with his opinions and post that disagreement, but you have no right to restrict his right solely based on his profession or his status.

You're right, and my use of the term professional is a simplification of what I really mean. What I intend it to mean is someone who is focused on doing fine work and what it takes to learn to do fine work, as opposed to someone who makes most of their decisions or guidance on what is good for the first year or two that you're woodworking. There are a few (and Chris isn't the only one) who give a lot of advice that is biased in my opinion because they are involved in mostly doing work that is very basic and their bias leads them toward whatever makes the class go well, or whatever the people (in the context of this case) who literally wait for him to sharpen something would prefer.

There are folks on the other side of the coin, like Tommy Mac, who spent all of his time initially, at least, discussing technique. I don't think tommy probably has as much freedom to say "makes no difference what you get" and advocate modifying inexpensive tools, as he used to do, but it is an entirely different mindset and the quality of work that he was advocating was much much higher, despite the fact that he was catering often to beginners in his comments.

So, it's not necessarily professional or not, it really is a difference in collective opinions.

I don't read chris's stuff very often at this point, and didn't read it when I was a beginner. I tried a couple of times (because half of the people I came across told me "you have to subscribe to this guy's blog") and subscribed to the blog for a while, but the collective difference in opinions, sent me going the other way. I don't begrudge anyone who really digs what he does and wants to do just what he's doing the right to love his opinions and follow them. I just find folks who do finer work and who talk more about the work and less about the tools to be a whole lot more inspiring.

David Weaver

04-11-2014, 1:19 PM

I have the money for new tools, L-N and Veritas

Me, too. It's not just about the means. I have to admit that when I started, I followed Charlesworth's sharpening video religiously, took notes and literally took them to the shop and followed them to prepare the first few lie nielsen planes that I got. King 800 and all. Took about 45 minutes. If lie nielsen did then what veritas does now to the backs of the irons, it probably would've been ten minutes or less. It's unusual for me to spend 45 minutes on a vintage tool, lapping the sole, and preparing the iron and cap iron.

Different things resonate with different folks. What seems to be the clearest to me, though, is the folks who do the best work, and who have a grasp on design get to the point where their basic tool kit is filled out and they can make their own tools quickly when the need arises for something that can't be bought. Making bench planes and bench chisels is an unnecssary endeavor, but making detail tools or moulding planes, scrapers, etc that do specific functions (and that can be difficult to find on the open market) is entirely different.

Daniel Rode

04-11-2014, 1:21 PM

I for one, think this has been a generally polite and useful discussion. The core debate, IMO, has been about the relative merits of vintage planes versus new premium planes. I like CS and his writing and I've learned a few things from him. However, I think what he writes and his possible motives are also very appropriate here. His work with PWW his blog, publishing and teaching all center around the very public association of him as a hand tool expert and pundit.

Dave Anderson NH

04-11-2014, 1:35 PM

David, I too find my inspiration in fine work though sometimes I also find elegance in simplicity. I will also admit to some frustration at times with the obsession here on tools as opposed to projects. In fact as a moderator on SMC for over 10 years and a participant in woodworking and hand tools forums for 20 years, I cringe every time I have to read and review a "Which widget should I buy thread?" mimicking the same information and opinions that I have often seen at least dozens of times before. Unfortunately that is the nature of the beast since new folks are always coming aboard and others moving on to other life interests. I do love tools though and in fact I'll be teaching a 3 hour class on wooden hand planes tomorrow for the Hand Tools Group of our local guild. Still though, it's my interest in 18th century furniture that floats the boat and I get excited every time someone posts a new piece here on the creek.

david charlesworth

04-11-2014, 1:40 PM

David Weaver

04-11-2014, 1:56 PM

David - one of my early planes was a plastic handled stanley 5. I should probably call it a Satanly 5. I thought I was doing a friend a favor by giving it to him as a coarse plane to use. the frog seat on the casting was milled so that the frog would not sit square, and the iron had sides that were not close to parallel, and he being a mechanical engineer (with a lot of experience speccing things that had to be made to close tolerance) could not figure out which side he was going to try to be square to. When I saw him next, he wasn't happy with me! He had spent about 5 hours on the plane and given up. I didn't look at it closely, but now would seat the frog and probably just throw it away after examining such an issue.

The flip side of my comment about preparing vintage planes quickly is that I've prepared two low-cost things that allow me to corral an iron's flatness issues quickly and lap a plane sole cheaply and quickly. They are also two things that are handy for tool making, which makes them worth most folks having/acquiring if they are going to go on to the level of making their own specialty tools. I almost never see anyone else who instructs beginners talking about them (a long glass lap - a "cabinet shelf" as the guy at the glass shop told me - 42" long float glass for $20, and a fixture made to hold irons so they can be flattened quickly).

That said, I had the luxury of using a sharp tool from day 1, because the same friend who I tortured with the Satanly #5 said "you should buy a lie nielsen plane, and here is a sharpening video because they don't tell you how to sharpen it" (which made him furious, he considered your video to be something that should've been supplied with each plane given the price). I followed your instructions exactly, like I said above (taking notes and everything so I could do precisely what was instructed when I didn't have a TV available to look at), and I have never had to use a dull tool. For a couple of years, I followed the forum discussions figuring that maybe my tools weren't as sharp as they should be because I had no trouble getting a sharp iron on the first try (the old "maybe I don't know what I'm doing, everyone else says it's difficult") - that's of course turned out to not be the case - they were always plenty sharp.

Lonnie Gallaher

04-11-2014, 2:28 PM

DavidW,

This may have been something you have shared before, but will you expound on or post a picture of (a fixture made to hold irons so they can be flattened quickly).

Thanks.

David Weaver

04-11-2014, 2:36 PM

Sure:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?160656-Free-(to-make)-Iron-Holder-I-know-I-ve-posted-this-before

Tom Vanzant

04-11-2014, 3:30 PM

Derek, I believe your choice of "tools to take" covers most of the types/styles of tools apt to be used by the attendees, and shouldn't upset the sponsors. Your second issue involves "what to teach" as a filler, which I assume will be to individuals or small groups. How to set up a tool is more than simply following the instruction manual...if one is even present. How does a novice WWer know when or if he has properly prepared and set up the tool? Having a knowledgable person demonstrate the "how", and then getting to experience the "feel" of a properly set up tool....priceless.

Alan Schwabacher

04-11-2014, 3:58 PM

Sean Hughto

04-11-2014, 4:09 PM

I really don't understand the fuss. Schwarz made an observation that though he has often said that older tools perform as well as new tools, some of his beginning students who have old tools tend to use his new ones. Those students have a chance to try out something that's very pretty, works well, was sharpened by someone else, and that they don't already have. Why not?

No, I don't think you've accurately summarized his thesis: The proof of superiority is in the choices these folks make, and the vintage plane users often not only choose to use my LN and Veritas planes, they often go to the length of buying them at the breaks.

Alan Schwabacher

04-11-2014, 6:04 PM

...what drives me nuts is when some one says "absolutely" over and over to agree with what another has said or to sell them something. Especially when what they are agreeing to or selling is far short of 100 percent...

This sounds to me like Dorothea's reason she could never consider marrying Sir James Chettam in George Eliot's Middlemarch:

"...but an amiable handsome baronet, who said "Exactly" to her remarks even when she expressed uncertainty..."

(This gives me two contributions to the thread, one on and one off topic. That's perhaps not too bad.)

Mark Engel

04-11-2014, 7:18 PM

No, I don't think you've accurately summarized his thesis: The proof of superiority is in the choices these folks make, and the vintage plane users often not only choose to use my LN and Veritas planes, they often go to the length of buying them at the breaks.

Didn't really see any of that in Chris' blog.

What I have observed is this: The students with the super-tuned vintage handplanes almost always tend to use – over and over – my Lie-Nielsen and Veritas planes during the class. They will wait for me to sharpen them and then pick them out of my tool chest. They put their vintage planes below their bench or back into their tool bag. I have even seen some of them order a Veritas or Lie-Nielsen plane on a cellphone during a class while holding one of my planes in their other hand.

More semantics, I guess.

Andrew Fleck

04-11-2014, 7:23 PM

Sure:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?160656-Free-(to-make)-Iron-Holder-I-know-I-ve-posted-this-before

Lonnie, that iron holder is certainly worth the miniscule amount of time and effort it takes to make it. It makes the task of flattening irons much more tolerable and faster.

Brian Holcombe

04-11-2014, 7:32 PM

I don't really fallow the superstars of woodworking publishing, but I do not detest them either. I ordered a #7 recently from LN, I like their tools. Honestly I'm just glad there are companies that are making tools of this caliber that are accessible to the average woodworker.

If the options were; vintage, new junk (Borg) and Infills then I would own nothing but vintage planes. Path of least resistance and all that...

Sean Hughto

04-11-2014, 7:54 PM

Didn't really see any of that in Chris' blog.

More semantics, I guess.

Not ANY of it, huh? Alright, Mark' let's go to the video tape:

Now, the mantra that almost every teacher repeats (including me) goes something like this: It doesn’t matter if you have vintage planes or new planes. Both can be tuned to a high level. Vintage planes require time. New planes require money.
It sounds like a reasonable statement, but I don’t know if I believe those words anymore.

And that’s because I’m a good observer.

[Well, gee, Chris, what have you observed that caused you to change your mind?]

What I have observed is this: The students with the super-tuned vintage handplanes almost always tend to use – over and over – my Lie-Nielsen and Veritas planes during the class. .... They put their vintage planes below their bench or back into their tool bag. I have even seen some of them order a Veritas or Lie-Nielsen plane on a cellphone during a class while holding one of my planes in their other hand.

.... I want to believe that the old planes are just as good. I used to believe the old planes were just as good.

And now let's compare it to my proffered summary: "The proof of superiority is in the choices these folks make, and the vintage plane users often not only choose to use my LN and Veritas planes, they often go to the length of buying them at the breaks.

Please tell me how my paraphrase mischaracterizes what he has said.

Mark Engel

04-11-2014, 8:28 PM

Not ANY of it, huh? Alright, Mark' let's go to the video tape:

Now, the mantra that almost every teacher repeats (including me) goes something like this: It doesn’t matter if you have vintage planes or new planes. Both can be tuned to a high level. Vintage planes require time. New planes require money.
It sounds like a reasonable statement, but I don’t know if I believe those words anymore.

And that’s because I’m a good observer.

[Well, gee, Chris, what have you observed that caused you to change your mind?]

What I have observed is this: The students with the super-tuned vintage handplanes almost always tend to use – over and over – my Lie-Nielsen and Veritas planes during the class. .... They put their vintage planes below their bench or back into their tool bag. I have even seen some of them order a Veritas or Lie-Nielsen plane on a cellphone during a class while holding one of my planes in their other hand.

.... I want to believe that the old planes are just as good. I used to believe the old planes were just as good.

And now let's compare it to my proffered summary: "The proof of superiority is in the choices these folks make, and the vintage plane users often not only choose to use my LN and Veritas planes, they often go to the length of buying them at the breaks.

Please tell me how my paraphrase mischaracterizes what he has said.

Hold on. All these bright colors and font changes are making it hard for me to figure out what you said and what he said.

Okay. I don't know what you mean by this:
"The proof of superiority is in the choices these folks make"

Chris says:
"The students with the super-tuned vintage handplanes"

And you say:
" the vintage plane users"

Chris says:
"I have even seen some of them order a Veritas or Lie-Nielsen plane on a cellphone during a class "

You say:
"they often go to the length of buying them at the breaks"

But hey, it's just semantics. Chris says sometimes, you say often... Close enough.

BTW: I just read the blog. Is there a video?

Sean Hughto

04-11-2014, 9:02 PM

Mark, I don't know if you are serious or not. There is an address for the blog entry in question in the first post in this thread.

To make it as simple as possible:

- He used to believe vintage and new/premium could perform equally.

- His class experiences, which he interprets as vintage plane users preferring the new/premium planes, have caused him to believe that the new/premium planes must be better.

"Go to the video tape" is something sportscasters tend to say when they are going to show you the plays from the game under discussion; I was essentially saying let's check the source, if you think I'm mistaken about what he said.

Pat Barry

04-11-2014, 9:03 PM

Lets not begrudge the man his right to sell something and put food on his table. For gods sake he is a well respected woodworking authority. Give it a break

Frederick Skelly

04-11-2014, 9:38 PM

Lonnie, that iron holder is certainly worth the miniscule amount of time and effort it takes to make it. It makes the task of flattening irons much more tolerable and faster.

+1. David showed that to me a year ago and it made a HUGE difference. I was finally able to get the back truly flat, which really upped my sharpening game. Thanks again for that David.

Brian Ashton

04-12-2014, 4:09 AM

I honestly didn't understand what he was driving at, was it that the same people who would wait for him to sharpen his plane blades couldn't do well with their own tuned vintage planes or that they didn't do well with his and preferred new planes instead?

I use newly made planes, I like them and they work for me, I don't really consider them to be porsche's.

He was simply saying over the years he's been teaching people the majority gravitate to using a freshly sharpened newly minted plane over their refurb stanley... This is the first I've ever read of his stuff and I'm at a loss as to why so many have their panties in a knot over it.

And then someone goes onto say that he has no relevance to anyone other than beginners... Well of course! He's writing to novices isn't he! Popular woodworking has a target audience just like every other written periodical or blog, DIY show...

I dunno maybe it's the 4 beers I've had cause I just can't find any to reason to get all hot and bothered over it.

Jim Matthews

04-12-2014, 9:00 AM

David,
When I started in about 1972, I remember spending about a day and a half, on the back a new Stanley 2 3/8" in blade. It should probably have been sent back! The stone was a coarse/"fine" India.
best wishes, David

You didn't have the benefit of generous instruction from people who were willing to guide the rest.
I have three paper back books, heavily dog-eared compiled from your articles.

Those of us following your methods had it easy.
You got there, the hard way.

Thanks for writing it down.

How many people have a technique named after them?

Fosbury had his famous flop.
Chuck Berry, the duck walk.
Boole had his approach to ten-pins, algebraically.

You're on that list, and membership is exclusive.

Bravo

Brian Holcombe

04-12-2014, 10:17 AM

My sarcasm is lost it seems, but I agree there is not much to be offended by. People new-ish to the hobby who are ponying up however much money it takes to be in a class with CS are also quick to purchase new planes over the ones that they put a bit of effort into, not a shocker.

I found something funny about the fact that students with 'super-tuned' vintage planes would wait for someone to sharpen a blade on a LN plane and put that to use. It may be true, but it suggests that they either didn't do the super tuning or that their planes aren't truly 'super-tuned'.

His conclusion is off base, the preference of amateurs is simply that.

Doug Hobkirk

04-12-2014, 10:35 AM

What a marvelous topic. I'm strictly a dabbler. I am, as always, very impressed by the depth of your knowledge. I try hard to suck up as much of that knowledge.

But I must note that I found the Christopher Schwartz article quite wonderful.

How many people in the US could vie with him for expertise on hand planes? (That's a real question - he ranks #1 in my personal WW awareness, but I know little.)
How many people in the US give classes on hand planes? (Again, real question. I have no idea.)
If he ranks in the top ten, I think his observations have intrinsic value. As would the observations of anyone else in the top ten.

I will grant that the results could be biased by CS - by consciously keeping the new stuff sharper, for example. (It would surprise me, but I only know him through his writings and an occasional video.)

