If you could do just one premium plane...

[Chris Hachet]

If you could get just one more premium plane...by building it yourself or buying it, what would you do?

Assuming you had the skills to build the plane, or perhaps set the cap at $1000 to keep out the exotic infills and Bridge city tool works.

So, what hand planes do you dream about? I have really been lusting after the work of Scott Meeks.

Chris

[Matthew N. Masail]

do you mean "one more" or only "one" ? If only one, then It would be a Lie Nielsen No.4, because it's by far my most used size of plane.

No offense to Scott Meek, he does beautiful work, but anything more than 300$ for a laminated Krenov plane with is a little overboard IMO.

If I were to spend a bunch on a wooden plane then this is what I'd spend it on:
Smoother: http://www.phillyplanes.co.uk/classic.html
Jointer: http://www.phillyplanes.co.uk/try.html

Of Course I'd like to discuss wood choices with the maker :) and I would like to see if I could get a double iron plane bedded at 44 or somthin'.

[Tony Zaffuto]

Always seems to be the most recent one that got me out of a trouble spot!

This week's winner is my LN brass #4, with HAF. Who knows what next week's plane will be!

[Prashun Patel]

For that $1000 I would buy (again) one each a smoother, jack, and jointer from either Veritas or Lie Nielsen. I cannot imagine that the uber premium planes can improve on the performance and precision of any of these. Further, I have come to value the after-market support from both companies. I tend not to baby my tools and occasionally drop or lose parts. I have repeatedly been surprised (pleasantly) by their ability to subsidize my carelessness.

Of course, I could be a fox to the uber planes' grapes. Having never tried them, and not wishing to hijack the OP, I'm curious to hear how these planes exceed the performance or experience of the two big brands above.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Easy, I'd build an infill smoother, ala Hotley. Anyone else have pinup photos of beautiful infill planes beside that old photo of Brigitte Bardot? :)

[george wilson]

The English made Philly plane looks very nice. But, at a guess of $1.62 dollars per 1 English pound,that would be $486.00. Plus,I think there is a high cost now of shipping packages from England imposed by their government.

You ought to be able to find an old one for much less than that. They still turn up in excellent shape. Gone are the days when I could pick up a jointer in excellent,or unused shape for $10.00.

[jamie shard]

I find myself returning to my LN 5 1/2 bench plane with a cambered plane again and again. It's the plane I trust for small adjustments to really dial in a piece of wood, flat and square. Great handle, nice and heavy, "tight" adjusting mechanisms, and great blades/cap iron. I really like that plane.

[Brian Holcombe]

I am with Prashun on this one, I think the area that LN exceeds most is in their planes. I own a great deal of LN tools and the area I would definetly purchase them again is their planes.

[Chris Hachet]

For that $1000 I would buy (again) one each a smoother, jack, and jointer from either Veritas or Lie Nielsen. I cannot imagine that the uber premium planes can improve on the performance and precision of any of these. Further, I have come to value the after-market support from both companies. I tend not to baby my tools and occasionally drop or lose parts. I have repeatedly been surprised (pleasantly) by their ability to subsidize my carelessness.

Of course, I could be a fox to the uber planes' grapes. Having never tried them, and not wishing to hijack the OP, I'm curious to hear how these planes exceed the performance or experience of the two big brands above.


That's just it, I really do not think they exceed the performance of the basic planes. The only time I really need more than a basic prewar Stanley is when I get into really tough grain. My ECE smoother works fine, as the blade is bedded at 50 degrees. I would have to assume a LV or LN plane with a blade bedded at 50 degrees would work just as well if not better.

I could imagine that an English infill might work really well with something like heavily burled walnut crotch, the kind of stuff the Brits were using in fancy designs. But for gold old American hardwood, basic planes are great.

The inner tool geek in me wants one really unique plane, though.

[Chris Hachet]

I find myself returning to my LN 5 1/2 bench plane with a cambered plane again and again. It's the plane I trust for small adjustments to really dial in a piece of wood, flat and square. Great handle, nice and heavy, "tight" adjusting mechanisms, and great blades/cap iron. I really like that plane.

I can see how wide, long and yet shorter than a #7 could be a workhorse.

[Chris Hachet]

No offense to Scott Meek, he does beautiful work, but anything more than 300$ for a laminated Krenov plane with is a little overboard IMO.


He (Scott) has a table for sale very basic table for like 4 grand on his website. I do not begrudge him profit, but his prices seem a little steep. However, he has a backlog of orders so more power to him.

Nothing against woodworking celebrities, but woodworking seems to be more about selling premium webpage memberships than actually building things some days....

[Brian Holcombe]

He (Scott) has a table for sale very basic table for like 4 grand on his website. I do not begrudge him profit, but his prices seem a little steep. However, he has a backlog of orders so more power to him.

Nothing against woodworking celebrities, but woodworking seems to be more about selling premium webpage memberships than actually building things some days....

It's not outside of the realm of studio furniture.

[Zach Dillinger]

It's not outside of the realm of studio furniture.

Agreed. Remember he isn't pricing for "normal" people, but for people who would actually buy studio furniture and consequently have the budget for it.

[Curt Putnam]

A couple weeks ago, I went to the LN event in San Marcos (Palomar College.) The fact that Scott Meek was going to be there was one of the prime motivators for my making the 190 mile round trip. He's got a new style with a big thumbhook that I think will be a winner for the longer planes. I've got it in my head that a long woodie would be cool to have - and it would. I guess I start to balk at that much money for a woodie. Right now, I'd rather have a pair of Ron Bontz's half back saws.

Anyway to answer the question as posed - I'd get a pair of the new LV custom planes and some extra frogs. Then I'd look at the premium block plane. All with PM-V11 irons.

[Prashun Patel]

Chris, I have several Bailey's which I've made work reasonably well. They've all required some fiddling/fettling, and some have required new blades. They all pass.
But none work as well as any of my Veritas planes have out of the box. The Veritases are better in fit, finish, blade, ease of adjustment, backlash, mass, and predictability.

I do agree that cheaper planes can be made to work very well, but I think it takes work or luck. With the LN's and V's, you pay for not having to rely on either of these.

There is something so priceless to me in being able to pick up my Bevel up Jointer and just KNOW how it's going to perform.

I do believe that better woodworkers than I reach a point where the saw or chisel or plane they're holding is irrelevant, and their skill is more dictated by their own body and experience, but while I'm ascending to that point, the premium planes have been worth their weight in gold - or at least bronze.

[steven c newman]

For a Grand.....I'd just go and buy the rest of the line of type 4 Millers Falls planes......

[Reinis Kanders]

I also like Millers Falls. I would love some nice molding plane set, but those are super expensive, I will probably end up making them at some point.

[Tom M King]

I do only have one "premium" plane, even though I have, and use, many including at least one of each and multiples of some. The one "premium" plane I have is the LV Shooter. I'd probably have an old one of those too if it didn't cost several times as much as the LV, which works like a charm. I don't own a single plane just to own it. All mine are users.

[Chris Hachet]

I do only have one "premium" plane, even though I have, and use, many including at least one of each and multiples of some. The one "premium" plane I have is the LV Shooter. I'd probably have an old one of those too if it didn't cost several times as much as the LV, which works like a charm. I don't own a single plane just to own it. All mine are users.

All of mine are users as well. And things will stay that way...