Fairly soon I should be able to see if this comparison holds true for me; I recently acquired my first premium plane, a LN #4. I have a couple of other premium specialty planes, but my bench planes have all been vintage Stanley so far- #4, #5-1/2, and a #7. I've spent a lot of time getting these in shape (mostly trial-and-error and messing around, since these were my first real planes) and I've got them working pretty sweetly. I can confirm what others have said about the chipbreaker enabling these planes to work difficult grain; honestly, I don't even think about grain direction much when planing anymore- except for the 5-1/2, where blade camber prevents the chipbreaker from getting very close to the edge. These planes work very well for what I might call functional planing- getting a board to dimension, squaring an edge up, removing pencil/tool marks, etc. But I still have some slight troubles with my Stanley 4 in taking very fine, full-width shavings for finishing a surface. And, at random times it leaves inexplicable plane tracks, despite my having rounded and cambered the iron, and even rounding the corners of the chipbreaker. On occasion I will resort to smoothing with the #7 as it just seems to work better despite having no camber and sharp corners- I can't really explain it.

So I bought the LN #4 specifically to use for these very fine smoothing cuts. (Which, presumably, cured the problem? Interesting...) I figure the Stanley will still see a lot of use, just left to a slightly coarser setting. This should reduce the amount of fiddling with setups, and reduce the amount of sharpening for each blade. I still need to do the final prep work on the LN's blade, and then I guess I'll see if there's anything magical about the premium plane, or if setting for very fine shavings is just fiddly business in general...

I learned something new.

Rounding the chipbreaker for cambered blades.

Yesterday I posted a Q about creating a surface that feels hand planed. My conclusion was a mild camber on a smoothing plane. So you have added an arrow to my quiver if I run into problems when I try doing that.

I think I also learned in this thread that new top planes have advantages are:

Irons stay sharp longer (?)

Would this apply equally to new tech irons (from LN or LV or Hock or whoever) fitted to vintage planes?

Their chipbreakers are closer to the edge of the blade (?)

I encourage you let me know if I am wrong.

David Weaver

04-12-2014, 10:40 AM

Don't round the cap iron (chipbreaker) on any of your planes. Leave it straight and set it closer to the edge if you're getting tearout. It doesn't matter if it literally goes past the corners of the iron on a cambered iron because those corners will be retracted into the plane in a cut, anyway.

david charlesworth

04-13-2014, 10:07 AM

Jim,

Thank you so much.

I had not thought of that!

David

Daniel Rode

04-13-2014, 12:38 PM

I like Chris. I've enjoyed some of his videos and writing. I like his delivery in videos and his writing style. I've learned quite a bit from him. However, there are MANY people with greater expertise. There are quite a number of them right here in this forum. One of those experts, David Charlesworth, even responded to this thread. Chris picked up a lot of what he knows from David. Other's here have spent decades using hand tools to produce the highest quality work day in and day out. Chris is a popular writer and teacher but popularity is not the same as expertise.

How many people in the US could vie with him for expertise on hand planes? (That's a real question - he ranks #1 in my personal WW awareness, but I know little.)

John Sanford

04-14-2014, 1:31 PM

Another illustration of why Chris Schwarz's advice is only relevant for beginners.

EDIT: that was maybe too generous....there are better places for beginners to get advice, too.

The above is a truly worthless, and with the edit, snarky ad hominem contribution to the discussion.

David Weaver

04-14-2014, 2:03 PM

No, it really is a legitimate comment that even beginners are best to go elsewhere - especially when someone is traveling with toolmakers to give classes, or has a history of editing a magazine where a large concern is helping to sell the tools of the advertisers. No matter how unbiased an individual tries to be, their decisions will fall on the side of their friends.

The are fantastic texts and instructionals by many that don't get people bogged down in what cost level or brand of tools they should get. Ian Kirby, Tage Frid, Frank Klausz, Robert Wearing, ....

If your instructor has a premium tool fascination in a woodworking class, is traveling to shows sponsored by toolmakers on a regular basis, etc, then it's probably time to get a different instructor. It is not ad hominem, it is legitimate criticism.

It's the new era of woodworking, I guess, I'm as guilty of it as anyone else. The motto should be "we can aspire to do less with more!"

John Sanford

04-14-2014, 2:03 PM

Statistics lesson #1:
Avoid drawing broad conclusions from non-representative samples.
In this case, the better conclusion would be "the type of person who is willing to shell out a few thousand bucks and a week of time to take a CS class prefers new planes."

Would that be the better conclusion? Or are your conclusions overly broad? How many OTHER people have you had the opportunity to watch for HOURS while they work with a variety of vintage and new planes? How much experience do YOU have in teaching, in recognizing the signs of frustration in a student? What, pray tell, WOULD be a representative sample??

This nostalgia for the past reminds me in some ways how some gunnies hold the Garand M1 rifle up as the BEST combat rifle EVER MADE. Now, it can certainly be argued that it may have been the best combat rifle of its era, but the best ever? After all, the similarities between guns and planes are fairly striking. Both perform a fundamentally simple task. In the case of a gun, it's sending a projectile rapidly towards a target. In the case of a plane, it's removing wood. They are both very mature technologies. Yet, for being the "Best Combat Rifle Evah", the M1 Garand is mightily neglected by the world's militaries today. Why? Is it because the M1 is less accurate? No. Is it because it's more expensive? No, not really, at least not for a military. It's because the M1 isn't as easy to use for it's intended role.

And that is much of what it comes down to with the distinction between modern planes and vintage planes. The modern ones are just easier to use. Are they easier for an master craftsman who has spent years literally honing his craft? Perhaps, perhaps not. The vast majority of woodworkers today, however, are not master craftsmen.

At its core, a plane is an incredibly simple tool, essentially nothing more than a chisel held at an angle. EVERYTHING else about it is there to make it easier to use. The flat bottom? Makes it easier to achieve a flat result. The bed? Makes it easier to keep the chisel at a specific angle. The metal blade? Saves a lot of time over chipping a flint blade. Adjustment mechanism? Again, makes things easier.

What do CS's observations boil down to? That people in his classes had an easier time using the modern planes. Perhaps it is because they have more money than sense (is that an unfair characterization of your subtext Steve?), perhaps it was some sort of placebo effect. Maybe it was because Chris's planes were sharp and their own were not. Or it's quite possible that modern planes are easier for most people to use....

Robert Hazelwood

04-14-2014, 2:18 PM

What a marvelous topic. I'm strictly a dabbler. I am, as always, very impressed by the depth of your knowledge. I try hard to suck up as much of that knowledge.

But I must note that I found the Christopher Schwartz article quite wonderful.

How many people in the US could vie with him for expertise on hand planes? (That's a real question - he ranks #1 in my personal WW awareness, but I know little.)
How many people in the US give classes on hand planes? (Again, real question. I have no idea.)
If he ranks in the top ten, I think his observations have intrinsic value. As would the observations of anyone else in the top ten.

I will grant that the results could be biased by CS - by consciously keeping the new stuff sharper, for example. (It would surprise me, but I only know him through his writings and an occasional video.)

I learned something new.

Rounding the chipbreaker for cambered blades.

Yesterday I posted a Q about creating a surface that feels hand planed. My conclusion was a mild camber on a smoothing plane. So you have added an arrow to my quiver if I run into problems when I try doing that.

I think I also learned in this thread that new top planes have advantages are:

Irons stay sharp longer (?)

Would this apply equally to new tech irons (from LN or LV or Hock or whoever) fitted to vintage planes?

Their chipbreakers are closer to the edge of the blade (?)

I encourage you let me know if I am wrong.

No, I wouldn't necessarily recommend you round the chipbreaker corners. As I mentioned in my post, it didn't really correct the problem, it was just one of the things I tried. There isn't much metal at the bottom of the chipbreaker due to the hump, and so if you round the corners and then later decided to bring it back to straight, there may not be enough metal to do it (you'd have ground it back into the hump). And what David Weaver says makes sense-even if the straight edge of the chipbreaker goes past the rounded corners of the iron, it should not be in the wood. Logically, if the chipbreaker corners are hitting the wood then there is an issue with lateral adjustment or the chipbreaker is not mounted in correct alignment to the blade, or the blade edge is ground off-kilter with respect to the blade sides.

The premium planes do probably stay sharp a little longer. I don't know by how much since I haven't had a chance to use my LN 4 yet. But the steel in good vintage planes is usually very good, and sharpens easily. In fact the newer steels will take longer to sharpen if you use traditional whetstones (not so much with diamonds or ceramic waterstones) so there is a trade-off potentially. And yes, if you put a modern steel blade in a vintage plane you will have all of these properties with respect to edge retention, grindability, etc.

The chipbreaker is set by the user. Doesn't matter if vintage or premium. When planing against the grain, setting it extremely close to the edge helps mitigate tearout by breaking the fibers in the "chip" (shaving) before they can rip out the wood ahead of the blade.

David Weaver

04-14-2014, 2:21 PM

What do CS's observations boil down to?

That he's not telling the individuals what their real problem is, and it's lack of experience - not lack of expensive tools (that are sold by friends of his - at least I am assuming that the sellers of the tools are friends of his). Maybe he's more interested in making the classes easier to teach, and doesn't want to get into that. Who knows?

Pat Barry

04-14-2014, 2:34 PM

Sean Hughto

04-14-2014, 2:53 PM

So, Pat, couldn't make your vintage plane work? Must be those old planes!

David Weaver

04-14-2014, 3:09 PM

Isn't it that we are all set in our ways and resistant to change? Some much more set in their ways (and happy to be as a matter of fact) than others. The epitome of plane making was not the 1800's as some might have you believe. We can't really expect those old Bailey planes we all love so much to be around forever. I think the love of these old tools has more to do with nostalgia than function and more to do with the pain involved in learning to love them than anything else. We paid a big price in blood sweat and tears getting those old tools to a reasonable state of operation so with that we became attached mentally and emotionally to them (is their a psychologist in the house?). In fact, I bet the day is not too far off when those old beauties will be to valuable from a antique value point of view, to actually be used. Those old planes need to go the way of the rotary telephone pretty soon so we can all make progress.

I haven't had a bailey plane that I brought too good state that took more than an hour in ...7 years? One that is kept dry will be just as relevant in 100 years as it was 100 years ago - as long as it's not worn out.

The viewpoint that they should go away almost reads as a satire. the only thing that can be said about them is that they might take a minimal amount more skill to work once they are prepared, but it is so small that it's less than any woodworking operation that I can think of (the skill that is).

To use a vintage wooden plane (and to bring one back to spec) might be a bit more difficult in some cases (if wedge work is required or if a cap iron has been abused, etc), but a stanley bailey plane from the best era (early 1900s to about wwII?) is a platform that can basically do anything, the only possible place where it's short on function might be planing something like cocobolo with a lot of silica. But an LN comes up short there, too.

There is, though, a very real desire for some of the teachers to spec high quality tools for students in the class so that the teacher is past the point of having to decide whether or not a student's tools are limiting. That is another thing entirely, though, what's best for the instructor all the way around isn't necessarily best for the student.

The real crisis in another several decades is going to be getting decent wood at a price that you can afford to work it as a hobbyist.

Pat Barry

04-14-2014, 4:14 PM

I haven't had a bailey plane that I brought too good state that took more than an hour in ...7 years? One that is kept dry will be just as relevant in 100 years as it was 100 years ago - as long as it's not worn out.

The viewpoint that they should go away almost reads as a satire. the only thing that can be said about them is that they might take a minimal amount more skill to work once they are prepared, but it is so small that it's less than any woodworking operation that I can think of (the skill that is).

To use a vintage wooden plane (and to bring one back to spec) might be a bit more difficult in some cases (if wedge work is required or if a cap iron has been abused, etc), but a stanley bailey plane from the best era (early 1900s to about wwII?) is a platform that can basically do anything, the only possible place where it's short on function might be planing something like cocobolo with a lot of silica. But an LN comes up short there, too.

There is, though, a very real desire for some of the teachers to spec high quality tools for students in the class so that the teacher is past the point of having to decide whether or not a student's tools are limiting. That is another thing entirely, though, what's best for the instructor all the way around isn't necessarily best for the student.

The real crisis in another several decades is going to be getting decent wood at a price that you can afford to work it as a hobbyist.

I was aiming for a bit of humor,

but none-the-less, I do suspect with tool hoarding demonstrated by numerous folks around here that the world market for decent old planes is rapidly drying up and this will force the folks to try something new.

I do happen to agree with your point about the coming difficulty of getting quality wood for a fair price though.

David Weaver

04-14-2014, 4:16 PM

When the market starts to try up and it's time for me to get some vintage tools, that's when I'll jump ship and start talking about how no work can be done with vintage tools!

I'll have to make something up - like at age 175, some of them turn to powder. :)

Steve Voigt

04-14-2014, 4:17 PM

Would that be the better conclusion? Or are your conclusions overly broad? How many OTHER people have you had the opportunity to watch for HOURS while they work with a variety of vintage and new planes? How much experience do YOU have in teaching, in recognizing the signs of frustration in a student? What, pray tell, WOULD be a representative sample??

This makes no sense. I pointed out that Chris's conclusion was too broad. The one I suggested ("the type of person who is willing to shell out a few thousand bucks and a week of time to take a CS class prefers new planes") was much narrower. So if you think mine was too broad, was does that say about his? I think what you really mean is that you don't like my conclusion. That's another matter.
Anyway, what does my teaching experience have to do with anything? I criticized the logic of Chris's argument, not his skills or experience.

What do CS's observations boil down to? That people in his classes had an easier time using the modern planes. Perhaps it is because they have more money than sense (is that an unfair characterization of your subtext Steve?), perhaps it was some sort of placebo effect. Maybe it was because Chris's planes were sharp and their own were not. Or it's quite possible that modern planes are easier for most people to use....

Nope, I didn't mean they had more money than sense. There really wasn't a subtext. I said just what I meant: that this wasn't a representative sample. Such a sample would have to include people like me, who never took a class and learned by reading and doing.

As an aside, I quite like Chris's writings and own a couple of his books. I don't agree with Dave at all on this--but we can disagree without getting all hot and bothered about it. It's just an opinion.

David Weaver

04-14-2014, 4:31 PM

\
Anyway, what does my teaching experience have to do with anything? I criticized the logic of Chris's argument, not his skills or experience.

When I read the stuff he writes, I feel like I'm reading tractor books by randy leffingwell (there is about one person in the world who would get that).

BUT, I do like it when he publishes work other folks do. I've got a couple of books LAP has published that were written by other folks, and they are top shelf.

Gary Muto

04-14-2014, 6:51 PM

The way I see it... that makes sense to me.

People taking Chris' classes have significant disposable income. Typically that comes with Less time to Money ratio.

The classes help steepen the learning curve and the tools compliment steeping the learning curve. The tools are easy to acquire and they work with a light amount of honing. Fairly easy to maintain.

To each their own!

Frederick Skelly

04-14-2014, 7:44 PM

As of this moment, this thread has been opened/read/viewed by more people than any other Ive yet seen - 3,878.

Fred

John Sanford

04-14-2014, 8:10 PM

We can get specific and empirical: Take like planes and run them through their paces. What can a LN 5 do that a Stanley 5 cannot, or do better? What can a Veritas LA jointer do that a Stanley 7 cannot, or do better? Etc. ad infinitum.
End result does not define "better" by itself. That, in fact, is much of David's argument. The Reader's Digest version: A properly fettled vintage plane can get the same results as a modern premium plane, and will likely cost less money. Therefore, the vintage plane is "better."

Now, David having introduced a consideration other than simply the results into the equation, we are free to introduce other considerations as well.

Send five noobs out with instructions to purchase the first vintage Jack Plane they come across, and the first new LN #5 they come across. Have each of them return with the planes, have a competent sharpening dude touch up all of the blades, and set them to work. Remember, these are 5 vintage planes chosen by noobs, versus 5 fresh out of the box LNs. The odds are very high that every one of the LNs will work great out of the box. The vintage planes, chosen by noobs? Not so good odds. So, it takes a certain amount of knowledge and experience to pick out decent vintage planes. The more knowledge, the fewer turkeys. For some, that makes them "better", but for most folks wanting to get on with the matter of butchering wood, not so much of a plus.