I could really see myself dropping a two grand English infill on my concrete shop floor....a process that would be much less painful with a prewar Stanley.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Just ONE??? That's like asking me to eat just one potato chip out of the bag, or one spoonfool of ice cream, or one chocolate chip cookie. I really don't believe it's even possible.

That said, wow, I do love my LN #4 bronze, but that means I'd have to give up my LV bevel up smoother, which I also love, and the blades swap with my other LV bevel-ups, but if I can only have ONE premium plane, I am going to go with the LN #4. This does mean I get to have other old Stanleys, right? I mean, if I can't even have old Stanley #5, #7, etc., then please just shoot me and don't torture me to death.

Oh wait... the LV shooting plane... you know what, I think I would keep that one because I can tune a Stanley #4 to do close enough to as good as the LN (close enough, mind you- not better) but the shooter has taken my joinery to new levels. I don't think I can replace it. Sure, I could use a Stanley #5, but not with different blade angles for end versus straight grain. Also the shooter can become a jointer on a very long shooting board. I'm going to change paddles mid-stream- I'd keep the LV shooter.

Oh wait.... my beautiful LN bronze block plane would have to go then??? You know what- I hate you. Why even suggest such a thing as only ONE premium plane???? Are you real, or was this thread started by my wife? (HAHA)

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Okay, reconsidering with the $1000 price limit, I'd get a Lazarus smoother- the top one on this page. He usually runs in the $700 range.

http://www.lazarushandplane.com/new-page/

[Chris Hachet]

Okay, reconsidering with the $1000 price limit, I'd get a Lazarus smoother- the top one on this page. He usually runs in the $700 range.

http://www.lazarushandplane.com/new-page/

Le me return the "hate back"....I did not know his tools existed. Both of our wives might become rather frustrated, methinks.

Much nicer looking than a British infill antique, and I like his work better than the Scott Meeks planes. Unreal.

And i meant one plane in addition to what you own now, you did not have to give up anything.

[Zach Dillinger]

And i meant one plane in addition to what you own now, you did not have to give up anything.

I honestly never thought I'd be able to say this, but I'm happy with the planes I have now, and can simply make any historical planes I don't have but want to try out. The siren song of premium planes lured me to the rocks and I crashed hard, but I've slowly worked my way off those rocks. I've given up on the prospect of ever owning the LN plow (which is the last premium plane I "need").

[Jeff Johnson]

I'm with Tony: LN brass #4

[paul cottingham]

Just one plane? LV (or LN) bevel up jack. Hands down. Use the leftover money to buy wood or a smoother and a jointer.

[Jim Koepke]

The only planes not already in my accumulation would be some molding planes like a decent set of hollows & rounds.

That is likely my next cycle of savings and acquiring.

jtk

[Daniel Rode]

I'm pretty happy with the bench planes I have. The lone exception is a block plane. Mine is junk and I could use a decent LA block but it works well enough for now. What I could really use is a plow plane. I'd be happy with the Veritas but a vintage #238 or even a #50 would do just as well.

[Maurice Ungaro]

I've been eye ballin a LV Shoot plane. Well under a grand, but a nice addition. Oh, what the heck, let's get a left and right version.

[Kees Heiden]

I absolutely don't need any more planes.....



:rolleyes:

[Chris Hachet]

I'm pretty happy with the bench planes I have. The lone exception is a block plane. Mine is junk and I could use a decent LA block but it works well enough for now. What I could really use is a plow plane. I'd be happy with the Veritas but a vintage #238 or even a #50 would do just as well.

I bought the Low Angle Rabbiting block plane from Lie Nielson, cleans up rabbits, tenons, works as a darn good low angle block plane also. Does not have an adjustable mouth, but given a sharp blade it's never had a problem.

[Bruce Mack]

My Lie-Nielsen 4 1/2 with 45 degree frog. With closely set cap iron it ably handles the domestic woods I use. It fact it makes planing an act of wonderment. Forgive the deserved hyperbole.

[Chuck Hart]

IMHO the planes that Scott makes are nice however when you get down to it you are buying a 28" piece of laminated wood with a Hock blade. There is no mystery in his ingredients. He does have some great designs. I prefer to have something that is milled to the .001 of an inch and is made of metal and will last several lifetimes. Right now I would really like a LV or LN 5 1/2 and a 7 and a really good rip saw for $1000

[Frederick Skelly]

Okay, reconsidering with the $1000 price limit, I'd get a Lazarus smoother- the top one on this page. He usually runs in the $700 range.

http://www.lazarushandplane.com/new-page/

Oh, how I wish you hadnt showed me that Malcolm.

[george wilson]

I think the Lazarus planes are bizarre looking. He is a good craftsman,but not a good designer. I do not mean for this to sound hateful,it's just true. This is an honest opinion as a toolmaker. He does work pretty cheap for the effort he puts into them.

[Winton Applegate]

I'll have to think about that one but premium hand planes can easily cost three to ten thousand dollars.
Other wise if we are capping at one thousand then this one with out a doubt (http://www.leevalley.com/US/Wood/page.aspx?p=51870&cat=1,41182,41187&ap=1).

But I already have one of those.
I would love to have one of Jim Kingshott's old planes. He didn't make planes he was a cabinet maker. I would love to have one of his actual daily users. Along the lines of this one in my photo but this one cost more than his, ($10,000 many years ago ) but his are very similar from back in the forties.

I am very partial to the Marcou planes (http://www.marcouplanes.com/Marcou_Planes_202_Handplanes.php).
You know me . . . I would probably get a bevel up smoother . . . . and narrower than the Lee Valley smoother that I have.

[george wilson]

The Holtey looks nice!! Not that I must have a copy of an old plane by any means. In fact,I wish more makers could be original. And still do nice work. But,the hardest thing to master in any trade involving making things is mastering DESIGN. You either have it or you don't. And,that is the truth. I had about 22 apprentices over the time I spent in Williamsburg. If they could not draw,I never could teach them to in spite of hem spending years with me. They could copy accurately. Fortunately,being in a museum,that was what the work consisted much of the time.

Hard to find a violin maker who does not copy Stradivari,or some other famous old master. But,in that case,it would be hard to find a player who would play a uniquely designed instrument. So what can you do? In planes and tools,it is not the same situation.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

I think the Lazarus planes are bizarre looking. He is a good craftsman,but not a good designer. I do not mean for this to sound hateful,it's just true. This is an honest opinion as a toolmaker. He does work pretty cheap for the effort he puts into them.

I would completely disagree. I think his design is awesome. The tool almost flows. It looks like it could move itself through the wood. I especially love the overhanging tote. It reminds me of an overhanging transom on a boat. To each his own, but I think he just designs Ferraris, and you are wanting a '34 Ford. Both are beautiful but uniquely different.

[Jim Matthews]

For $1000?

Winton's Old Street Tools smoother.
No finer example of the plane maker's art.

[george wilson]

No, I do not want a '34 Ford. My shoulder plane is not an old style. It is unique. This design FLOWS!!!:) How could it be said that it does not? And,it is comfortable to use.

The hammer heads flow. They are my own modern designs. The handle of this jointer flows. It is in the style of 19th. C. handles,but is definitely not a copy. It has more design features than other handles from the 19th. C..

I HAD to copy tools as tool maker,for use in the museum,but these are my own designs.

Lest this be described as chest beating,it is not. I am just trying to show some examples of good design.

You,of course,are free to make your own decisions. I just cannot agree that Lazarus's blocky parts screwed together can be said to flow.

[Winton Applegate]

I think really there is quite a range.
I wouldn't say a three thou plane is going to cut much if any better than my Varitas smoother.
For me it is the hand work and detail.

By the way I am a sucker for the dovetailed metal joints on the planes I posted.
Round pins are OK, good, very nice even
but come on . . . look at those dovetails . . . in metal yet . . . thassss magic !

Just like looking at a fine piece of furniture. I suppose some of that funny furniture with staples and press board would keep your butt from hitting the floor . . . so if we argue "does it plane better" we have to argue "does REAL furniture keep your butt off the floor better ?"

I have to bang the table a little here though and show my snobby snotty side . . .
yah just one more post right ?
any way

I have to bang the table and say that a LN or a LV is not a premium plane . . .
ok . . . in my view
a LN or a LV is bare bones get you by good enough to get the job done and not piss me off too much with setting it up and using it.
A lot of the planes bellow that, say from . . . were . . . hardware stores ? . . . woodcraft? . . . flemarkets (most of them anyway) . . .
I wouldn't want to put up with the banging on it and bending it and wishing it were better . . . ness that so may "enjoy" about those.

no really

and price tells some of the story . . . three hundred dollars for a tool is about right . . . a thousand has some wow factor and pretty and a couple of thou or more is
OHHHHHHKAY NOW THIS IS LIVING LARGE.

It is cosmetic jewelry, verses the real deal, verses custom master pieces.
If cosmetic looks good enough to you then great.
If you can appreciate all that went into the better stuff then I am glad there are people who do.
Otherwise
REAL woodworkers would have no market.
Am I right ?

[george wilson]

Winton,I know from long experience that price does not always mean quality. I have seen it demonstrated over and over again in the museum. I cannot name names,but I'll guarantee that some very high prices have been made because the maker had the nerve to price them incredibly high. The trouble is,many customers just do not have the knowledge base to realize what something is really worth. They assumed that because something was expensive,it must be good.

I CAN cite a shop in town that no longer exists: The Toymaker's Shop,in a prestigious part of town. They deliberately priced things very high because it attached prestige to it. This was admitted to an employee there that I knew. People with money would pay much more what a toy was worth because they did not know better.

[Winton Applegate]

I never could teach them to [draw] in spite of them spending years with me

See now, I know I haven't a grain of sand's worth of real ability for unique design compared to you Mr. Wilson but I know how to teach some one how to draw.
Partly because . . . long story shortened :

I took every galllllll darn art class I could get into all through school and never really learned to draw realism. Have I ever expressed my distaste for the American school system ?
Ha, ha
You bet I have many times.
You are all probably tired of hearing me whine about it.

So

Here I am in my late twenties . . . I can draw cartoons of hot rods and even some passable realish looking renderings of cars. Why ? Because I studied the heck out of cars from the inside out when I was a little kid.
Could I draw a face or a flower or a dog ?
NO.
Then some body turned me on to this book (http://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Right-Side-Brain-Definitive/dp/1585429201/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1423711001&sr=1-1&keywords=betty+edwards).
Viola !
With in a month, or even less, I am confidently drawing portraiture with nearly perfect proportion and lots of accurate detail.
No prob.
She deserves a great deal of credit for her ground breaking work in perception and teaching skills.
Sorry, I had to get all over there in that. When ever some one says what you said, and many do, I just have to speak up.

I am very passionate about and thankful for her work and I just have to
evangelize the heck out of her book(s).

[Judson Green]

I'd buy wood!

[Winton Applegate]

price does not always mean quality.
I agree.
But I am sure you know what I mean.
It is hard to make a decent BRAND NEW hand plane for less than three hundred dollars.
Unless the people who make it are so poor they can't afford flip flops . . but then we are so used to demanding that living standard for someone else, WALLMART, that we think it is OK.

I worked in a high end car shop.
The head mechanic often dropped three to five hundred dollars on a new tool on payday.
The SnapOn and MAC tool trucks some how used to show up on payday.
I can't imagine why.
The SnapOn man would even cash your pay check on the spot right out of his truck.
NOW THAT IS JUST NOT PLAYING FARE.

I asked the guy spending all this loot on tools "isn't that kind of hard on the bank balance"
He says nahhhhh I make it back in one or two repairs.
Good tools are good tools.
They cost.

I am so tired of hearing people put real tools up on a pedestal as if they are out of reach of a mere mortal . . . say the price of a two hundred dollar saw or a three hundred dollar hand plane like if that was robbery or the crown jewels.

No that is what they should cost.

[Winton Applegate]

To be fare, now that I have thought about it
You are saying you need to be dang careful when buying a multi thousand dollar plane.
You are sure right there.
I have followed Marcou for many a year and had many a post with guys who own and use his tools and KNOW they are great and well made and would have known if they were not and said so.
There is no problem with his at least.

[george wilson]

I don't mean how to teach someone to draw,I mean how to teach someone to DESIGN. That is the crux of the situation.

[Brian Holcombe]

George, I think it's an intuition. It can be developed upon, in my opinion, and refined.

My own experience with design is that as far back as I can remember I was designing something. I think I have a long ways to go, but it's been the major driver of my goals in life and has always been with me.

I'm sure you are one in the same, you create gorgeous designs and it would imagine have been doing so since grade school.

[Winton Applegate]

I will give a quick rather off in left field example of what I am talking about.
Perceived name brand and perceived high quality (in this case Craftsman tools).
verses
what I consider adequate quality (MAC and not in the photo because they are at work Proto and SnapOn) which is actually quite a bit above what people think of as high quality.

I grew up in awe of Craftsman tools. Man if I could afford a set of Craftsman tools I would know I made it. That was the sh____.

So

see photo
The top row of sockets are Macs. I bought those about the time I was speaking of when the vulture tools trucks would show up at payday.

Note how easy it is to read the size (metric) compared to the Craftsman.
The blue socket rack they are on is FAR, FAR, FAR superior to the dammed abominations the Craftsman sockets are on and the Macs come with the rack. The rack for the Craftsman costs very significantly and is poo poo. That MAC set is a pretty pricy set of sockets but WORTH EVERY PENNY in functionality and lack of piss me off ness.

Go ahead, try to read the size on the Craftsman sockets, now try it in poor lighting, upside down in the stripped unibody of an Audi with dirt in your eye.

Lastly the two Craftsman “breaker bars” at the bottom. I prefer to call them socket wrenches. People think these breaker bar things are super strong and can and should be used with cheater bars and big hammers to get stuck fasteners loose with.

I can tell you the broken one never saw a cheater bar OR a hammer and was treated with care and ONLY used by me. I am not all that big. I am pretty good at finding optimum leverage though so it cracked loose many a fastener with it no one else in the shop was able to budge without resorting to a rattle wrench. But I never felt I abused the broken tool.

None the less it broke from daily use, year in and year out in about four or five years.
I now use Proto and SnapOn breaker bars. They have enough better attention to detail in their design and construction that it is worth it to me to pay more. A lot more.

Yes they are polished more, and have a top shelf reputation but that isn’t why I buy them.
I buy them because I feel they are adequately made as REAL tools.
The Craftsmans are just not good enough.
Can you see what I mean ?

[Derek Cohen]

Just what is a "premium plane"?

Do you decide this on cost? On design? Materials? Performance?

I have a Stanley #604 that does almost as well as a Marcou BU smoother (which is THE best performer I have ever used), but I would not consider either of them spectacular looking designs (although the Marcou is built like a brick watsit).