Now, simulate the effects of a modest herd of young boys thundering through one's workshop. Oh, my. The planes have been subjected to sudden deceleration upon hitting the floor. New plane, ductile iron. Old plane, simple cast iron. New plane, dents floor, little dent on nose of plane. Old plane, dents floor, cracked body. Is cracked better? Is the heightened risk, because not every drop ends in keeee-rack, of being cracked better? In an absolute sense, no, unless you're looking for a source of cast iron to recycle. For some though, the risk may be worth it given the lower cost of the vintage plane.

IF you are good enough with your tools, you can build a Chippendale highboy using nothing more than a healthy supply of rocks and your own skills. Thankfully for those of us who are not Uber-Neanderbubbas, our ancestors spent thousands of years improving tools so that things are easier and more pleasant to accomplish. While an LN vis a vis a vintage Bailey doesn't represent as much of an improvement as the first plane does over a handheld chisel, it's better durability, superior adjustability, and greater "ease of getting into service" (i.e. finding & fettling to a serviceable level) makes it a "better plane." Better value? Well, that's another question entirely, related, but different, and the answer depends on what the potential owner/user values. Time? Money? Heritage, aesthetics, the environment, etc, etc.

The results are the same, it's just a bit easier to get there with the new plane. And that's what tools are about. Making life easier.

btw, before somebody goes down the "well, you've got to know how your plane works to get the best results" route, let me ask you this: do you know machine language? Or is knowing how to type and maybe a bit more sufficient for you to get the results you want out of your computer? It can certainly be handy to know more about your tool, but it beyond a certain point, it isn't necessary to get the results one desires.

Mark Engel

04-14-2014, 8:29 PM

End result does not define "better" by itself. That, in fact, is much of David's argument. The Reader's Digest version: A properly fettled vintage plane can get the same results as a modern premium plane, and will likely cost less money. Therefore, the vintage plane is "better."

Now, David having introduced a consideration other than simply the results into the equation, we are free to introduce other considerations as well.

Send five noobs out with instructions to purchase the first vintage Jack Plane they come across, and the first new LN #5 they come across. Have each of them return with the planes, have a competent sharpening dude touch up all of the blades, and set them to work. Remember, these are 5 vintage planes chosen by noobs, versus 5 fresh out of the box LNs. The odds are very high that every one of the LNs will work great out of the box. The vintage planes, chosen by noobs? Not so good odds. So, it takes a certain amount of knowledge and experience to pick out decent vintage planes. The more knowledge, the fewer turkeys. For some, that makes them "better", but for most folks wanting to get on with the matter of butchering wood, not so much of a plus.

Now, simulate the effects of a modest herd of young boys thundering through one's workshop. Oh, my. The planes have been subjected to sudden deceleration upon hitting the floor. New plane, ductile iron. Old plane, simple cast iron. New plane, dents floor, little dent on nose of plane. Old plane, dents floor, cracked body. Is cracked better? Is the heightened risk, because not every drop ends in keeee-rack, of being cracked better? In an absolute sense, no, unless you're looking for a source of cast iron to recycle. For some though, the risk may be worth it given the lower cost of the vintage plane.

IF you are good enough with your tools, you can build a Chippendale highboy using nothing more than a healthy supply of rocks and your own skills. Thankfully for those of us who are not Uber-Neanderbubbas, our ancestors spent thousands of years improving tools so that things are easier and more pleasant to accomplish. While an LN vis a vis a vintage Bailey doesn't represent as much of an improvement as the first plane does over a handheld chisel, it's better durability, superior adjustability, and greater "ease of getting into service" (i.e. finding & fettling to a serviceable level) makes it a "better plane." Better value? Well, that's another question entirely, related, but different, and the answer depends on what the potential owner/user values. Time? Money? Heritage, aesthetics, the environment, etc, etc.

The results are the same, it's just a bit easier to get there with the new plane. And that's what tools are about. Making life easier.

btw, before somebody goes down the "well, you've got to know how your plane works to get the best results" route, let me ask you this: do you know machine language? Or is knowing how to type and maybe a bit more sufficient for you to get the results you want out of your computer? It can certainly be handy to know more about your tool, but it beyond a certain point, it isn't necessary to get the results one desires.

Yup. .

Daniel Rode

04-14-2014, 8:33 PM

David Weaver

04-14-2014, 8:51 PM

Mark Engel

04-14-2014, 8:52 PM

I think there are many examples here of vintage tool zealots saying negative things about the new 'premium' tools. ^

That is not my problem with this thread. What I object to is the character assassination of Chris Shwartz. Chris Schwartz is a published author, a well known hand tool 'expert' and a well known hand tool teacher. Yet, some of our members discount this mans experience claiming that it is all due to his association with some tool manufacturers.

I wonder who on this forum can claim to have the documented experience and expertise to dis-prove any of CS's opinions or teachings. It is easy to say "He is wrong". Prove the point and show why you are right.

Sean Hughto

04-14-2014, 9:02 PM

End result does not define "better" by itself.

Pray tell, John, what is Chris talking about here if not the end results - if not the performance of the plane? What does he mean when he says "just as good" if not the use and results? Did the students suddenly realize the wonder of ductile iron? Did they suddenly move back in time and need to pick a plane again?

What I have observed is this: The students with the super-tuned vintage handplanes almost always tend to use – over and over – my Lie-Nielsen and Veritas planes during the class. .... They put their vintage planes below their bench or back into their tool bag. I have even seen some of them order a Veritas or Lie-Nielsen plane on a cellphone during a class while holding one of my planes in their other hand.

.... I want to believe that the old planes are just as good. I used to believe the old planes were just as good.

steven c newman

04-14-2014, 9:11 PM

I have watched Herr Schwarz a few times, not too bad a time. Learned a few things, too. But like all the ones on the tube/internet, I take what they say with the grains of salt required. Never once as "Gosphel" (sp0

That being said, I use vintage tools because they are what I can pay for. Closest I ever got to a Premium Plane was the Wood River #4V3 I won as a Featured Member on another site. Not too bad a plane, either, has some "good genes" to it. I have rehabbed a bunch of planes over the years. Keeping trying them out until I find a few I like, AND can DEPEND on to work right out of the Tool Chest. That is what counts! You can have one made of soid Gold, but if it don't work the way YOU NEED it to......go melt the dang thing down into a watch or something...

Really don't care what others use in their shops. That is their problem. I'm still working out mine. I doubt if spending more on one plane than i spent on the last 20 COMBINED, will even begin to make me a better woodworker. One has to learn the HOW of this craft. Fancy tools look good in the photos, true. But is it the skill to use them to be bought along with that Bling Tool? Some say they can get shavings thin enough to read the paper through, BFD. That is usally the LAST step in getting a board ready for a finish. Not all the other steps it takes to get there.

Hey, IF Mr. Schwarz runs a class on woodworking, and people do show up to learn HIS way, that's more than fine by me.

David Weaver

04-14-2014, 9:36 PM

I wonder who on this forum can claim to have the documented experience and expertise to dis-prove any of CS's opinions or teachings. It is easy to say "He is wrong". Prove the point and show why you are right.

He was certainly wrong about the cap iron. In fact, I had several people send me private messages before the kato and kawai video came out when I was describing the usefulness of the cap iron. They were a combination of people telling me to can it because either chris schwarz or rob cosman had described other than what I was advocating, and I was wrong and should ...like I said, just stop posting.

Then even after I wrote an article and there was a kato and kawai video to show what I was talking about, I still got those emails, anyway. It was pretty ridiculous. Several months later after it was topic du jour on the forums for a while, I got a message from someone telling me that I had learned it from Chris Schwarz.

I suppose in a way, it's almost a bit funny, because proper use of the cap iron is the equalizer between vintage and premium planes, and in my experience, the stanley design cap iron is a bit better bone stock and it provides a nice spring for the lever cap to clamp on. The weight of a stanley plane is preferable, too, and I can't think of anything up to and including hard maple where it's lacking in weight.

Two other things that I found outright wrong:
* getting old tools into shape is false economy (sure, it might be if you don't think about how you'd like to do it quickly. Doing something poorly or slowly and drawing a conclusion to fall again on the side of new tools is a poor suggestion)
* LN had to make a drawknife because good ones are hard to find and hard to use. I had to go track down the blog post to make sure that I didn't misquote. He claims to have spent a day grinding his grandfather's drawknife. That's odd, again, just like the bullet point above. I watched a video of curtis buchanan describing and demonstrating bringing a vintage drawknife into shape. It wasn't a long process. I recall looking through shop after shop for good backsaws at the time, and the only thing I found in droves was......drawknives. unused keen kutter drawknives for $50 (two) and gobs of good used drawknives for about $25 in any size and manner you could want. For a short period of time, i was subscribed to the blog (i was subscribed to a whole lot of blogs), but things like that made me change my mind about it -advocating solutions to problems that didn't exist. And at high cost to (who is usually going to be the folks buying something like a $170 drawknife?) beginners.

Pat Barry

04-14-2014, 9:49 PM

... proper use of the cap iron is the equalizer between vintage and premium planes...
I think the proper use of the cap iron is an equalizer between vintage and premium planes, but not THE equalizer. A big problem for me as a neophyte plane user is the backlash with the vintage planes. Maybe this can be improved (reduced) but I have never seen that topic addressed. The LV BUS I just purchased has virtually zero baclash and that makes planing much easier for someone like me. If you want to take off a bit less you turn back the adjuster slightly and away you go. With the vintage planes (that I have) I need to crank the adjuster back about what seems to be 2 or 3 full turns before it even feels to be retracting the blade, then a few test cuts, more backing off (maybe) more likely need to crank it back in. Anyway - there is terrible mechanics to the old planes compared to the new one I've used, and those lousy mechanics lead to frustration. SO, to me, this is equally if not more important than the touted cap iron discoveries.

David Weaver

04-14-2014, 10:07 PM

Pat, you probably haven't seen it addressed because backlash isn't much of a problem in a plane in use. If it was, stanley would've added tabs to the cap iron to mitigate it.

My view on it is this:
* it takes about 2 seconds or less to run the backlash out of an adjuster. Most of my planes seem to have about a turn.
* half of your adjustments are going to be in the direction that there's already tension, so there will be no backlash issue at all
* once you have your plane set where you want it, there isn't going to be much depth adjustment, anyway

On my vintage planes, the backlash is about the length of my index finger, and I can remove all or almost all of it in one swipe.

On a plane in regular use, the wheel will almost spin freely between tension from one direction to another, making it easier yet.

Now, I know I'm not going to get my wish on this. I too bought premium planes and marveled at the lack of backlash, but at the time, nobody ever told me it wasn't a problem.

Mark Engel

04-14-2014, 10:28 PM

He was certainly wrong about the cap iron. In fact, I had several people send me private messages before the kato and kawai video came out when I was describing the usefulness of the cap iron. They were a combination of people telling me to can it because either chris schwarz or rob cosman had described other than what I was advocating, and I was wrong and should ...like I said, just stop posting.

Then even after I wrote an article and there was a kato and kawai video to show what I was talking about, I still got those emails, anyway. It was pretty ridiculous. Several months later after it was topic du jour on the forums for a while, I got a message from someone telling me that I had learned it from Chris Schwarz.

I suppose in a way, it's almost a bit funny, because proper use of the cap iron is the equalizer between vintage and premium planes, and in my experience, the stanley design cap iron is a bit better bone stock and it provides a nice spring for the lever cap to clamp on. The weight of a stanley plane is preferable, too, and I can't think of anything up to and including hard maple where it's lacking in weight.

Two other things that I found outright wrong:
* getting old tools into shape is false economy (sure, it might be if you don't think about how you'd like to do it quickly. Doing something poorly or slowly and drawing a conclusion to fall again on the side of new tools is a poor suggestion)
* LN had to make a drawknife because good ones are hard to find and hard to use. I had to go track down the blog post to make sure that I didn't misquote. He claims to have spent a day grinding his grandfather's drawknife. That's odd, again, just like the bullet point above. I watched a video of curtis buchanan describing and demonstrating bringing a vintage drawknife into shape. It wasn't a long process. I recall looking through shop after shop for good backsaws at the time, and the only thing I found in droves was......drawknives. unused keen kutter drawknives for $50 (two) and gobs of good used drawknives for about $25 in any size and manner you could want. For a short period of time, i was subscribed to the blog (i was subscribed to a whole lot of blogs), but things like that made me change my mind about it -advocating solutions to problems that didn't exist. And at high cost to (who is usually going to be the folks buying something like a $170 drawknife?) beginners.

Okay, let's step through some of this:

What about the cap iron was CS wrong about? And, if 'several' people sent you PM's about your use of the cap iron, why is CS the only one you are telling all of us not to listen to?

So, after you wrote your article about proper use of the cap iron, you received a message saying you learned this from CS. Was that message from CS? Not sure how that message from 'someone' has tainted your opinion of Christopher Schwartz.

So, proper use of the cap iron as an 'equalizer'. How does the Stanley design cap iron prove to be better than the cap irons from Hock, Lee Valley/Veritas or Lie-Nielsen? In my limited experience, this is not the case. Getting a 'vintage' Stanley cap iron to behave is (in mo) a pains taking process, while getting a (Hock, Veritas, Lie-Nielsen) cap iron to behave is ... easy, they are about ready to go right out of the box. I have seen no advantage to any spring provided to the lever cap. Not really sure what advantage that spring could provide.

I happen to agree that getting old tools into working condition is NOT false economy. I just can't seem to find where CS said that. Do you have a reference?

I have no frame of reference for your drawknife argument. It seems like you have a problem with how long it took to grind the tool based on how long it took someone else to grind the tool? Let me suggest this ; Different people work at different speeds?

I have nothing to add to your last paragraph. I don't understand the point.

David Weaver

04-14-2014, 10:38 PM

Okay, let's step through some of this:

What about the cap iron was CS wrong about? And, if 'several' people sent you PM's about your use of the cap iron, why is CS the only one you are telling all of us not to listen to?

Because it was CS that they were quoting. They weren't saying it of their own experience, none of them had any or they wouldn't have been sending me anything. They quoted (for the most part) Schwarz and a couple quoted cosman.

So, after you wrote your article about proper use of the cap iron, you received a message saying you learned this from CS. Was that message from CS? Not sure how that message from 'someone' has tainted your opinion of Christopher Schwartz.

You asked for something where he was wrong. I pointed it out. I thought it was icing on the cake that the same person being quoted as then being described as the origin where I learned to use a double iron. There wasn't an issue, though, with anyone saying both and being the same person.

So, proper use of the cap iron as an 'equalizer'. How does the Stanley design cap iron prove to be better than the cap irons from Hock, Lee Valley/Veritas or Lie-Nielsen? In my limited experience, this is not the case. Getting a 'vintage' Stanley cap iron to behave is (in mo) a pains taking process, while getting a (Hock, Veritas, Lie-Nielsen) cap iron to behave is ... easy, they are about ready to go right out of the box. I have seen no advantage to any spring provided to the lever cap. Not really sure what advantage that spring could provide.

It takes less than five minutes to prepare a stanley cap iron. The rounded edge is at an ideal angle for use on stuff we plane in the united states, and when you're done, you also have a nice spring from the cap iron pushing back on the lever cap. The "improved" cap irons are almost without that, which makes the lever cap retention screw position more picky.

I happen to agree that getting old tools into working condition is NOT false economy. I just can't seem to find where CS said that. Do you have a reference?

No, but it was in regard to chisels, I'm sure it could be found pretty easily.

I have no frame of reference for your drawknife argument. It seems like you have a problem with how long it took to grind the tool based on how long it took someone else to grind the tool? Let me suggest this ; Different people work at different speeds?

I have nothing to add to your last paragraph. I don't understand the point.

The statement that it took a day to grind a vintage drawknife indicates one of two things:
* the drawknife wasn't in a condition to be restored, which makes it an irrelevant comparison to the LN
* the person doing the restoring isn't very competent at restoring

Mark Engel

04-14-2014, 11:04 PM

Again, what did CS (or Cosman) say that was incorrect about the cap iron? That point that others with no experience quoted to YOU about? And why did they ask you?

I'm sorry, I just don't understand what any of this means:

You asked for something where he was wrong. I pointed it out. I thought it was icing on the cake that the same person being quoted as then being described as the origin where I learned to use a double iron. There wasn't an issue, though, with anyone saying both and being the same person.

Now this seems to be a bit of a variable.

It takes less than five minutes to prepare a stanley cap iron. The rounded edge is at an ideal angle for use on stuff we plane in the united states, and when you're done, you also have a nice spring from the cap iron pushing back on the lever cap. The "improved" cap irons are almost without that, which makes the lever cap retention screw position more picky.

I think you mean to say that it takes YOU less than five minutes to prepare a Stanley cap iron. I have 'restored' many 'vintage' Stanley planes, and I can't remember a single one where five minutes work was sufficient to properly fit a cap iron. But, maybe I'm just slow.

I think this really shows the mind set being discussed here:

The statement that it took a day to grind a vintage drawknife indicates one of two things:
* the drawknife wasn't in a condition to be restored, which makes it an irrelevant comparison to the LN
* the person doing the restoring isn't very competent at restoring

It sounds to me like you are saying, either buy tools that don't need any restoration, or become more competent at the task.

So, should these 'incompetent' folks maybe consider buying the new premium offerings from the likes of LN or LV, etc.?

David Weaver

04-14-2014, 11:22 PM

I don't know if I'll have another plane that needs the cap iron to be setup in the near future, if I do, I will video it. I use three stones to do it. A carborundum stone, a fine india and a hard arkansas. I have never had to repeat the process for any reason.

I'm not sure what's not clear. Chris Schwarz's prior stances was that the cap iron didn't function to control tearout and it should be kept out of the way. There is a video of rob cosman on youtube saying (paraphrased), "it is only there to hold the iron in place, don't let anyone tell you any different".

Because both were saying that the cap iron didn't mitigate tearout, when I said it did, I got PMs from fans of theirs. Some tried to be polite imparting their wisdom, others just told me I had no idea what I was talking about because CS had taught otherwise.

I can't say it any clearer than that. I'd assume that if Cosman and CS had not stated that the cap iron wasn't used to mitigate tearout, I never would've heard from any of those people. That's not an unreasonable assumption.

In terms of restoration, people should learn to do it. There will come a time that you have to make your own tools, if for no other reason, because it will take less time to make them sometimes than it does to find something suitable. I'm not saying either/or, i'm plainly saying people should learn to do it. Restoration doesn't involve cosmetic wizardry or lapping everything to optical surfaces, it involves the geometry of tools being correct, and nothing contrary being in the way (e.g., if there is slag on a frog, run a file over it and remove it quickly, and you're done). Lapping a plane sole and cleaning up the iron and cap iron are the only "restoration" that is required on most out of use metal planes. They are thought-free work compared to making tools (not difficult).

Same with buchanan's discussion of setting up a used drawknife - it's not arduous or difficult and the information is right there. There's no reason to run from it and claim a need for turnkey tools.

Whether or not someone buys premium tools is up to them. They shouldn't be led to believe that there is something arduous, or involving "false economy" in restoring tools or using decent vintage tools, though. They just need to learn from the right person instead of someone who would appear to be advising on something they are not good at.

Mike Holbrook

04-14-2014, 11:48 PM

I read the CS Blog and got a different impression. It wasn't that long ago that Highland Hardware now Highland Woodworking sold quite a few not very precisely manufactured (IMHO, in my humble opinion) Record hand planes. Certainly many people found very usable vintage planes on the auction sites that started appearing right after those dark ages. For quite some time many of the better planes available were restored vintage planes. All I hear CS saying is we are emerging from the dark ages of hand tool manufacturing. We are fortunate today to have new planes and many other hand tools appearing in the market place that are manufactured to tighter tolerances from materials that rival or exceed vintage tools. Chris apparently has a good feel for controversial subjects in his subject matter of choice as he starts his Blog out expecting the reaction that we are finding here.

Now I am going to follow Dave Anderson's lead and put some tools to work.

Steve Voigt

04-15-2014, 12:01 AM

I think the proper use of the cap iron is an equalizer between vintage and premium planes, but not THE equalizer. A big problem for me as a neophyte plane user is the backlash with the vintage planes. Maybe this can be improved (reduced) but I have never seen that topic addressed. The LV BUS I just purchased has virtually zero backlash and that makes planing much easier for someone like me. If you want to take off a bit less you turn back the adjuster slightly and away you go. With the vintage planes (that I have) I need to crank the adjuster back about what seems to be 2 or 3 full turns before it even feels to be retracting the blade, then a few test cuts, more backing off (maybe) more likely need to crank it back in. Anyway - there is terrible mechanics to the old planes compared to the new one I've used, and those lousy mechanics lead to frustration. SO, to me, this is equally if not more important than the touted cap iron discoveries.

I always find the backlash argument hilarious, because I learned machining in a shop chock full of old Bridgeport mills and Hardinge, South Bend, Logan, and LeBlond lathes. All of these machines were 40, 50, 60 years old and had tons of backlash, and all of them were capable of making parts to 50 millionths tolerance. You simply made sure that you were always turning the lead screw into the cut, which is exactly what you do with a plane. You back off until you're not making the cut, then you slowly advance the depth until it's right. Yes, if you go too far, you have to turn the knob back a couple turns. So, you learn not to go too far. It's part of the process of becoming skilled with your tool.
The mills and lathes I was talking about above were extremely high quality tools, made when American machine tools were the envy of the world. I guarantee you they had zero backlash when they rolled off the assembly line, but after 40 or 50 years of regular use, the lead screws were very worn and had tons of backlash. Same thing with a hundred year old Stanley plane. I'd love to see how your LN plane is doing in a hundred years.

John Sanford

04-15-2014, 12:08 AM

CS from 2010 had it about right:If your planes meet the minimum basic requirements of a plane: a sharp cutter that’s firmly secured at an appropriate angle for the wood you’re working, the tool will do an excellent job. So if you think that buying a very expensive plane will make all lumber bow down before you and your tool, think again.

popularwoodworking.com/tools/tool-reviews/test-driving_exotic_infill_handplanes
No contradiction between what he said in 2010, and what he said last week. What buying a very expensive plane will do is keep you from wasting your money on golf, and that, my friends, is a VERY good thing indeed. :D

Steve Voigt

04-15-2014, 12:17 AM

John Coloccia

04-15-2014, 12:34 AM

John Sanford

04-15-2014, 12:43 AM

. If it's just a little flatter, with an iron that's just a little thicker, and a little harder, and an alloy that's a little more wear resistant with an adjuster that's just a little finer and just add a pound or two....then I'll do better work with it. But that just doesn't end up being the case. Except, often it does. Not always, but often. One of the maddening things about working with handtools is that the differences between us as individuals can be magnified by handtools. For some people, adding a half pound, and changing the angle of the tote, can transform hand planing from a ho-hum experience to magic. Others, the reverse. A Bedrock, whether modern or vintage, just doesn't work well for them, and an infill or woodie may be torture, but a nice LV BU is da promised land. And getting past the matter of ergonomics, past whether a person enjoys sharpening, and moving to the realm of "becoming one with the tool", making such changes can simply result in everything "clicking." Can, not will. Heck, sometimes you can take a dimensionally IDENTICAL modern X and replace it with a vintage X (or visa versa) and it just WORKS better for someone. Because. Just Because. The human mind and body work in mysterious ways. Perhaps you didn't mean that such changes are always fruitless, but that's sure what it sounds like.

In this day and age, one of the greatest resources for making those last few tweaks that can bring everything together is hard to come by. The watchful eye of a master who has trained a dozen or more apprentices, in short, a good coach. If more of us had one, there would be less floundering about. There would undoubtedly though be comments about people just wasting money on coaches when you can learn everything you need to know from reading books by sainted guys who taught purely for the joy of teaching, pay no never mind to the filthy lucre they were paid to teach, nor the corruption of the publishing world where everybody's soul, especially the editor's, is sold to the advertisers.

John Sanford

04-15-2014, 12:48 AM

Derek Cohen

04-15-2014, 3:30 AM

I read the Blog 3 times. I wonder if I'm the only one that is having a hard time finding the controversy here. He noticed a preference that students have for his new planes than their tuned up old planes. I'm not surprised. LV and LN planes are far and away built to a higher standard than any Stanley ever was. Why shouldn't it be? We've had a hundred years to improve metallurgy and machining techniques.

So what's the controversy again?

I've stayed out of this thread except to made one remark earlier, where I stated that nothing could be reasonably concluded from the comments made by Chris S about the tools, per se: the population pool that from which the "data" was gathered was quite unrepresentative of the broader population of handtool users.

What I find more interesting is why so many (or is it just a few) here have their panties in such a twist? The comments clearly pushed a button.

What I do want to say is that I think that Chris S does a terrific job. Is he an authority on woodworking? Yes he is - perhaps not the authority you deem the most relevant, but he is the authority about woodworking from which many others find inspiration, and wish to emulate. I don't find it surprising that these seek to use his tools or follow in his footsteps. I could say the same about Rod Cosman, David Charlesworth and a number of others.

It is irrelevant whether Chris S benefits financially from his blog, directly or indirectly. Some of the time he is being provocative, and some of the time he posts educationally. It all draws publicity for Pop Wood magazine and his own company. Good for him. Without them we would all be the loser. As far as I am concerned it is a win-win situation.

Regards from Perth

Derek

jamie shard

04-15-2014, 6:42 AM

I read the Blog 3 times. I wonder if I'm the only one that is having a hard time finding the controversy here. He noticed a preference that students have for his new planes than their tuned up old planes. I'm not surprised. LV and LN planes are far and away built to a higher standard than any Stanley ever was. Why shouldn't it be? We've had a hundred years to improve metallurgy and machining techniques.

So what's the controversy again?

Oh, it's the essence of controversy: you say something that is technically true for a particular situation, but kinda use sweeping language so that it implies a lot more, and you say it knowing that it will rub a lot of people the wrong way.

As many people pointed out, he didn't say ~'the folks in my classes are obsessive about their tools, so that even when they tune up a plane to a level of performance that probably exceeded the original specifications of vintage tools used by craftsman for a century, they still want the highest end product and will order LN tools."

Rather he said that super-tuned vintage planes were not as good. It is implied that this is for the handwork itself, but it is said in a way that is vague, almost guaranteeing controversy, and I suspect he knows it.

But come on, in what way is a super-tuned vintage plane "not as good" for actual woodworking?

(I'm not being polemic about this, I have some LN tools, and ironically... I'm wearing a LN t-shirt right now :D !)

Here's the quote again:

What I have observed is this: The students with the super-tuned vintage handplanes almost always tend to use – over and over – my Lie-Nielsen and Veritas planes during the class. .... They put their vintage planes below their bench or back into their tool bag. I have even seen some of them order a Veritas or Lie-Nielsen plane on a cellphone during a class while holding one of my planes in their other hand.

.... I want to believe that the old planes are just as good. I used to believe the old planes were just as good.

Paul McGaha

04-15-2014, 7:25 AM

Personally, I just don't see anything here at all.

"The students with the vintage planes always seem to want to try the new planes". That's kind of understandable isn't it? That they would be curious about trying a new or different tool from what they were used to?

"Some of the students ordered new hand planes during the class" Well, so? Just a guess but they were probably thinking about buying a new plane anyway.

I like Chris Schwarz. I think he's good in front of a camera. I think he writes well too, I like reading his stuff.

PHM

David Weaver

04-15-2014, 8:01 AM

I've stayed out of this thread except to made one remark earlier, where I stated that nothing could be reasonably concluded from the comments made by Chris S about the tools, per se: the population pool that from which the "data" was gathered was quite unrepresentative of the broader population of handtool users.

What I find more interesting is why so many (or is it just a few) here have their panties in such a twist? The comments clearly pushed a button.

What I do want to say is that I think that Chris S does a terrific job. Is he an authority on woodworking? Yes he is - perhaps not the authority you deem the most relevant, but he is the authority about woodworking from which many others find inspiration, and wish to emulate. I don't find it surprising that these seek to use his tools or follow in his footsteps. I could say the same about Rod Cosman, David Charlesworth and a number of others.

It is irrelevant whether Chris S benefits financially from his blog, directly or indirectly. Some of the time he is being provocative, and some of the time he posts educationally. It all draws publicity for Pop Wood magazine and his own company. Good for him. Without them we would all be the loser. As far as I am concerned it is a win-win situation.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Goodness, if his blog provides him publicity that makes him money and helps him promote his business, he has every right to do that. But when you seek advice about insurance from a dr. who has an insurance agent as a best friend, who do you think he'll send you to? It's not about whether or not the dr. would make money, it's about whether or not you're being given the best advice.

David Weaver

04-15-2014, 8:05 AM

Except, often it does.

Often it makes a difference to do better work? This goes back to a question earlier, I'm struggling to find when it does better work.This is an honest question, because I used to believe it, too, but it isn't the case. The lack of comfort with the stanley planes was because they didn't feel exactly like LNs (I had LNs first) and what really shook me out of needing premium planes was the realization that a mujingfang continental smoother or a stanley 4 does a faster job at removing end grain from a panel (trimming to the mark) than my LV LA jack did.

Pat Barry

04-15-2014, 8:20 AM

I always find the backlash argument hilarious, because I learned machining in a shop chock full of old Bridgeport mills and Hardinge, South Bend, Logan, and LeBlond lathes. All of these machines were 40, 50, 60 years old and had tons of backlash, and all of them were capable of making parts to 50 millionths tolerance. You simply made sure that you were always turning the lead screw into the cut, which is exactly what you do with a plane. You back off until you're not making the cut, then you slowly advance the depth until it's right. Yes, if you go too far, you have to turn the knob back a couple turns. So, you learn not to go too far. It's part of the process of becoming skilled with your tool.
The mills and lathes I was talking about above were extremely high quality tools, made when American machine tools were the envy of the world. I guarantee you they had zero backlash when they rolled off the assembly line, but after 40 or 50 years of regular use, the lead screws were very worn and had tons of backlash. Same thing with a hundred year old Stanley plane. I'd love to see how your LN plane is doing in a hundred years.
Yes, Steve, I know exactly what you are referring to as far as always have the screw loaded by turning the screw into the cut. To me that's common sense. I also have experience with the Bridgeport. The machinists I have worked with all would not stand for a sloppy lead screw. They would tear the machine apart and fix it because there is nothing more maddening than the lack of precision exhibited by a sloppy bearing. In fact, those bearings were purposely desinged to be pre-loaded in order to eliminate backlash. You won't find that on a Stanley. As far as your point about achieving tight tolerances with an old Bridgeport - not one with lots of backlash in the lead screws and ways I'll tell you that for sure. I'm quite happy with my new LV tool - I didn't buy it because of anything that CS had to say, it was from what I learned from folks right here on this site. I sure hope it lasts a while. No matter, in a 100 years there will be better tools available and I sure hope that whoever is suffering with the old one feels free to get the new tool.