Ergonomics are an interest of mine. If I were purchasing or commissioning a plane, this would need to be a significant factor. One of the so-called premium planes mentioned here (look at George's comments, with which I completely agree) looks to my eye to be very capable as a performer but horrible to actually use for any period of time.

Cost? That is so relative. I have a bunch of LV and LN planes and do not consider them "premium". Bloody good planes, still. Does one need more?

This is the thing - a premium plane to me is not chosen because one "needs" it. It is chosen because one desires it. Using this plane will bring pleasure, joy, appreciation, and satisfaction. A premium plane brings together style, performance, build quality ...

Other than George, whose work embodies all these features, one name stands out for me ... Konrad Sauer ...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jIXANxfyh74/VLqMwoVe9HI/AAAAAAAAErM/wH3_y47fJvg/s1600/JKK13done-1.jpg

Could do with a double iron, tho' :)

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Malcolm Schweizer]

No, I do not want a '34 Ford. My shoulder plane is not an old style. It is unique. This design FLOWS!!!:) How could it be said that it does not? And,it is comfortable to use.

The hammer heads flow. They are my own modern designs. The handle of this jointer flows. It is in the style of 19th. C. handles,but is definitely not a copy. It has more design features than other handles from the 19th. C..

I HAD to copy tools as tool maker,for use in the museum,but these are my own designs.

Lest this be described as chest beating,it is not. I am just trying to show some examples of good design.

You,of course,are free to make your own decisions. I just cannot agree that Lazarus's blocky parts screwed together can be said to flow.

Actually I chose 34 Ford because it also flows but to achieve a different look overall. I couldn't think of any modern car examples, because today's cars are so horribly angular. Didn't mean you were dated. I have admired your planes and everything else you've made. I also like that pair of brass knuckles with the wood trim. :-)

I am not a huge fan of the newer Lazarus planes with the mostly metal tote. The solid wood tote, however, I adore. I also love his use of contrasting metals and how he makes hard angles and soft curves unite. As for screwed construction, I thought they were pegged. I would prefer dovetails, but okay- pegs are fine. Screws may be a concern.

[george wilson]

That Sauer plane is excellent in design. Except for the cap screw. It is cut into 3 "layers",but without regard to where the knurling starts and stops. It would have been better had he used small concave straight knurls if he wanted to cut up the design like that.

Here is a good design for a cap screw that I made,and I am sure I have never seen it on an old plane. Yet,it smacks of the old,golden days of toolmaking. If you don't get that swell just right,it doesn't work well.

Sauer does something I also have done: He makes authentic looking early threads on his cap screw. I did not on this cap screw for various reasons.

[Winton Applegate]

For $1000?

Winton's Old Street Tools smoother.
No finer example of the plane maker's art.


I prefer to have something that is milled to the .001 of an inch and is made of metal

Jim,
and Chuck,

I will say that when I started putting the precision measuring tools (ground straight edge and Starrett surface plate and indicators) to the Old Street plane . . . I discovered that it was the most precisely made plane in my decent sized collection including the metal planes that I had fettled (including a LN #4 bronze).

"Milled" to better than one thou.
Extremely impressive; considering the plane was made in what I assume is more humid Arkansas and wound up here in dry as a bone Colorado.
:eek:
;)

[Winton Applegate]

I mean how to teach someone to DESIGN. That is the crux of the situation.

George,
Maybe you didn't administer enough dope slaps.

even after working with you for years they couldn't pick it up.
I am frustrated to hear that but not surprised.
I do wonder what goes on in the heads of most young people when put in a situation to soak up and take advantage of knowledge and opportunities and they don't even lift a finger.
I mean why are they even there ? A pay check ?
What a bloody waste.
Seems like being around people who have taste and ability at least a portion of it has got to rub off but some how they are not there enough mentally for that to happen.

[Tony Zaffuto]

I think the Lazarus planes are bizarre looking. He is a good craftsman,but not a good designer. I do not mean for this to sound hateful,it's just true. This is an honest opinion as a toolmaker. He does work pretty cheap for the effort he puts into them.

I would have to agree with George. Having never built a plane, I should not criticize, however, in this case I'm doing so in a manner to ask how a plane design evolves? Does the design evolve in reverse, starting with a .001" shaving (smoother) with criteria added to facilitate the use? Or is the design of a plane done in a manner to show of metal & woodworking skills, with results secondary?

[george wilson]

Winton,it is not that the apprentices were not willing to lift a finger to pick it up. Most of them were just not able to. I had a sculptor who was. She visited me a while back. I hadn't seen her in years. She brought a violin she had made in the 80's while in my shop. I was very surprised at how perfect her craftsmanship and sense of design had been. She continued to be an artist,and wanted to get back into violin making.

The apprentices worked very hard at making instruments on order. They got very good at that as long as they did not try going out on a limb and designing themselves. I had a few who could do that,though.

Malcom,I would never at the least compare my shoulder to a pair of brass knuckles,even in a joke. I am not allowed here to say how that judgement (?) makes me feel. I consider it one of my best efforts.

Note how the width of the bevels varies with the size of the curves they border. Wider on large curves,smaller on tighter curves. The stuffing squeezes out from between the brass sides,like an over stuffed ice cream sandwich which has been filled and squeezed together. These little details add much to the design.

Tony,you have good judgement. It does not matter if you have never built a plane. This is about having "eyes to see". You have them.

Brian,you are quite correct. I have been designing things since grade school. And,education and exposure to good designs have helped me to develop and refine my design skills. But,that seed had to be there to begin with. I used to trace pictures of sailing ships when I was a kid. Looking that carefully at their grace helped me along. Tracing something makes you look at the object much more carefully than just perusing something and turning the page. Gordon Grants book of sailing ships was my favorite back then. Several years ago I was able to obtain a copy for myself. When I look at it now,I am a bit less impressed,but it is still a great book,and an excellent learning tool. The ink drawings accurately portray early sailing ships.

[Chris Hachet]

I'd buy wood!

A grand at a sawmill would get a nice stash now, wouldn't it?

[Chris Hachet]

Just what is a "premium plane"?

Do you decide this on cost? On design? Materials? Performance?

I have a Stanley #604 that does almost as well as a Marcou BU smoother (which is THE best performer I have ever used), but I would not consider either of them spectacular looking designs (although the Marcou is built like a brick watsit).



Whatever you choose. I would like to add one unique plane to my fleet, but I am thinking that keeping the number of planes down, keeping them sharp, and adding only one or two more may be in the best interest of my woodworking.

I once owned a 55 Chevy two door post with a 350 and a Muincie 4 speed, blue and white....about as plane Jane of a hotrod as one would ever want to own. It was a spectacularly good car, and boy would it run....

But in the end it was a box on wheels and not all that unique. I will probably buy something like a #4 L-N Bronze, which will do everything I ask of it.

But just like I would dream of an Alfa Romeo Montreal coupe while driving the 55....methinks I will be still lusting after infills after I get a brown box from Maine...

[george wilson]

Derek,the Marcou miter plane is an interesting design,but not the most practical,I would judge. The angular end is not the most comfortable shape to push on,and the semi concealed adjusting screw head is not the easiest to access. Not that most miter planes have the most convenient end to push on by any means!! But,if you eliminate the protruding end of the blade,you have the opportunity to make the rear end of the plane more comfortable.