I understand you yourself are a fine planemaker. I have heard that here from more than 1 person. How do you deal with the backlash problem in your own designs? That would be a refreshing change of pace to the controversy evident here with regard to old vs new tools, the never ending debate about chipbreakers (cap irons), etc.

Maybe back on topic with the hilarity aspect you bring up, have you done anything to improve the backlash on your old tools? What did you do? Maybe nothing except find it hilarious and laugh with love at the nuances of the crappy design?

Kees Heiden

04-15-2014, 8:31 AM

I protest against the notion that the Bailey design is a crappy design. It has been in production now for some 150 years, being sold millions of times. Not many modern inventions reach that kind of succes. In fact the LN planes copy the very same design, just with tighter tolerances.

The backlash is a bit of a nuisance, especially when you are a beginner who easilly overshoots his settings. But when you learn to live with it, it's not a big deal.

I think that the major advantage of the modern tools is the easy availability and the ease of use. A disadvantage is the price.

BTW, I don't think anyone in this thread has his nickers in a bunch. It's a pretty civil discussion until now, for SMC standards.

David Weaver

04-15-2014, 8:32 AM

lowell holmes

04-15-2014, 8:43 AM

I have LN planes. I sold a LN 4 1/2 to purchase a BU smoother.

My Bedrocks (604, 605, 607) have after market irons and breakers. They do really a nice job.
They all produce full width, translucent shavings if need be.

I also have a #3 Bailey with a modern Stanley iron and old breaker in it that is a favorite of mine.
It is comfortable to use and produces full width translucent shavings. I really like the feel and balance
of the plane. It was made in Canada and was a school plane in a previous life. So, go figure. . . .

Pat Barry

04-15-2014, 9:05 AM

I think you could only conclude the stanley planes were a "crappy design" if you know as much about them as the people who used them to make a living. They are, in fact, an absolutely genius design. One that clifton, Record and LN (and others) have copied almost almost dead copies of.

Like I said, if the backlash would've been a problem, the professional customers of stanley would've required it be dealt with. The fact that it wasn't should tell you something as a user.
Yes - the basic design of the plane is outstanding - I'm just venting about the sloppiness of the adjustment screw. It might be that was a huge step forward as compared to the tappy-tap methods of the past. No doubt. Its just the execution of the screw and coupling was done poorly. The advantage being that the screw turns so smoothly (exactly because it is sloppy). If they had tightened it up to eliminate backlash the knob would likely need to be turned with much more force so they found a balance point that worked. With today's modern machining equipment and knowledge of screw design they can do much better. I haven't looked at the new Stanley's so I'm not saying they never improved their mechanics like the LV tool I have experience with. And yes, like I've said before, I'm not an authority, just a semi-frustrated user. To me the backlash IS a problem. To you (and others) apparently you have bigger fish to fry - I understand that.

John Coloccia

04-15-2014, 10:49 AM

.... I want to believe that the old planes are just as good. I used to believe the old planes were just as good.

Well, I NEVER believed the old planes were just as good. While perhaps they can produce equivalent results, from a purely objective standpoint of the quality of the casting, machining, blade metallurgy...even just the blade thickness...it would be very difficult to come up with any standard where an old Stanley could ever measure up as "just as good".

It shouldn't be surprising that those who are used to the older planes might have a preference for older planes, and that newcomers that have no dog in the fight might prefer new planes once they've had a chance to use them. I think people are just looking for a way to make this controversial because they have a thing again Chris. I've met Chris a couple of times...he seems like a nice fellow. He says some dopey things in his blogs sometimes and he doesn't seem to have particularly thick skin (not good for someone in the public eye, I guess). This particular kerfuffle is a tempest in a teapot.

Jim Koepke

04-15-2014, 11:19 AM

Well, I NEVER believed the old planes were just as good.

Of course they are not "just as good." Though they are good enough for me. Backlash in the blade adjustment doesn't get me all upset.

I used to drive an old (even back then) 1957 VW bus. That thing took me more places than can be remembered. If instead at the time my ride was a new Chevrolet or Ford the ride may have been more comfortable, but the memories wouldn't be any better.

It is kind of like comparing one's wife of 30+ years to a bubbly college coed walking by in the produce section. (I hope my wife doesn't see this.) So often it comes down to what does one have more time or more money? An old coot like me ain't going to hook up with some "shiny new lady" without plenty of money so I will keep putting in the time.

It also makes me wonder how many people took their problem planes to the classes to have CS help them tune them? Holding a plane while "dialing up on their cell phone to order a new one" makes me think these students aren't financially restricted. For a lot of people having CS's blessing can move some tool prices upward.

I have had more than one plane that didn't want to be tuned without the aid of a machinist. I am not a machinist. This is just one of my reasons for preferring pre-WWII Stanley/Bailey planes.

My planes can pretty much match the results of a new plane, they are just a bit more fiddly. I kind of like fiddly.

jtk

Tom McMahon

04-15-2014, 11:49 AM

I've read this thread a couple of times with interest and I see it in a different light, maybe. The argument is about the wrong question, it doesn't matter if a modern plane is better than an old plane, that seems to depend on how you measure better. The real discussion should be about skill. It takes a certain amount of skill to prepare a surface with hand planes. A beginner may experience a level of frustration at first using an old out of tune plane. There are two solutions to the problem, do the research, learn and develop the skill necessary to use the plane or go buy a new better plane. Just because your new plane makes nice shavings out of the box doesn't mean you now can now prep your stock using hand planes. You cannot buy skill, by buying a new plane you may have actually set yourself back in skill developmental. What Mr. Schwarz didn't say in his post is how he had set up the new planes were the irons cambered, was the chip breaker ground etc.

Pat Barry

04-15-2014, 12:30 PM

It is kind of like comparing one's wife of 30+ years to a bubbly college coed walking by in the produce section. (I hope my wife doesn't see this.) So often it comes down to what does one have more time or more money? An old coot like me ain't going to hook up with some "shiny new lady" without plenty of money so I will keep putting in the time.
My planes can pretty much match the results of a new plane, they are just a bit more fiddly. I kind of like fiddly.
jtk
I do like your perspective Jim :)

Derek Cohen

04-15-2014, 12:45 PM

Of course they are not "just as good." Though they are good enough for me. Backlash in the blade adjustment doesn't get me all upset.

I used to drive an old (even back then) 1957 VW bus. That thing took me more places than can be remembered. If instead at the time my ride was a new Chevrolet or Ford the ride may have been more comfortable, but the memories wouldn't be any better.

It is kind of like comparing one's wife of 30+ years to a bubbly college coed walking by in the produce section. (I hope my wife doesn't see this.) So often it comes down to what does one have more time or more money? An old coot like me ain't going to hook up with some "shiny new lady" without plenty of money so I will keep putting in the time.

It also makes me wonder how many people took their problem planes to the classes to have CS help them tune them? Holding a plane while "dialing up on their cell phone to order a new one" makes me think these students aren't financially restricted. For a lot of people having CS's blessing can move some tool prices upward.

I have had more than one plane that didn't want to be tuned without the aid of a machinist. I am not a machinist. This is just one of my reasons for preferring pre-WWII Stanley/Bailey planes.

My planes can pretty much match the results of a new plane, they are just a bit more fiddly. I kind of like fiddly.

jtk

Great post Jim!

Regards from Perth

Derek

David Weaver

04-15-2014, 12:49 PM

It may not seem like it, but I have really enjoyed this discussion - when everyone gets a little vented, that's when we talk fairly unrestricted and that's (like it or not) when most people learn things and when most people learn things that they thought were true might not be. I always learn more in discussions like this than I do when there's a long discussion filled with "yes, great!!" comments, and everyone who disagrees runs away so as not to spoil the flow of the thread.

jamie shard

04-15-2014, 2:15 PM

I've enjoyed this thread too. It's been fun to kick around what "just as good" means. It's interesting that for some people, it means "it works just as good" and for others it means "it is engineered just as good"... the latter would never cross my mind as what "just as good" means in everyday usage.

It's clear that new planes are great out of the box and there can be a satisfaction in using well-machined tools. But it seems a bit disrespectful of any working tool to say that it is somehow deficient if it is performing well. It kinda reminds me of the saying "that may work in practice, but it doesn't work in theory." :D

Roger Rettenmeier

04-15-2014, 2:47 PM

Why is there so much energy being put into defending expensive premium tools? Rather than a debate about tool choices, it's gotten very personal and emotional for some people.

Seems to me there are 2 camps. The first camp says the expensive planes are really nice but you can slice wood just the same with a vintage tool. The other camp says, Nooooooo! Expensive planes are better and saying anything different is a personal attack and wrong and mean.

I can't recall anyone who favors the vintage tools saying anything negative about the premium tools or someone's decision to buy them.
I haven't used an expensive newer plane. My preference is to spend the time vs the money, and learn with the older turn of the century planes. It seems to be a matter of preference. I like tinkering with metal and wood, and also giving these old tools a new lease on life. I also like the idea that some craftsman from 100 years ago was using this same tool. Of course, with a 100 year old tool "buyer beware" becomes a necessity.

Robert Hazelwood

04-15-2014, 4:58 PM

I figure that the guys he's talking about that have "super tuned" their vintage planes are pretty big tool nerds. They are OCD and enjoy the process of bringing an old tool into 'perfect' condition, for it's own sake. They are a bit beyond the "rational Neanderthal" who just fixes whatever needs fixing to get it working and moves on. They might even prefer the idea of making an old tool 'perfect' over buying a pre-made 'perfect' tool- because what's the fun in that? So they are naturally curious when picking up one of these modern industrial masterpieces. And the heft of these planes, the precision with which everything is ground, the lack of slop or backlash on the adjusters...it just kind of exudes the perfection they are so OCD about, in a way that even the most hyper-tuned Stanley could never do. So, they get a private thrill out of holding and using them. They might even appreciate it so much that they want to buy one. And none of this would necessarily mean that they were impressed with the difference in actual woodworking performance- Schwarz never gave an example of that. It could simply be that they (perhaps overly) value the perception of quality and perfection. Not too different from someone who would pay for a Rolex vs. a Timex.

I can see a little bit of that in myself. There's something about the feel of the LN/LV planes that I really like- it's almost similar to the way I would admire a nice piece of furniture. It's not even really a question of function.

Roger Rettenmeier

04-15-2014, 8:40 PM

Seems like we're on the same page. Both watches keep time.

Kees Heiden

04-16-2014, 3:38 AM

I was thinking (dangerous!) about this thread in the train this morning about the engineering aspects of LN versus antique Stanley planes. What's different?

- Backlash of the adjuster. That sure is less in the LN. And less is better, even if you can live with a bit of slop.
- Thicker blade. With the available sharpening media available today that isn't a bad development. Back in the day a thin blade was easier to keep sharp.
- Blade steel. The old cast iron blades from Stanley were pretty good, certainly no worse then O1 and ideally suited for the available sharpening stones. A2 doesn't seem to be so hot as it was touted to be, but isn't bad either.
- The improved capiron isn't much of an improvement at all. The only improvement is that they come tightly fitted to the blade from the factory, no aditional flattening work neccessary. But they lack the usefull spring from the Stanley design. And they come standard with a 25 degree bevel that is too low to be usefull for bending the shavings.
- The weight of the plane. For a professional who does all dimensioning by hand a heavier plane is not a good idea. For the hobbyist market it probably doesn't make a difference.
- The ductile iron. When you drop the plane on a concrete floor it survives. But dropping your planes is pretty stupid to begin with, and not part of the daily routine of using the plane. Ductile iron is softer then the gray cast iron used in the old Stanleys. It scratches easier, and will wear in the usual spots faster. Again no problem for the hobbyist, but a professional who does loads of edge jointing day in day out, it certainly is a problem. Especially because they didn't have PSA aluoxide sandpaper back then, not even floatglass. Wearing a groove down the length of an iron plane must have been a big problem for a woodworker.
- The handles. Stanley used beautifull rosewood, and LN quite bland cherry. But from an environmetal point of view that is actually a good idea.

So overall, I'm not so sure about which one is better. It depends on the market too. For the professional market back in the 19th century, the Stanley was probably a better plane then the LN would have been. Nowadays most woodworkers using handplanes are hobbyists who have different needs. The old Stanleys are often worn by now, which makes them less ideal for a beginner. The biggest asset of the LN plane is that you can buy them now, mostly ready out of the box with a guarantee for life.

David Weaver

04-16-2014, 7:53 AM

That's a pretty good summary, Kees.

Derek Cohen

04-16-2014, 9:26 AM

Hi Kees

You have put a lot of thought into this reply. It is worth a comment or two. In some areas I agree, and others I have a different perspective ....

I was thinking (dangerous!) about this thread in the train this morning about the engineering aspects of LN versus antique Stanley planes. What's different?

- Backlash of the adjuster. That sure is less in the LN. And less is better, even if you can live with a bit of slop.

Agree.

- Thicker blade. With the available sharpening media available today that isn't a bad development. Back in the day a thin blade was easier to keep sharp.

Some will argue that thin is easier to sharp, and some will point out that thicker has less flex, especially relevant in a BD plane. It also depends on whether the blade uses a chipbreaker or not.

- Blade steel. The old cast iron blades from Stanley were pretty good, certainly no worse then O1 and ideally suited for the available sharpening stones. A2 doesn't seem to be so hot as it was touted to be, but isn't bad either.

Wood selection is paramount here. Over the weekend I was planing boards with Terry Gordon (HNT Gordon), and he commented how abrasive many Australian woods are. He sells a great deal of HSS blades. Blades made of the Veritas PM-V11 steel have a place, not only in my world, but for those who just want an edge that lasts longer. These steels are also fairly easy to hone.

- The improved capiron isn't much of an improvement at all. The only improvement is that they come tightly fitted to the blade from the factory, no aditional flattening work neccessary. But they lack the usefull spring from the Stanley design. And they come standard with a 25 degree bevel that is too low to be usefull for bending the shavings.

I disagree here - there is sufficient tension achieved in both LV and LN chip breakers. The extra spring in the Stanley can, in fact, make it more difficult to set up. It takes less time to hone a 45 degree bevel on the LN and LV than it takes to flatten the underside of a Stanley leading edge. Note that I am just pointing out that they are different designs and both work well as long as you are familiar with your choice.

- The weight of the plane. For a professional who does all dimensioning by hand a heavier plane is not a good idea. For the hobbyist market it probably doesn't make a difference.

There are very few professional woodworkers who do all their dimensioning by hand. I do not know of any in Australia. Professionals here use machines to dimension boards and may use handplanes to finish.

- The ductile iron. When you drop the plane on a concrete floor it survives. But dropping your planes is pretty stupid to begin with, and not part of the daily routine of using the plane.

Ductile iron is softer then the gray cast iron used in the old Stanleys. It scratches easier, and will wear in the usual spots faster. Again no problem for the hobbyist, but a professional who does loads of edge jointing day in day out, it certainly is a problem. Especially because they didn't have PSA aluoxide sandpaper back then, not even floatglass. Wearing a groove down the length of an iron plane must have been a big problem for a woodworker.

I have never dropped a plane (touch wood!), but I am reassured knowing that my ductile planes are unlikely to be damaged in the event of an accident.

- The handles. Stanley used beautifull rosewood, and LN quite bland cherry. But from an environmetal point of view that is actually a good idea.

The wood used in a handle can be swapped out, as one pleases. I have done so on many occasions. Indeed, I do not hesitate to modify my tools as I see fit. I would not choose a plane based upon a replaceable/alterable item.

So overall, I'm not so sure about which one is better. It depends on the market too. For the professional market back in the 19th century, the Stanley was probably a better plane then the LN would have been.

Few 19th Century woodworkers would have chosen a Stanley over the better-made LN.

Nowadays most woodworkers using handplanes are hobbyists who have different needs. The old Stanleys are often worn by now, which makes them less ideal for a beginner. The biggest asset of the LN plane is that you can buy them now, mostly ready out of the box with a guarantee for life.

Hobbyists are not the only ones purchasing LN and LV handplanes. Time is money for a busy professional. Most I know would rather spend their time producing furniture than setting up a handplane. One of the assets of a LN or LV is not simply their build quality, but that they are reliable and ready to be used out of the box.

Regards from Perth

Derek

David Weaver

04-16-2014, 9:42 AM

Derek, if an LN would've been double the cost, which is probably what it would've been vs. the far more efficient manufacturing of stanley, I seriously doubt many would've paid the difference in the 19th century.

In terms of the rosewood, purchasing a quartered piece to make a knob (and then turning it) and purchasing a quartered or rift board big enough to make a handle is not trivial. LN's cocobolo handles and knobs were wonderful, but they eventually upcharged $50 for them (instead of the initial $25) and quit. The fact that a $300-$475 plane has cherry handles on it is a fairly big deal.

The spring in a stanley cap iron does not make the plane more difficult to set up, it in fact gives a wider working range of the screw that retains the lever cap and gives the lever cap cam a much better feel. LVs don't use that cam, but the threaded screw that is used instead is less elegant and kind of cheapish appearing (partially because it's something that's associated with low-cost planes from the 50s. It's also associated with infill, but the screw on infills is pretty substantial and usually decorative to some extent. Both types of cap irons work, but there is nothing tricky about the stanley cap iron.

Flex in an iron is no issue once one learns to use a cap iron properly. If it would have been an issue, stanley would've made their irons thicker. It *is* an issue in early single iron wooden planes, but steel was a substantial cost when they were made.

95% of the woodworking world is not hand planing abrasive woods, so wondersteel irons are a draw to amateurs more than they are a practical solution. That said, mujingfang's irons last as long as anything and they're about ten bucks. I'd rather keep a plane aside with one of their irons for the very few times (planing cocobolo, maybe) that someone in the US would need the edge holding and have a carbon steel iron for everything else. For the same reason, there's no great reason to have heavy planes here, and I wouldn't want them as my normal planes. I did keep one heavy infill and it's nice to use sometimes - it's fun to bull it through wood, but if I was only to have one plane, I'd rather have a stanley 6 or a wooden fore plane than the infill. The infill is, however, less heavy than LN 8 that I used to have, and is probably similar in weight to the LN 7. My LN 7 was an excellent plane, but in the end, I don't use it for anything I couldn't use a millers falls 7 for - I'd call it a tossup, though. I much favor the LN 7 vs. the 8 for heavier work (planing edges would be no big deal, you don't do that much planing) because the 7 is much lighter. Anyway, we really don't have a practical place over here for 5 1/2 or 6 pound smoothers. Even the bedrock 4 1/2s, which are about 5 pounds, have a clunky overly heavy feel to them once you get used to a #4, but when you use the bedrock for a while, you don't go back to the 4 and think it's whiffy, rather that it's nimble.

(all of this, as you say, is perpsectives - but I seriously doubt a professional using planes would so quickly decide to spend much more on an LN plane - based on the old catalog prices for union and stanley planes, I'd guess that a lie nielsen would be at least 2 to 3 times as expensive as a comparable stanley. A stanley would've been a day's wage for a skilled worker around 1900, but productivity in the economy has made even inflation adjusted wages hard to compare because that still assumes that the % of income individuals had that was disposable would be the same, and that's not the case).

Daniel Rode

04-16-2014, 10:02 AM

I don't think this point can overstated. They were not intended to be collector's items or hobbyists toys. A Timex watch rather than a Rolex. A Chevy pickup rather than a Jaguar. Stanley made planes to be used daily by working craftsman. The design and manufacturing were intended to deliver a specific level of quality and functionality at a specific price point.

if an LN would've been double the cost, which is probably what it would've been vs. the far more efficient manufacturing of stanley, I
seriously doubt many would've paid the difference in the 19th century.

Kees Heiden

04-16-2014, 10:11 AM

Few 19th Century woodworkers would have chosen a Stanley over the better-made LN.
.

Legions of 19th and early 20th century woodworkers choose to continue working and buying beech planes instead of Stanley. Price was a strong argument but many also believed the beech plane was better.

Andrew Fleck

04-16-2014, 10:21 AM

I've been following this thread along without much to say until I read these last couple of posts. It got me thinking of how this compares to today. I'm not aware of many high end plane manufacturers in the 19th century. I think the choices were pretty much limited to Stanley or Stanley like planes.

When I used to to be a carpenter it was not uncommon to see a framer using a $150-$250 framing hammer. It always seemed like a status thing to me. I used a 20 oz Craftsman framing hammer that pounded nails just their Vaughns or whatever brand did that were triple or quadruple the cost of mine. Mine was cheap because I was just starting out and couldn't afford one of those nice hammers, but it worked just fine.

If LN was around in the 19th century I think people would have bought them if for nothing else but a status symbol.

Derek Cohen

04-16-2014, 10:26 AM

Hi David,

My replies are imbedded ...

Derek, if an LN would've been double the cost, which is probably what it would've been vs. the far more efficient manufacturing of stanley, I seriously doubt many would've paid the difference in the 19th century.

David, everything is relative. You are assuming that a LN would have cost (relatively) twice a Stanley in the 19th century. Or that the Stanley would not cost (relatively) the same as the LN today. Anyway, this is not simply about cost (or relative cost); it is about quality. A good workman would have set his/her sights on the best tool available.

In terms of the rosewood, purchasing a quartered piece to make a knob (and then turning it) and purchasing a quartered or rift board big enough to make a handle is not trivial. LN's cocobolo handles and knobs were wonderful, but they eventually upcharged $50 for them (instead of the initial $25) and quit. The fact that a $300-$475 plane has cherry handles on it is a fairly big deal.

I don't understand what the issue is. Rosewood or Cocobolo or Cherry - the choice is yours ... at a price. It always costs. Either a manufacturer builds the cost in, or gives you the choice of an optional extra. Car manufacturers do this all the time.

The spring in a stanley cap iron does not make the plane more difficult to set up, it in fact gives a wider working range of the screw that retains the lever cap and gives the lever cap cam a much better feel. LVs don't use that cam, but the threaded screw that is used instead is less elegant and kind of cheapish appearing (partially because it's something that's associated with low-cost planes from the 50s. It's also associated with infill, but the screw on infills is pretty substantial and usually decorative to some extent. Both types of cap irons work, but there is nothing tricky about the stanley cap iron.

David, you have too many thoughts going at once. I'll try and answer each. Firstly, the Stanley chipbreaker's flex causes the leading edge to move when it is tightened/loosened. It has to be adjusted differently to the LN and LV, being solid. These are more predictable. Secondly, you introduce a cam, and thirdly you add a comment about appearance, and finally you comment about infills. I think that is more than the original issue.

Flex in an iron is no issue once one learns to use a cap iron properly. If it would have been an issue, stanley would've made their irons thicker. It *is* an issue in early single iron wooden planes, but steel was a substantial cost when they were made.

Flex is flex. Stanley irons flex. Flex causes chatter. LN and LV blades do not flex and (unless there is a loose screw or the blade is dull), they do not chatter. Not everyone knows how to use a chip breaker properly, nor wishes to do so - that is not a criticism of the chipbreaker, nor of those that use them, just a statement to ensure that the comparison is apples and apples ... plane and plane.

95% of the woodworking world is not hand planing abrasive woods, so wondersteel irons are a draw to amateurs more than they are a practical solution. If I were a pro, I would want to minimise down time. The "wondersteels" offer this advantage on all kinds of woods, not just the Australian abrasive variety. That said, mujingfang's irons last as long as anything and they're about ten bucks. You're off on a tangent again. I thought this was about supertuned Stanleys and LN/LV? I'd rather keep a plane aside with one of their irons for the very few times (planing cocobolo, maybe) that someone in the US would need the edge holding and have a carbon steel iron for everything else. For the same reason, there's no great reason to have heavy planes here, and I wouldn't want them as my normal planes. I did keep one heavy infill and it's nice to use sometimes - it's fun to bull it through wood, but if I was only to have one plane, I'd rather have a stanley 6 or a wooden fore plane than the infill. The infill is, however, less heavy than LN 8 that I used to have, and is probably similar in weight to the LN 7. My LN 7 was an excellent plane, but in the end, I don't use it for anything I couldn't use a millers falls 7 for - I'd call it a tossup, though. I much favor the LN 7 vs. the 8 for heavier work (planing edges would be no big deal, you don't do that much planing) because the 7 is much lighter. Anyway, we really don't have a practical place over here for 5 1/2 or 6 pound smoothers. Even the bedrock 4 1/2s, which are about 5 pounds, have a clunky overly heavy feel to them once you get used to a #4, but when you use the bedrock for a while, you don't go back to the 4 and think it's whiffy, rather that it's nimble. You sort of lost me a while back ...

(all of this, as you say, is perpsectives - but I seriously doubt a professional using planes would so quickly decide to spend much more on an LN plane - based on the old catalog prices for union and stanley planes, I'd guess that a lie nielsen would be at least 2 to 3 times as expensive as a comparable stanley. A stanley would've been a day's wage for a skilled worker around 1900, but productivity in the economy has made even inflation adjusted wages hard to compare because that still assumes that the % of income individuals had that was disposable would be the same, and that's not the case).

That is a value judgement, not a factual statement. I know plenty of pros that use LN and LV planes in their work today. Are they not doing the same work as their kin of yesteryear? They could choose cheaper tools? Some will, and some won't.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Sean Hughto

04-16-2014, 10:28 AM

I'm not a plane historian, but there were certainly super high end infills available in olden times.

As for framing hammers, if you are swinging one all day, the more expensive ones are lighter and more ergonomic which translates to avoiding arthritis and carpal tunnel etc. The 18 year old on the job site may not notice or care.

David Weaver

04-16-2014, 10:31 AM

Certainly some would have. If the framers had to buy half a dozen hammers, and 50 other little things (like carving tools, etc) they might have been a bit more cautious about spending money on status tools. I have seen the same around here, though, too. There are guys on both ends. The contractor who lives across from me and still does a lot of his work himself (as opposed to subbing out everything) came to my house with his hammer to pull some things loose on a porch to do an estimate. It was the most used up looking hammer I ever saw, and I looked at my hammers and I thought "ghee, I've got 10 times the money in my hammers and he's got 10,000 times the use".

When he showed up on the first day to redo my porch, that same hammer was back again.

Now, as hobbyists, we don't really have to worry about it. Who are we going to impress with status tools? In general, I've found the less I talk about woodworking, the better - most of my friends and wife's friends are busy talking about where they're going to go out to eat, where they'll go on vacation, or what's on the next episode of the apprentice or something. No talk about woodworking registers, and if anything, it ends with "hey, I want to redo something in my living room, can I borrow your tools"?

The further I go along, the more I feel like I'd like to wear some tools out, but it's just another personal preference thing. I haven't grasped the concept yet on sharpening stones.

Andrew Fleck

04-16-2014, 10:42 AM

Sean,
Thast makes sense. I'm not sure I even knew what carpal tunnel was when I was 18, but there wasn't many guys framing with us that were much older than 40. I can still remember people bragging about their hammers and making fun of mine. They didn't seem very concerned about long term health issues. It was more of a look at my shiny hammer kind of thing. I'm not saying everyone was like that, but people are people and they tend to do that with a lot of things.

Andrew Fleck

04-16-2014, 10:49 AM

That's a good point. Framers certainly don't need nearly as many tools to get the job done. It may have been a bad example on my part. Oh well, just speculating anyway. That's why I post on here....I don't have anybody else to talk to about woodworking. I actually don't even tell a lot of people that I woodwork. That usually leads to people asking if I can build this or that.

Sean Hughto

04-16-2014, 10:54 AM

No doubt you could drive a nail with a brick - it's all a continuum. The guys I worked with with the fancy Eastwings and so forth could show me the weight difference and how they could drive the nail cleanly in three swings where it took me six or whatever. No doubt they were also bragging about their fancy tool and like the sort of connotation of journeymen status, but there were real differences too.

David Weaver

04-16-2014, 11:09 AM

It may have been a bad example on my part.

Well, not too bad. It's hard to compare a cabinetmaker to someone who wasn't a cabinetmaker, but your illustration does make the point that not every craftsman acts rationally in terms of dollars.

For some of us, it might be buying nice pens, etc (if anyone writes anymore).

Daniel Rode

04-16-2014, 11:14 AM

Oh, the memories... The first nice tool I ever bought was an Eastwing hammer. I was about 17 and most of the profit from laying a tile floor went to buy that hammer. I still have and I still use it.

No doubt you could drive a nail with a brick - it's all a continuum. The guys I worked with with the fancy Eastwings and so forth could show me the weight difference and how they could drive the nail cleanly in three swings where it took me six or whatever. No doubt they were also bragging about their fancy tool and like the sort of connotation of journeymen status, but there were real differences too.

David Weaver

04-16-2014, 11:21 AM

Derek, your points still don't hold water. There were still cabinetmakers alive when my grandparents bought furniture. Their name is on the inside of the furniture that was sold or inherited when my grandparents died. They did not use hand tools much, but must have some (none of the dovetails were machine made, etc). The mentality about money around here (or where I grew up) would not permit most individuals to spend money on things they didn't need. No estate sales have unearthed infill planes or anything else expensive from that time period.

A friend of mine's father was an english carpenter, by trade. His tools were all modest. he had one single infill, a bullnose that was in disrepair that I'd assume he got at a boot sale or from someone who didn't want it. a 4, a 5 and a spent record 5 1/2 were in his tool kit - he could've afforded more expensive tools but did not have them. He used those planes heavily, too, they were worn out as were his sharpening stones. Most would've thrown them all away

The notion that craftsmen go out and "buy the best tool they can" is false, at least here, they had an eye on the bottom line and most where I'm from (based on the tools) behaved a lot more like warren does now than someone planning to buy a tool that had specifications that didn't add practical value, but added a lot of price.

I cannot reiterate how inaccurate the statement is about the stanley cap iron, though. once the cap iron is lightly finger tightened and then moved into place, it may move a thousandth or two. I also cannot reiterate how inaccurate the implication is that the stanley iron is somehow flexing in use and there is something detrimental going on because of it. The benefit of the additional rigidity of the thicker irons when there is a cap iron in place is zero. If there is chatter, the plane is not set up correctly.

I used to believe all of that stuff about the thick irons. It only took working with thin irons in stanley planes for a while to eliminate those thoughts. They don't chatter. They do grind two to three times as fast and lend themselves favorably to more sharpening mediums, and respond better to a bare leather strop. The modern irons are excellent irons, but most of the attributes that are given to them don't really provide any time savings in the kinds of things we plane here, nor any visible difference in any results.

Dave Anderson NH

04-16-2014, 11:27 AM

Egads, what does rational thinking have to do with owning or buying tools?:eek: We all have attitudes about tools, it's just that our attitudes run the gamut from pretending we make rational choices to those who just say, "I want...." or "because I can". The hard part is admitting that no choice ever made is totally rational. All choices originate with a prejudice no matter how subtle.

David Weaver

04-16-2014, 11:41 AM

Dave, I think the fact that we're woodworking at all isn't rational! I often say to my wife (when she says the price of something is too high), "well, I couldn't make it for less than that by the time I bought proper materials".