I like Sauer's handles a LOT more. They are traditional,true,but they are also just right. The shape of the body is simple,but the curves are just exactly right also. The front bun continues the curve of the side,and is quite graceful. It offers a good,secure place to put the thumb,too. The man can draw!

[jamie shard]

I the price of a two hundred dollar saw or a three hundred dollar hand plane... that is what they should cost.

We are very lucky to be able to "borrow against" the previous two generation's production. I think about that all the time when I find a slightly rusty $12 Bailey #3 at an antique shop or a $8 rip saw or find a old $50 Delta drill press on craigslist. It's almost absurd.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi George

Many on various forums appear to confuse bling with beauty. There is less importance given to how one balances the parts.

Konrad Sauer has such talent for composition. There is true art in his pieces. This was present when he was making (which he still is) the Spier-type infill. I believe that he has come into his own with his own design (which I posted earlier). I agree with you about the lever cap screw. I suspect that this is a carry over from the more traditional infill of his. He needs to find one that reflects the new line.

Philip Marcous planes have a very different line. I am not fond of over-built, tank-like structures (such as the Lazarus planes), but Philip has an aesthetic that Lazarus does not. Here is one of Philip's later designs ..

Bevel Up



http://marcouplanes.com/Productionhistory/No96/data1/images/marcou_planes_planes_s50na_no96_001.jpg




Bevel Down



http://marcouplanes.com/Productionhistory/No93/data1/images/marcou_planes_planes_s20a_no93_1022.jpg



Regards from Perth

Derek

[george wilson]

It is definitely true that Marceau works very hard to get each and every part immaculately polished and finished. I just do not care for his totes,though. They are disproportionate to some degree. Too skinny in the middle,too heavy on top. They are almost 18th. Century esque. And I think the design of totes came more into perfection in the 19th. C.. Just because I worked in an 18th.C. setting does not mean I worship the 18th. C.. In some respects,I think it was a decadent period in several ways. Guns became more slab sided. That horrible instrument,the "English Guitar" became popular. I won't get into more detail here.

The plane in the top picture is going to be difficult to adjust with the handle in the way of the too stubby iron. Unless the user is VERY careful each and every time he strikes the top of that iron,the handle is going to start getting whacked. And,people get tired sometimes(especially me),and in a hurry. So,I put small odds of always properly being ultra careful in adjusting that stubby,close quartered iron. And,that big blob of a logo in the middle of the lever cap needs to go. It would be much nicer if the maker just stamped his name on the cap.

His knurling,while perfectly done,could be a lot more interesting if he had some microscope type knurls like I made for the cap screw I posted above. Those little details really can mar an otherwise nice design. There are those little diamond knurled knobs sticking up in several places. A lot could be done with them design wise. And,needs to be done to stay in keeping with the quality of work evident in the rest of the planes. If I had the lower plane,I'd make nicer knobs,at the very least.

I don't like real stubby plane irons. They will soon get too short with many sharpenings. Of course,these planes may never get used because they are too precious to get dirty and dusty with use. They become more like sculptures of planes than users.

Personally,I see no need for the metal/wood laminating on the front knob. It is not reflected on the tote,and I think it ought to look like a matched pair,at least,though I am grateful that he did NOT attempt to laminate the tote!!:). I don't hate it,but that is just how I feel about it. And,I think chips may someday start falling off of those thin edged wood laminations. They will probably not stay flush,since wood moves,and metal(comparatively) does not. Then,the knob won't feel as good.

I see no problem with the basic shape of the metal bodies. The dovetailing is obviously perfect,too. He does do very careful work indeed. Again,it's not a question of craftsmanship. It's a design question.

If I had to pick one of yours,it would be the Sauer,single iron or not,based on design.

[Michael Ray Smith]

Always seems to be the most recent one that got me out of a trouble spot!

I heard that! One week my favorite plane may be my Stanley No. 8 and the next it may be my Stanley No. 2. The one that wins most often is probably my LV Bevel-up jack plane for its versatility, and I suppose that's what I'd pick if I had to use only one plane. If I had to live with only two, I think it would be a jointer (probably No. 7 size, or maybe No. 6) and the LV bevel-up block plane, which works very nicely as a smoothing plane. It's not that I necessarily like BU planes more than BD, but the versatility of being able to change the angle of attack just by switching blades has significant value. However, I'm probably getting a bit away from the point of the OP, which seemed to be aimed more along the lines of "what's your dream plane?" rather than "if you had only one plane, what would it be?"

[Derek Cohen]

George, you spotted the blade problem. That was one of the planes that Philip was trying to simplify (for cost) and I warned him that the handle needed to clear the blade. In the end it did not go into production. This is the plane it sprang from ...




http://marcouplanes.com/Pic/2_Hand_Planes/P_S55A/Marcou_Planes_planes_S55A_02.jpg





I also do not like the "fancy" bits - I much prefer clean lines. That is one of the strengths of Konrad. However, what is interesting about Philip's designs is that one does not realise just how tank-like they are. He disguises this reasonably well. One cannot mistake the heavy construction, but look at where he started (This is a plane I own) ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/Marcou%20S15/IMG_3074.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[george wilson]

Well,I see from the top picture that he does have microscope knurls. I wish he'd use them more often. I like the tote on the bottom picture better,except for the lower curves. If he'd combine the lower part of the upper picture's tote with the top of the tote on the lower picture,I'd like it pretty well. The way he has placed the adjustment knob,there would not be room for it. The plane would have to be re configured to allow for the meatier lower part of the tote. But,it ought to be done.

The slightest bit of wear on the cap screw of the top plane,and it would be bottoming out.

I appreciate that he has used a better knurl(though it would be better if it was wider). On the depth adjustment knob,it would be more attractive if the long,tapered area below the knurl was hollow shaped,preferably an elliptical hollow. One that got a tighter curve as it approached the knurl.

Manhattan Supply sells convex rope and straight knurls. They are meant to be fed along bars to knurl long lengths. However,they can be used as mother knurls to make wider microscope knurls from. If the plane maker does not wish to make his own knurls using taps to hob them,as I have posted here before(I think),he could use the convex knurl from Manhattan Supply. Have I posted how to make knurls here? It is a metal working subject,though,using a metal lathe.

I must say that old Stanleys do have very attractive totes,common as they are. Nice front knobs too.

The front knob of the top plane is not elliptical. It is a ball,and looks too skinny. The bottom one is better,but just not quite there. Just a little fatter in the wide part would be better.

I am probably going to drive you crazy by picking on the details. I hope not. But,to me,they are just as important as the rest of the plane. Details set apart great work from the just "good" work.

Derek,I am sure you can see that these are constructive criticisms. That is because you have a good eye yourself.

[Pat Barry]

No, I do not want a '34 Ford. My shoulder plane is not an old style. It is unique. This design FLOWS!!!:) How could it be said that it does not? And,it is comfortable to use.

The hammer heads flow. They are my own modern designs. The handle of this jointer flows. It is in the style of 19th. C. handles,but is definitely not a copy. It has more design features than other handles from the 19th. C..

I HAD to copy tools as tool maker,for use in the museum,but these are my own designs.

Lest this be described as chest beating,it is not. I am just trying to show some examples of good design.

You,of course,are free to make your own decisions. I just cannot agree that Lazarus's blocky parts screwed together can be said to flow.
These shoulder plane and hammer designs are certainly unique. I would love to hear the basis for the hammer design in particular. Something drove you to evolve a typical design to what you created. That story would be great for a new thread.