It's fun to pretend that we have pockets of rationality needed within a hobby that doesn't really provide us with any economic utility, anyway (for those of us who are pure hobbyists). I guess the utility is in preventing an idle mind.

Pat Barry

04-16-2014, 11:49 AM

As for framing hammers, if you are swinging one all day, the more expensive ones are lighter and more ergonomic which translates to avoiding arthritis and carpal tunnel etc. The 18 year old on the job site may not notice or care.
Framing hammers are pretty much the same weight. The expensive ones may be better balanced, have better ergonomics to the handle, etc

Sean Hughto

04-16-2014, 11:51 AM

It's been 25years, but I thought the titanium ones were supposed to be lighter, but gave the same swing force with length or some such? I defer to experts and plead weak memory of the details.

Sean Hughto

04-16-2014, 11:53 AM

http://www.amazon.com/Stiletto-TI14MC-14-OunceTitanium-Framing-Hammer/dp/B00002265Y

Kees Heiden

04-16-2014, 12:00 PM

Few 19th Century woodworkers would have chosen a Stanley over the better-made LN.

Been thinking about it a little more. We actually have a precedent. The Bedrock planes never were a commercial success like the Bailey planes were. Most woodworkers obviously didn't see the advantages, but they did see the higher price. Add to that the A2 irons incompatible with their novaculate stones, the softer castings and the not so much improved chipbreaker, and I don't see a big selling point.

Pat Barry

04-16-2014, 12:04 PM

http://www.amazon.com/Stiletto-TI14MC-14-OunceTitanium-Framing-Hammer/dp/B00002265Y

Must be the LN of the hammer world. Then again it might be like the titanium golf clubs you can buy now. Everything keeps improving (except hand planes)LOL

Andrew Fleck

04-16-2014, 12:18 PM

Must be the LN of the hammer world. Then again it might be like the titanium golf clubs you can buy now. Everything keeps improving (except hand planes)LOL

This one http://www.amazon.com/Stiletto-TB15SC-TiBone-15-Ounce-Titanium/dp/B00006RGL0/ref=sr_1_8?s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid=1397665027&sr=1-8&keywords=stiletto+hammer is more like the LN of the hammer world.

george wilson

04-16-2014, 12:53 PM

Sean Hughto

04-16-2014, 1:03 PM

It escapes me how a hammer can be lighter,but hit as hard!!

physics

head speed, swing arc, etc.

Joe Leigh

04-16-2014, 1:45 PM

Force = mass (x) velocity.

Less weight equals greater head speed. (at least that's the premise by which they sell $400 drivers).

John Coloccia

04-16-2014, 2:03 PM

They're probably much stiffer too. More speed, more stiffness and better mass distribution makes up for the reduction in weight.

Dave Anderson NH

04-16-2014, 2:18 PM

Actually Pat the last bit of your post should have been "they've improved everything but the golfer"

Niels Cosman

04-16-2014, 3:14 PM

Wilbur Pan

04-16-2014, 3:43 PM

In terms of the rosewood, purchasing a quartered piece to make a knob (and then turning it) and purchasing a quartered or rift board big enough to make a handle is not trivial. LN's cocobolo handles and knobs were wonderful, but they eventually upcharged $50 for them (instead of the initial $25) and quit. The fact that a $300-$475 plane has cherry handles on it is a fairly big deal.

There’s a very practical reason Lie-Nielsen uses cherry instead of rosewood for their handles. One by one, all the Lie-Nielsen workers who worked on the rosewood/cocobolo handles developed allergies to those species.

I like the look of the cherry handles, myself.

David Weaver

04-16-2014, 4:02 PM

Wilbur, I agree. I was in a rush this morning and forgot to mention the allergy part of the explanation. That wasn't the initial reason for use of cherry, though (which was standard before anyone was allergic to it). Those have been my only two bits of contention with LN planes (aside from the weight in some of them), the cherry handles as standard and their inability to make a depth adjustment knob that has even as much style as a stanley.

One gets used to the cherry, but I do recall how offputting I found the second plane I got (cherry) after I spent the $$ to get the first one in cocobolo. It's uncommon enough now that when you see one with cocobolo, it looks funny. Were I to buy a new one, I'd gladly pay even $50 extra to get the cocobolo (and at the time they were $50, I recall TLN saying they were down to one person who wasn't yet allergic).

(it's been about 6 years now since any were available, according to the magic old post finder in SMC).

Shawn Pixley

04-16-2014, 5:52 PM

Force = mass (x) velocity.

Less weight equals greater head speed. (at least that's the premise by which they sell $400 drivers).

Just like baseball bats. A heavier bat does not necessarilly allow you to hit a ball harder. The right bat is the longest and heaviest that you can swing rapidly enough to make proper contact with a pitched ball. Too many use bats that are too heavy for them. They can't catch up to the ball or can't get enough velocity on the swing.

There would be of course factors of resiliency and center of mass of the swung object.

Edward Miller

04-16-2014, 7:31 PM

It escapes me how a hammer can be lighter,but hit as hard!! Titanium must be a magical metal. I have worked titanium a little bit(of course there are many alloys),and it is pretty tough,light,and even took a decent edge when I honed it(it wasn't REAL hard),but the hammer thing puzzles me.

And,I CAN be pretty irrational about tool buying,or sometimes what I'll take the trouble to make!!:)

I can't speak to why, but I can say from experience that the titanium-headed framing hammers drive nails a good bit faster than the more traditional steel-headed versions. A nail that required four or five blows to drive with my (steel, 24-oz) hammer can be driven with about three blows from an 18-oz titanium-headed hammer. They work, and work pretty well, though they are pricy. If you're working a full day on a habitat build, that ~25% reduction in hammer strikes for the same work can really change how your hand feels at the end of the day.

Jim Foster

04-17-2014, 8:07 AM

The framing pros I have seen that make a living with a hammer (not a gun) are not taking 4 or 5 swings to drive a nail.

I can't speak to why, but I can say from experience that the titanium-headed framing hammers drive nails a good bit faster than the more traditional steel-headed versions. A nail that required four or five blows to drive with my (steel, 24-oz) hammer can be driven with about three blows from an 18-oz titanium-headed hammer. They work, and work pretty well, though they are pricy. If you're working a full day on a habitat build, that ~25% reduction in hammer strikes for the same work can really change how your hand feels at the end of the day.

Brian Holcombe

04-17-2014, 8:32 AM

In spite if this thread I bought a LN #7 and just yesterday jointed two 6' x 16" wide ash slabs with it. Shiny planes do work as well.

I did chose the 7 over the 8 for the weight reason, pushing an 8lb plane is enough.

Mel Fulks

04-17-2014, 9:51 AM

A contractor friend had a carpenter who was extremely fast and drove large nails with two blows. The guy quit and moved
to California. He was jealously considered an intolerable oddball by other workers and fired. Don't know if it was a union
thing or what. Came back here and did all again.

steven c newman

04-17-2014, 3:43 PM

Used to tap a 7 once to set, and one good hit to bury it. Before they brought in the nail guns, this was the way to hang osb board sheathing. Mine was( well two were) long wood handled 24 rip claws. Vaughn and Craftsman , I think. They used to call mine a "War Club".....

Over six years as a conrete form carpenter. Also did a lot of "Rod buster" work. At one time, I used to love the smell of form oil in the morning, smelled like MONEY, to me...

David Weaver

04-17-2014, 3:45 PM

I would bet most of the folks on here haven't driven framing nails seriously, and I'm included in that.

When I got married, a friend of mine gave me a 28 ounce framing hammer. I'm still trying to figure out what I'd ever do with it. If it's tough for someone who had a strong shoulder, a guy with one that's not exercised (like me)...i have no idea how I'd swing it for more than a few nails. Swing it slow, I guess.

Andrew Fleck

04-17-2014, 3:52 PM

I used to do it, but that was before nail guns took over framing. 20oz was about right for working all day for most of us. It's a good all around weight for 16p and 8p nails.

steven c newman

04-17-2014, 4:13 PM

Use the entire length of the handle, do not use the elbow to swing. Let the weight of the hammer do the work. Simple stuff. You might "choke up" on the handle to start a nail ( one or two taps) then a full, whole arm from the shoulder down swing. Both of my 24s hand a ring of tape down at the end of the handle, that was as far down as I went. Too sweaty of hands tends to let things fly away. The ring was to keep things from going airborne....

Now adays, it is the 16s and 7 oz hammers. More taps, less violence. But, if the need arises, then the full swing will be there. Elbow is still fine, too. Haven't worn it out from a hammer. 12 oz curls, though......

John Sanford

04-17-2014, 6:52 PM

Moses Yoder

04-27-2014, 1:38 PM

I have the Lie Nielson 60-1/2R, traded for an ivory rule, and the 101 won at a planing contest. I have two Knight planes, one won in a planing contest and the other sent to me gratis by a fellow commiserator. My wife bought the Lee Valley medium shoulder plane for me for Christmas one year. I have about a hundred vintage cast iron planes; I have Stanley #2 through #8 bench planes, a number of Bedrock, and various other brands. A plane is a simple function of having a good sharp iron and how it meets the sole at the mouth. Very simple. On all of my new planes, every single one, the only thing I had to do in order to make the plane perform well was to sharpen the iron. That's it. Nothing else. On all of my vintage planes I started out by reading about how to flatten the sole, etc. I spent hours on them. I progressed to where the only thing I worried about was to make sure the frog face was flat and the frog bedded well, the sole was straight and the area in front of the mouth flat and the mouth was parallel to the iron. On the ones I actually used I replaced the iron with a new Hock, an expensive proposition. Most of the new irons cost me 5 or 10 times what the plane cost me. I find their is no comparison between a vintage Stanley iron and a new Hock iron. I will gladly argue that point. In other words, to put a new plane to work took me about 15 minutes and to put a vintage plane to work took me about 10 years of experience then anywhere from an hour to 4 hours. More if I decided to restore it, re-japan, make new tote and knob, etc. You can actually put more than 20 hours into one vintage plane.

So how does the decision on whether to buy new or vintage in any way relate to whether the vintage plane can be fettled to work as well as a new one? It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with whether you have the skill to fettle a vintage plane, whether that is what you want to do with your time, but mostly I think it has to do with how much they cost.

Jim Koepke

04-27-2014, 1:52 PM

[Some content removed for brevity.]

So how does the decision on whether to buy new or vintage in any way relate to whether the vintage plane can be fettled to work as well as a new one? It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with whether you have the skill to fettle a vintage plane, whether that is what you want to do with your time, but mostly I think it has to do with how much they cost.

The old saw of having money and little time comes to mind.

It is also easy to understan some folks just do not like "getting dirty" working metal. Hopefully those who feel thusly can understand the other side of the coin being some of us do enjoy "getting dirty" working metal.

Even though my time seems to be filled, I still have more time to spare than money to spare. Any money spent on new must be carefully considered. Same with any money spent on a tool to restore. Though it is much easier for me to talk SWMBO into spending $25 than $250 for another acquisition.

jtk

Tom Stenzel

04-28-2014, 9:16 AM

Mike Cogswell

05-06-2014, 8:21 PM

popularwoodworking.com/woodworking-blogs/chris-schwarz-blog/observation-vintage-handplanes

Actually I don't really have an opinion about this. I live in ignorant bliss regarding new planes.

I can't help but wonder if Chris hasn't overlooked an obvious reason: the students chose one of the new planes that he just sharpened over their "super tuned" vintage plane. The fact that they cleaned up an old plane and fitted it with a new chip breaker and blade doesn't equate to them knowing how to shapen and adjust it properly. Maybe if Chris tuned and sharpened their antique they would use it instead of one of his.

John Coloccia

05-06-2014, 8:53 PM

I can't help but wonder if Chris hasn't overlooked an obvious reason: the students chose one of the new planes that he just sharpened over their "super tuned" vintage plane. The fact that they cleaned up an old plane and fitted it with a new chip breaker and blade doesn't equate to them knowing how to shapen and adjust it properly. Maybe if Chris tuned and sharpened their antique they would use it instead of one of his.

It's possible, but the newer ones generally have more mass, thicker irons, and better mechanisms. It's hard to find a reason to recommend an antique plane...even a well tuned one...over a modern plane.

Sean Hughto

05-06-2014, 9:19 PM

It's hard to find a reason to recommend an antique plane...even a well tuned one...over a modern plane.

Well, there's price.

There is also the fun of being linked to past woodworkers by literally using their tools. And the unique satisfaction of using a hundred year old tool and feeling it sing in your hands as it does its job. I understand these are more romantic than practical pleasures, but for some they have value.

steven c newman

05-06-2014, 10:39 PM

Think about the ONLY reason they picked those new planes over their own "old" planes was< to try a new plane out. Afterall, they already knew what their own planes worked like. About like taking a Navigator out for a test drive, before buying a Ford Focus.....

paul cottingham

05-07-2014, 1:09 AM

I have a gorgeous Millers Falls number 5 1/2 (equivalent) that I love easily as much as any of my new planes. With a new blade and chipbreaker it does anything I ask of it. I cambered the original blade so I can use it as a scrub. The historian in me loves to use tools that have had a long, productive life.

So I suspect that if all those tools had been well fettled and tuned, and well selected, (and factoring out the romance of using a new, fancy tool) there would not have been such a burst of love for the new tools.

Pat Barry

05-07-2014, 8:03 AM

David Weaver

05-07-2014, 8:06 AM

It's possible, but the newer ones generally have more mass, thicker irons, and better mechanisms. It's hard to find a reason to recommend an antique plane...even a well tuned one...over a modern plane.

It would definitely depend on the user. At one point, I only had premium planes, except for jack planes (I never could understand why someone would use a jack), but gradually gravitated toward vintage planes because I like them in use better. They're lighter, the irons are faster to sharpen and grind, and in the coarse planes, I just don't find anything in premium planes that matches cheap wooden planes for coarse work - I also don't have a metal plane that i like as much as a wooden try plane for coarse flattening work, and if I have to use metal, I like a stanley spec plane better than a LN spec plane.

It has a lot to do with which is nicer to use for a long period of time in coarser cuts.

There is one thing that the LN and LV planes do better, though, and that's to arrive at your door square and flat. The squareness almost kept me from selling my last premium bench plane, but not quite. I still don't have a plane that's a good shoot plane at this point in time, but that's not something I use very often. If I need one, I'll probably plane the side of an old cheap woody square, or epoxy a thin board to a vintage metal plane and plane it square. I just haven't had good luck with squareness of vintage planes, but it's an easy thing to rig up.

David Weaver

05-07-2014, 8:08 AM

He knew it would be a controversial topic. He basically says so right off the bat with this comment "Note: I started writing this blog entry more than a year ago. I shelved it and have revisited it several times since. Each time, I thought: I don’t need this kind of grief. For whatever reason (four beers, perhaps?), I offer this as an observation based on teaching students, both amateur and professional."

And the translation I would gather from that is, regardless of grief, he probably realized it's a pointless topic. Making decisions or inferences based on what beginners do is kind of dumb, unless you're making decisions for other beginners based on the preferences of their cohort.

ian maybury

05-07-2014, 9:20 AM

:) Just a late observation. That it was likely to be a controversial topic is a given, but that's surely a consequence of our urge to judge?

To be fair to Chris he tabled the observation that many less experienced woodworkers with tuned vintage planes tend to gravitate towards modern planes at his classes - but i don't think he offered any inference or decision as to what was the best route. Beyond the letter of what he wrote it's possible to draw all sorts of conclusions (e.g. he's for example probably not displeased as a journalist to see 11 pages of comment here) - but the fact is that as Derek Cohen has already observed these conclusions tend to owe more to our deeper motivations than to reality.