I have always believed that form should follow function. Not a question of flow so much as a question of there being a reason for the attributes - sometimes that is nothing more than the craftsman's own signature being left behind. Other times the nuance of the design is there for a functional reason.

I do think that variety is the spice of life and that is demonstrated by the many unique designs presented in this thread. I'm afraid sometimes the style is 'all show and no go'.

[george wilson]

Designs just come to me,then I refine them to suit the application better. Guess I was in a curvey frame of mind when I designed these hammers and the curvey(sp?) shoulder plane,though they were designed many years apart.

The quality of the curves is extremely important,though. Get them wrong and your piece will look terrible. Having drawn the shape of the shoulder plane,I designed the shape of the escapement to go with the shape of the body. If you notice,the lines of the escapement are parallel with the outside shape of the body much of the way around.

The bevels added harmonious detail. As mentioned before,I made them bolder where the body's curves are larger. I did this by changing the ANGLE of the bevels,so that the bevels do not change the unbeveled "thickness" of the brass as seen from above,or from either end. That would not look good. You have to design things so that they look good from all directions,like a sculpture would have to look.

The "over stuffing" is not something I have seen in old planes. It just came to me that it would look good,and especially if it was rounded like it is,to look as if the filling was soft,and being squeezed out of the plane. The plane would not nearly be what it is had the filling not protrude from the brass the way it does. The rounded filling made the plane quite comfortable to use,too. No sharp corners like on most shoulder planes. And,the blade is low enough that it doesn't get in the way of your palm.

This is actually the 2nd. plane I made in this pattern,but it's identical to the first. When I was in public,I lost so many tools because members of the public would beg them off of my bench,offering money that was hard to refuse!! Being younger,I just thought I could make another one. That did not always happen,but this plane was one I was determined to keep. I consider it one of my best designs.

Short coming of this design: The adjustable front sole has to be removed to extract the iron. But,shoulder planes aren't used enough to get them dull very often,so it isn't a big draw back. It was the only way I could get the escapement that gracefully shaped.

I don't feel that I've offered much instruction here,but to me,design just pops out of my imagination.

[Brian Holcombe]

HNT Gordon are a nice medium between the LN type planes and the wild in-fills.

[Mike Holbrook]

My go-to planes like Patel's are the Veritas BD planes, the large Smoother, LA Jack and the BD Jointer. So far they are the ones, like Michael Ray mentions, which have gotten me out of the most tight spots. I often find that their mass is helpful when I run up against tough wood. I recently purchased a few old Stanley's. The Stanleys I use for rougher work so I am not concerned with making them precision tools. The Stanley planes have easy to modify blades, so they all have or will soon have cambers. The 5 1/4 that arrived today is soaking in the Evapo Rust. Tomorrow I will know if the blade and chip breaker will be usable for my purposes or not. Then there are my wood planes all made by Steve Knight or myself. I use all three types in situations that they function better than the others in. If I wanted an extra nice wood plane I might be tempted, like Brian, to buy a HNT Gordon, either a smoother or jointer. The smoother and jointer are the two planes I find most worthy of extra tuning and expense. I use my Jack planes the most. Lately, the Stanley #5 with the heavily cambered blade has been helpful for tapering chair and table legs in wood too dry for my current skill level with a draw knife.

[Winton Applegate]

George,
Thanks very much for the photo of the cap screw. I was wondering which way the screw design should change.

I should have probably PM ‘d you but . . . anyway

Queenmasteroftheuniverseandbabybunnytrainer, my significant other, who is the real artist in our outfit agrees with you on the blocky bolted together plane designs. She said Nah Dude, Nah . . . my words not hers.
She is having her own one woman art show Friday night 2-13-15. Eighteen rather large oil paintings, mostly nonrepresentational “abstract” painted to jazz mostly Chet Baker and Miles Davis and the like. She says my mp3 music playlists contribute a lot to her paintings and would be no where the same without them so in a small way I’m in the paintings.
soooooo
I can’t help but put up a painting or two since this is such a big night for her . . .
but what I really wanted to ask you and get your opinion on was not her paintings
but
further elaboration on your term FLOW / it Flows etc.
See the links to photos of the two car bodies. Both Lotus cars.
One very swoopy and flowing; the other made up of flat panels and more austere but still a classic “recognize it at glance” body design.
here (http://www.boldride.com/ride/1978/lotus-esprit-series-i#gallery/5)
and
pictures of lotus esprit (https://www.google.com/search?q=pictures+of+lotus+esprit&client=safari&rls=en&biw=1008&bih=590&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=wYvdVKfcKM_voAT8n4C4CA&ved=0CDIQ7Ak#imgdii=LcKMGgvn-h9RIM%3A%3Bco1K4AbWmmql0M%3BLcKMGgvn-h9RIM%3A&imgrc=LcKMGgvn-h9RIM%253A%3BJhfJbctS-93e9M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.lotusespritturbo.co m%252FLotus_Turbo_Esprit_1981.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F %252Fwww.lotusespritturbo.com%252F%3B1000%3B263)
The Esprit is much wider in person than these photos seem to portray.
The second design is the Elise
pictures of lotus elise (https://www.google.com/search?q=pictures+of+lotus+elise&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&imgil=AJrKbkzvkJAXiM%253A%253BCb0ZlK5Cd-LIiM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.cargurus.com %25252FCars%25252F2008-Lotus-Elise-Overview-c20986&source=iu&pf=m&fir=AJrKbkzvkJAXiM%253A%252CCb0ZlK5Cd-LIiM%252C_&usg=__7VBPQ6gLBYP9DrRwQr5pkiQ4lCQ%3D&biw=1008&bih=590&ved=0CDMQyjc&ei=FI7dVP-qOoL4yQSj6oCYAw#imgdii=_&imgrc=AJrKbkzvkJAXiM%253A%3BCb0ZlK5Cd-LIiM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fstatic.cargurus.com%252F images%252Fsite%252F2008%252F06%252F09%252F13%252F 26%252F2008_lotus_elise-pic-59348.jpeg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cargurus.com%2 52FCars%252F2008-Lotus-Elise-Overview-c20986%3B1000%3B628)
With reference to your design esthetic; do they both flow ? What do you think of them ?
You won’t hurt my feelings if you hate them both but I am curious.

[Derek Cohen]

Perhaps we should begin a thread on reliability - planes that you can count on to work first time and without any testing. Just sharpen the blade, insert it, and go. When the chips are down, and you are taking that final shaving on a board of interlocked grain, which plane do you turn to?

The recent review of the LV Custom planes has shown what wonderful planes they are, both the smoother and the jointer I used. I would add the LN and Stanley bench planes to this group. They demonstrate that a chipbreaker is a powerful piece of equipment. But they also reveal that set up can be finicky when starting out and practice makes perfect .. but takes time. Even now I will take a test shaving before i start working, which simply illustrates that my confidence is not yet there.

Planes that I sharpen and go include the Marcou and LV BUS (both bevel up, 60 degree included angle). They are simply amazing performers. The BUS must be the best easy performer available. The HNT Gordon planes I own (smoother and trying plane) are also in this category. They are a tad more work to set up as they use a wedge and mallet, but still pretty easy.

Modified BUS ..

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes4_html_331c1e58.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Winton Applegate]

Chris,
Here is one I have always coveted.
Boy I had the hots for one of these for a long time.
I tried to buy one.
Now I suppose the price is out of my range.
I can not get enough of looking at it though.

[Tony Zaffuto]

Derek,

Interesting point of view regarding reliability. In thinking through my mention of my brass LN#4, with HAF, when I reach for it, I "know" what to expect and it delivers. Of course I have to do my part and getting used to fiddling with the chipbreaker a half dozen years ago when I first got the plane, seemed almost exasperating. But now the plane is absolutely predictable. Maybe this weekend, I'll apply some of the same effort to learning my LV BUS.

[Stewie Simpson]

Hi George. I would have considered weight an important attribute in the designing a good Smoothing Plane. The S55A and S50A Marcou Smoothing Planes each weigh 6.6 Ib. That's equivalent to the weight to a Stanley 5 1/2 Jack Plane.

Stewie;

[Warren Mickley]

I think a lot of these plane makers don't actually know how to use a plane. I saw one plane maker who wanted a flat surface on wood so he used a milling machine and sandpaper. Apparently it did not occur to him that one of his planes might do the job.

About five years ago I tried a Marcou plane at a woodworking show. It was pitiful, like driving an armoured tank down the highway. When I wrote about it on another forum you should have seen the names I was called. One guy alerted an old pensioner in England who then joined the forum just to call me names. I appealed to the forum moderators to stop the abuse; they thought I deserved it for daring to criticise the thing.

At another show I was at Ron Hock's booth and he had a plane that was made from one of the kits he sold. The iron was only 1/4 inch longer than the wedge. When I pointed out that the iron would soon be too short, he was kind of surprised, like it never occurred to him that someone might actually use the thing.

[Chris Hachet]

Chris,
Here is one I have always coveted.
Boy I had the hots for one of these for a long time.
I tried to buy one.
Now I suppose the price is out of my range.
I can not get enough of looking at it though.

Did you see the unique Japanese hand plane that Steven Neuman found a little while back? It was part of our trade. The Japanese metal and oak infill that we couldn't figure out what it was....

Neat little plane, and it cuts well. And planes like this are the reason I started the thread....I would like to own one more interesting plane, be it HNT Gordon, an older British infill, build a plane myself from beach a la David Weaver, build or find a Krenov style smoother, etc.

Does not need to be fancy, just unique.

That Japanese plane is certainly unique!

[Chris Hachet]

Hi George. I would have considered weight an important attribute in the designing a good Smoothing Plane. The S55A and S50A Marcou Smoothing Planes each weigh 6.6 Ib. That's equivalent to the weight to a Stanley 5 1/2 Jack Plane.

Stewie;

Plus they are both drop dead gorgeous!

[Chris Hachet]

I think a lot of these plane makers don't actually know how to use a plane. I saw one plane maker who wanted a flat surface on wood so he used a milling machine and sandpaper. Apparently it did not occur to him that one of his planes might do the job.

About five years ago I tried a Marcou plane at a woodworking show. It was pitiful, like driving an armoured tank down the highway. When I wrote about it on another forum you should have seen the names I was called. One guy alerted an old pensioner in England who then joined the forum just to call me names. I appealed to the forum moderators to stop the abuse; they thought I deserved it for daring to criticise the thing.

At another show I was at Ron Hock's booth and he had a plane that was made from one of the kits he sold. The iron was only 1/4 inch longer than the wedge. When I pointed out that the iron would soon be too short, he was kind of surprised, like it never occurred to him that someone might actually use the thing.

Which is why I admired the Scot Meek Wood Works planes....from all accounts they are good users also.

I have no tools in my shop that are not users, actually.

[Chris Hachet]

Derek,

Interesting point of view regarding reliability. In thinking through my mention of my brass LN#4, with HAF, when I reach for it, I "know" what to expect and it delivers. Of course I have to do my part and getting used to fiddling with the chipbreaker a half dozen years ago when I first got the plane, seemed almost exasperating. But now the plane is absolutely predictable. Maybe this weekend, I'll apply some of the same effort to learning my LV BUS.

I don't knwo the physics, but 50 degrees seems much better than 45 degrees for frog angle. That #4 is something I would like to take for a test drive, methinks....

[george wilson]

I only own an LV NX60 block plane(I hope that's the Model!). It's the highly polished one. It is a marvelous design,but it is so smooth I have trouble hanging onto it,REALLY! I don't want to drop it,especially when my hands are dry and slippery. I equipped it with a PM VII iron,and it is wonderful. Machining is absolutely accurate. I'm very pleased with it. I think it is a masterpiece of design,and definitely NOT a '34 Ford! So,my taste is not just for antiques. Some of you don't seem to know that(understandably),from pictures I have posted of work done at the museum,or under its considerable influence.

Beyond that I have 3 or 4 LN planes,plus their line of 3 shoulder planes,all of which I love. Then,a gaggle of my own planes. But,no Marceau or Gordon planes,or Japanese planes,or other LV planes. So,I'm not qualified to comment on the reliability of planes I do not have.

Being mostly a musical instrument maker,though I have made several pieces of furniture for our house(of simple design,not worth posting-I don't like making furniture),I made do for YEARS with a Stanley block plane before coming to Williamsburg. It did everything I needed to do. At the museum,I began to make and acquire planes like I never had done before. Partly due to lack of money. Partly due to the non existence in the 60's, of some of the makers now extant.

I'll have to bow to Warren about the weight of the Marceau planes. Though he was derided for expressing his opinion,he probably shut them up when he won the planing contest using an old Stanley(Hooray!) He showed them that it's the craftsman,not the tool,provided that the tool was of REASONABLE quality. That is,unless they were so silly as to ignore what he was able to do with a Stanley. Then,there was only the usual jealousy and emotion driving his detractors.

Having cited Warren's accomplishment,I must say that,as are so many of these threads,they are much ado about nothing. However,I do like to see artistically pleasing tools on my bench,and I will stick up for them. Being human,I am inspired a bit just by seeing them and using them. so,I do like artistic tools around me,and have a keen sense of when they are not thus. It is a pleasure to reach for my LV NX60,every time I need it. Worth the money indeed!

Having expressed my thoughts about the merits of planes already presented here,I'll go to the link provided by Winton about the Lotus cars and comment on them when I edit this post. Though,I will say that it is going to be hard to convince me that a sports car nicer looking than early Jaguar XKE's,Austin Healey 3000's,or even the Jaguar 120's and 140's,( I have a long list but this A.M. just cannot think of them without dragging out books. My pain meds shut my brain down too much) do exist.

Edit: O.K.,I would rate the Lotus Elise as a much better design. The Esprit looks too angular,and too much like every one else's cars. I do not care for angularity in cars. The XKE still reigns.

[Matthew N. Masail]

Which is why I admired the Scot Meek Wood Works planes....from all accounts they are good users also.

I have no tools in my shop that are not users, actually.

I love that statement, because I believe a tool that is not a good user, for whatever reason, is a silly waste aside from the joy it brings to its maker.


I've spent the last 5 years in my shop making more planes than anything else, not because most don't work just fine for taking shaving, but because I have a goal of making user planes that are very comfortable to use and have the performance to warrant their place as main users, that is more of a design challenge than anything else. The Stanley no. 4 was and still is a hard benchmark to beat, although I have 2 krenov planes that (finally) feel better than the Stanley in use, I'm still working on some aspects of balance and ergonomics (I do this not to sell planes but as a personal goal, though I might sell them locally once I'm happy with em).

[Derek Cohen]

Well George, I cannot fault you on the NX60. It is a stunning design. My wife remarked that it reminded her of a Porsche. I did own a 1957 356A at the time I was testing one for LV ..