It surely can't come as a surprise that a cash rich aspiring woodworker short on time and experience might get better results from a modern precision manufactured high end tool than a DIY 'sort of fettled' oldie - or that a long term very experienced type may be able to extract similar top levels of performance from the same oldie. And feel better about using and owning something that has their personal mark on it, and wasn't expensive. Against that it's probably a good idea for the new guy to get a feel for what a high performing tool feels like - i know i spent many years as a kid struggling with junk and lack of informed experience without ever realising what good stuff could bring to the party. There's potentially even the odd technically experienced new guy that pulls off a great job of refurbishing an oldie.

'That there's horses for courses' is a saying we often use over here. Perhaps the game here is simply to remain open - to not lose sight of the multiple realities involved, but to at the same time understand that different approaches may be valid for different indiviuals in different situations. Most of the time the journey/the learning experience (whatever it is) is anyway more important than any objective. The risk is perhaps that it's so easy to get attached to simplistic knee jerk and mind made cameos that ignore reality and owe more to our need to cling to a packaged view on stuff, and to our need to force this view on others etc. The modern is always best guy, or the oldie is goldie guy. Or whatever. The subtlety with which the mind advances unspoken (and typically unconscious) agendae like these can be scary....

John Coloccia

05-07-2014, 9:37 AM

Well, there's price.

There is also the fun of being linked to past woodworkers by literally using their tools. And the unique satisfaction of using a hundred year old tool and feeling it sing in your hands as it does its job. I understand these are more romantic than practical pleasures, but for some they have value.

Oh, I won't argue with any of that. I have some old, beat up tools in my shop too. A modern tool would be nicer, but I'm just happy and comfortable with what I have. Ditto for most of my guitars. They're mostly 20+ years old and I've beaten them to hell over the years, but they're comfy. :) I'm just talking from a strictly technical perspective.

David Weaver

05-07-2014, 9:42 AM

I think they (beginners) perceive they'll get better results, but they don't really know what results are at that point, which is why they feel like they're playing it safe.

Before you get into woodworking, there is also a split between having and doing. When you have the means to have, but not the means to do, you tend to focus on trying to have everything. You focus on wanting to take as thin of a shaving as you can, or having tools as sharp as you can possibly get them (instead of just very functionally sharp). And whatever facilitates that seems better. And, of course, you have to have everything starrett machinist square, because as a beginner, you dream about how anything else may lead to bad work - because you know no different.

I don't know what his whole point is with the post, he probably left it out intentionally. But until he designs something of note, does work of note, or discovers something of note, it's just beginner fodder and a lot like trying to get an education by reading newspapers and opinion columns.

ian maybury

05-07-2014, 12:56 PM

I guess by definition David that has to be correct - it seems to me too that the mags as they stand tend very much to cater to the beginner. It leaves the mag contributor in an interesting position. We're inclined to behave as though they should be demigods, but the truth is possibly much more prosaic. Perhaps in some form all the role really requires them is to be a reasonably neutral channel of what they come in contact with? Each though is at some point on their own personal journey, so they will presumably to quite a degree reflect their persona and experience to date too.

They by definition were probably were not recruited for possessing the ultimate in design and make skills anyway - at least not by mags that are not catering to the highest standards in this regard.

The mags are in this regard a problem as well as a prop, in that the incessant sell sell sell and reduction of everything to intellectualised but individually rather trivial hints and tips can as you say have be a very powerful driver of 'too much head, and not enough doing'. Real learning comes through doing, so there comes a point where we need to break free.

I've been there, and i picked up 'how to/what's out there' info i never remotely could have alone, but by now i've pulled right back from the mags. (and forums) Having unthinkingly handled household and friend's projects for years on a Robland combo i decided in the late 90s to get a bit more serious about my shop set up and woodworking and started to read everything i could get my hands on. It was fun for about ten years, but it ultimately brought me to a place where it was getting in the way of the woodworking - it was time to get on with it. It's impossible to have everything, and there's many ways to get the job done. Most tools, machines and bits of equipment when bought don't do as they say on the tin anyway - at least not at typical private budget levels of cost. Of late I've stopped buying mags and am positively irritated by the crass (and typically misleading) advertising and pedantic verbiage.

Maybe though it's a cyclical thing. That we each need to reach out to contact novelty/new ideas for a while, but then return to integrating the information. Then go out again. Then there's eventually a point that comes where woodworking stops being about external novelty, and starts to be about gut, feeling and know how born of long experience. About flow. (like the Chinese gent posted about recently) Perhaps it's not possible to objectively teach or even write down what it becomes by this stage - maybe mags by definition must fall away long before what ultimately becomes something of a minority and pretty rarefied (Zen like?) space???

David Weaver

05-07-2014, 1:40 PM

steven c newman

05-07-2014, 5:06 PM

I wonder IF Chris Schwarz were to read all the above post? What would his reaction be? Maybe he might just be grinning from ear to ear? Hmmm?

Frederick Skelly

05-07-2014, 7:07 PM

He knew it would be a controversial topic. He basically says so right off the bat with this comment "Note: I started writing this blog entry more than a year ago. I shelved it and have revisited it several times since. Each time, I thought: I don’t need this kind of grief. For whatever reason (four beers, perhaps?), I offer this as an observation based on teaching students, both amateur and professional."

Sure he knew. Remember the old show biz adage that any kind of publicity is GOOD publicity? He knew he'd start a crapstorm. But look at how many hits this thread has gotten - 10,000! - thats the REAL reason for the controversial blog, IMO.

Edit: I am a fan of CS and really enjoyed his book Handplane Essentials. But I recognize the realities of celebrity.

Fred

Doug Trembath

05-07-2014, 7:55 PM

I seldom post, here or anywhere. My choice... It takes me a while to reach my point, so bear with me, or go on to the next...

Chris is subject to the same criteria that our friends in academia are, "publish or perish" He is obligated to post regularly, in order to stay current and relevant in the minds of his followers. Just look back at some of the posts in this thread defending him, and his logic, and you can identify them. Those that focus on a "Master" tend to feel they must accept what he says as Gospel, because he has been so very helpful in their progression in this tricky craft, so he must have all of the answers, right?

Those of his detractors, myself admittedly included, who have invested the time (because I didn't have the money) to fiddle and fettle older tools to an acceptable level of performance instead of buying the latest and greatest, simply have a strong attachment to these planes which were balky and chatter-prone at first, yet after a little time and tenderness, became tools which will flawlessly take that coarse cut to the scribe line the first time, or will tame that curly Birch which just won't cooperate with anything else. That sense of accomplishment is found often in Chris's words, as well, at times.

Many folks I have followed and learned vicariously from over the years, started out with the "Nothing but the best" approach. They had the discretionary income to not concern themselves with cost, and consequently were able to handle the best right off the mark. I have a good friend who is uniquely talented with design, an impeccable craftsman, and I'd hazard to guess he has every LN tool available. And likes them, as such, it has been reported to me. Fine. I applaud anyone who has settled on the kit that helps them be successful. Many of those folks, Like David, for example, have gravitated back to the old, finicky Baileys and such, divesting themselves of the "Premium" planes. Why? Because, after finally discovering what it takes to make one of these tools perform the way we want them to, they no longer needed the "Premium" plane. Heck, I like that logic, 'cause I never could afford the others anyway! (grin)

I have a LN 60-1/2 and their companion rabbet block. I love them. I have a LV Medium Shoulder plane. I have LV smoother and Jack planes, because at the time I wasn't getting the performance from my Baileys that I wanted. These helped me in my progression, and I like them very well. I have probably twenty block planes, and the ones I have fettled will execute the same cut my LN blocks will. I have a few Dunlap, Sargent, even a Seigley plane for conversation pieces. I have multiples of most of the Bailey and Bedrock lines. Of those that I have fettled, each will, if set up for a particular cut, execute that cut identically to a LN or LV top of the line plane. What does that gain me? Just the sense of accomplishment, confidence, comfort, and appreciation for a design which served millions of craftsmen for more than a century, and which provided the basis of design for the "Premium" planes here under discussion. And at ten percent of the cost, time included.

Chris cautioned us that he hesitated to post this discussion, presumably understanding that it would become a source of vitriol and flaming embers, like many threads do. His view isn't that tough to understand, however... If a person taking one of his classes wishes to obtain a tool he obviously cherishes, that is completely understandable. Put the same test to a representative audience of accomplished woodworkers, and my sense is that the results might well be reversed.

Question now is, would that be a good thing, or bad?

Adam Cruea

05-07-2014, 8:04 PM

You are exactly right about what it becomes, the magazines fail to do a good job of describing what it is that most people really need - experience, repetition, reflection on problems and an honest attempt to solve them. Every good craftsman I know has come by most of their skill via experience and careful thought, learning from the market, and from professionals - often informally - when they want to pick up a skill or solve a design issue.

You know, I don't know what it was, but I never liked reading the Woodworking mags. I tried and they never made sense logically.

It was like when I read the article Tom MacDonald wrote about fettling a new plane. A brand new plane. On a surface that couldn't possibly be flat.:eek:

After that, I said forget it. I'll learn woodworking like I learned music, IT, and riding a motorcycle; practice, repetition, and analyzing the results. I spent about 3 months trying for dead-nuts square; I realized quickly "forget it". You're working with an organic medium which will eventually come out of square no matter how perfect you get it. Does it look like a pile of doggie poo-poo? No? Okay, then awesome! One of the coolest things I've learned that I'd never thought about was a double-handed grip on my saws after watching Mark Harrell demonstrate it. It was faster than one handed and you don't walk away with beads of sweat on your brow after sinking a 4" plate into 8/4 or 12/4 stock all the way to its spine.

It kind of puzzles me how people say "Look at how awesome past woodworking was! They made awesome stuff!" Do you really think they had dead-nuts flat sharpening stones? Do you think they really had the latest doo-dad that worked with their thingamajig and widget to make an exactly square joint? Or to make perfect dovetails? Perfectly flat surfaces? No.

For that reason, I don't see the need to have sparkly new planes, and I wouldn't be one of those people that would play with the dude's LN planes. Yes, they look pretty. If they help you think you're a better woodworker, awesome! Go for it! Whatever tickles your fickle, submerses your submarine, floats your boat, or makes your porpoise dive. For me, I would only buy a "premium" plane if it were cheaper than the "vintage" plane. My #51 is an example. If I happen to want a Bedrock 602 at some point, I may need to look at an LN because it'll possibly be cheaper.

Now, in a few years, maybe I'll want to get a full nest of LN planes from #2 - #8 just for laughs. Hey, my income, my discretion.

And then there's the reason why I have no problems dropping money on new saws; the idea of restoring one scares me to death. I have no issues with planes and other stuff, but rehabbing a saw scares the crap out of me, so I buy new. :confused:

Anyway, as was said, CS is entitled to his opinion. But opinions are like anal sphincters; everyone has one, and most smell like crap and aren't worth paying attention to in the first place. Form your own opinions and don't let talking heads influence you.

ian maybury

05-08-2014, 5:39 AM

I admire Chris' tendency to be pretty direct, and am awed by his output. He's no dope on the tools either, although obviously as a highly effective journalist he's playing from a much wider hand of cards than just his woodworking.

It seems too that this thread has gone well. It's obvious from the level of response that we're keen to explore some of the philosophical and deeper angles around woodworking, but it didn't degenerate into anything obviously obnoxious or unduly critical. Which is great to see.

It's important too, because there's got to be room for expression if we're to stay open and not create some sort of woodworking orthodoxy (inquisition?) run by arbiters of 'rightness'. (as a race we've with our urge to judge/to blindly follow still got issues in this regard, but there's sizeable numbers coming through now that have figured this out) The resulting space makes it much easier to (as you guys suggest) be true to ourselves - to stay open and accomodating of (but not indiscriminately accepting of/brainwashed by) the various philosophies, methods, rationales and the like that come through. That way we truly get to choose (hopefully wisely), live our choices - and learn...

Adam Cruea

05-08-2014, 7:24 AM

It's important too, because there's got to be room for expression if we're to stay open and not create some sort of woodworking orthodoxy (inquisition?) run by arbiters of 'rightness'. (as a race we've with our urge to judge/to blindly follow still got issues in this regard, but there's sizeable numbers coming through now that have figured this out) The resulting space makes it much easier to (as you guys suggest) be true to ourselves - to stay open and accomodating of (but not indiscriminately accepting of/brainwashed by) the various philosophies, methods, rationales and the like that come through. That way we truly get to choose (hopefully wisely), live our choices - and learn...

Humans? Blindly follow each other?

Pfffffffffft. . .get outta here! :D

I think you forgot one little thing though, with blind following and judgement; humans have a strong need to be right and be on the popular side of the camp (though that goes along with following). 'Tis a rare person that's willing to stand on their own. I find it sad, to be frank.

I mean, I don't know what CS was afraid about publishing the article. It's his opinion, he's entitled to it, and no one can take that from him. :confused:

David Weaver

05-08-2014, 7:48 AM

I'll say this much despite my detraction, we are better off having CS in the business than we would be if he wasn't in the business. Every little bit helps, even if it causes us to quibble about the details.

ian maybury

05-08-2014, 9:37 AM

Sorry if i seem to be pontificating Adam, but I guess we're all basically tribal/herd (troupe?) animals - our default patterns of social behaviour derived over millions of years from that, and from the naked pursuit of short term self advantage in that context. (:) pursuit of some other things too!) Those that fancy their chances may have a go at being top of the pile, the rest tend to watch out for how the wind is blowing and position accordingly - doing their best to use the resulting pecking order and associations to gain advantage within the hierarchy and stay out of trouble. I guess we're in times now that require us to drop our default hierarchy in favour of more co-operative and intelligent ways of relating. Where the challenge is to rise above the former, to connect with something deeper, more individual and more nuanced. For the greater good.

Pardon my doing it again David, but i suppose that something would be badly wrong if we didn't quibble - how else is it possible to sort out the better options? There's some that may interpret it as criticism, but what can be more helpful than genuine feedback, and open discussion and debate? The pity is that most of us (out of the above social conditioning - and often some hard experiences) tend habitually to be very cautious about expressing our genuinely held views/truths. Very threatened by anything that threatens beliefs we've chosen to cling on to too. I guess wisdom/judgement, courage and lack of attachment (as well as care for others) are important skills in this mix too...

I think discussion can really only become unhealthy when it takes on the colour of having a go at somebody - by definitely passing judgement (in the put down/damaging sense) and/or attempting to force of our views/will on them. ...

David Weaver

05-08-2014, 10:01 AM

Adam Cruea

05-08-2014, 10:40 AM

I also like the quibbling, it's usually when you get people to actually make pure statements and think about what they're saying, though there's always enough people on a forum who want to avoid all conflict (even of any ideas).

I get a lot of heat any time I say something about CS, but most of it has to do with what he does isn't my preference for what I want to learn. I could just be a polar endpoint and 90% of everyone would rather do what CS does or instructs than try to get the same thing out of woodworking that I try to get out of it. If that's the case, then so be it...I still want the same thing out of it, and like everyone else, would love if published information was tailored to what I like and want.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that as I'm in the same boat.

Some people, though, couldn't fathom telling CS "eff your way" because they really can't grasp that he started out at the bottom of the pile and crawled his way up, too.

It's the same as when people criticize a religion, or any other belief. The following poops their pants, wads them up, and shoves them someplace dark because they can't grasp that what they like and believe isn't for everyone. Some people want to believe CS is a deity's gift to woodworking. Hey, great. Some want to believe our own George Wilson is the same. Hey, great. Personally, I believe they both started on the bottom and worked their way up and they won't shove their beliefs onto someone that wants to learn on their own as well.