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Porsche%20356/356-2.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Chris Hachet]

Well George, I cannot fault you on the NX60. It is a stunning design. My wife remarked that it reminded her of a Porsche. I did own a 1957 356A at the time I was testing one for LV ..

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Porsche%20356/356-2.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek


It's nice the Aussies no longer make you convert cars to RHD to drive down there...

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Chris

That one was ex-Sacramento.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Tony Zaffuto]

This spring I shall post photos of my restored (needs re-assembled) 1948 Chevy Aero Fleetline.

Then the debates shall start as to beauty!

[Chris Hachet]

This spring I shall post photos of my restored (needs re-assembled) 1948 Chevy Aero Fleetline.

Then the debates shall start as to beauty!

Wood Werks here in Columbus has a 49 Chevy Werks truck inside the entrance way.

Always did like that era of Chevrolet truck.

[Tony Zaffuto]

Ah Grasshopper, mine is a two door, very streamlined looking just black automobile. All body work taken off replaced/repaired & frame restored. Assembly of pieces awaits my bodyman (works full time for me, when he wants to work).

[george wilson]

When I was young we had a 1937 Ford. Then a 1947 Chevy,then a 1957 Chevy. My first car was a 1950 chevy fastback,then a 1952. First DECENT car was a 1960 Impala I bought used in 1963. Had to have a reliable car to get from Va. Beach to Portsmouth to teach every day.

[Jeff Heath]

George

I have to agree with you on the XKE. The prettiest car I ever owned was a 1970 XKE convertible. The Lucas electric was a terrible joke, but the car was beautiful. I wish I never sold it, as they are selling for ridiculously huge money these days at auction. I also loved the lines on my Porsche 928S. It was an amazing car back in the 80's.

I have become a truck guy, and have been, and always shall be, a Dodge guy. In the works for me is a full resto-mod of a 1947 Dodge pickup. It'll have the old school body, but will have a modern frame, suspension, and Hemi motor to make it a joy to drive, and not just look at. I've driven enough farm trucks to know I don't want to take one on any kind of a long trip.

PS I've enjoyed your critique in this thread, but Philip's last name is spelled "Marcou" with an O. He's a friend, and I just thought I'd point out the oversight. Don't be offended. If someone spelled your last name "W I L S E N" I'd point it out to them, as well. :)

Cheers.

[george wilson]

Thanks for the correction,Jeff. I am never offended if I spell something wrong.

[Kent A Bathurst]

See the links to photos of the two car bodies. Both Lotus cars.

Sorry, Winton. And George.

The 7 is the classic. Especially the one Patrick McGoohan drove in The Prisoner.

The latter-day Caterhams have done a good job of maintaining the DNA, while updating everything about the car, but the Lotus 7 is still the real deal. Gotta have the clamshells fenders.

http://www.anglia-models.co.uk/images/specials/lotus7-10.jpg

[Frederick Skelly]

Sorry, Winton. And George.

The 7 is the classic. Especially the one Patrick McGoohan drove in The Prisoner.

The latter-day Caterhams have done a good job of maintaining the DNA, while updating everything about the car, but the Lotus 7 is still the real deal. Gotta have the clamshells fenders.

http://www.anglia-models.co.uk/images/specials/lotus7-10.jpg

Ooooooooh. A Seven. Love them.

This one has a wood dash, right? That you could smooth with a premium plane, RIGHT? :)

[Winton Applegate]

George,
Thank you for responding.


hard to [beat] early Jaguar XKE's,Austin Healey 3000's,or even the Jaguar 120's and 140's

Oh I totally agree there. I was just curious about your take on those two.
I too prefer the older stuff.
Case in point see photos.
= Jag
Every day on my bike commute to work I pass this place. Seriously nice cars, great mechanics, small neighborhood business that has been there for thirty years or more. When the economy was going I came with in a whisker of working there, I did some work for them (making parts etc) but then lots of things went to pot and their business ceased to grow and so there wasn't a new bay in a new building for me as was planned. It could have been a dream job.

But anyway every day it is a euro car show just for me as I ride by. Everything from Land Rovers to Lamborghini's. That day I stopped and asked permission to photograph this one. I couldn't pass it up.

The oddest part I made for them was a part for the water cannon on a classic old Land Rover fire truck !
And I have a killer story to tell about that but won't hog the thread anymore than I have.

[Winton Applegate]

I saw one plane maker who wanted a flat surface on wood so he used a milling machine and sandpaper. Apparently it did not occur to him that one of his planes might do the job.

Now THAT is paaaaaaaaathetic !
Silly fool almost deserves to be mentioned here. Would serve him just deserts. See the movie Hot Fuzz for "just deserts". Warning : The movie is NOT for everybody. I am STILL trying to decide if I like the movie and I own it and have watched it several times. I will say it is AWSOME. But is it one of my favorite movies ? Hmmmm . . .
I will say that I will buy and watch ANYTHING those guys ever put together though. (Simon Peg and Nick Frost).
Period.

[Winton Applegate]

Did you see the unique Japanese hand plane that Steven Neuman found a little while back? It was part of our trade. The Japanese metal and oak infill that we couldn't figure out what it was....

No I don't remember seeing that one.
Will you post a link or something that I can cut and paste into my browser or a photo ?

If you haven't done it yet I would recommend making a wooden plane for your self. Tough to find decent wood if you are going to make it out of one large chunk, as I am sure Larry Williams and Don McConnell will tell you.
Mine came up with a big O' shake in it that I didn't discover until the plane was about done. Still works perfectly well but ones eye goes right to it.

The reason it is worth it IF you haven't done it yet is that it really makes you look at a plane and how it works and the key elements.

[Derek Cohen]

Winton ... XK150 .... ahhhh .... I love the E-Type, but I'd have the 150 any day. I still miss the MkII 3.4 my dad had back in the mid-60's.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Winton Applegate]

I also loved the lines on my Porsche 928S

Oh don't mention that !
I have been know to do embarrassing things in the presences of a 928.
Lying across the hood . . . licking it . . .etc.
Very embarrassing I know. It just comes over me . . .
What a car . . .

[Winton Applegate]

7

YAH !
Frank at the shop I posted about drove one to work for years.
I think I was more depressed than he when he sold it.

He actually owns one of the Lotus Elises in that same orange that I linked to earlier.

[Kent A Bathurst]

YAH !
Frank at the shop I posted about drove one to work for years.
I think I was more depressed than he when he sold it.

He actually owns one of the Lotus Elises in that same orange that I linked to earlier.

Test-drove the modern Caterham version one time a few years back.

Sit in the seat, and by barely leaning, I could palm the asphalt. "Go-cart" and skid pad performance numbers don't do it justice, and that model had a smaller engine ~~ 150hp. Of course, @ 1,200 lb, that is a HP-Weight ratio right up there. Plus, they make models with a lot, lot, more HP if you are really insane.

The Lotus version, and the true-to-lotus Caterhams don't sit well on a wider load like me - 6'2" and 210 LB. Even that footwell is marginal for my 11-1/2 shoes - normal street shoes and nikes will not work over size 9 or so - but you can get legit racing shoes that will work. So, the wider-body models of Caterham are really the cat's pajamas. But still...............

[Winton Applegate]

Hi Derek,

I still miss the MkII 3.4 my dad had back in the mid-60's.
Lots of nice wood trim in that one as I recall.

Speaking of wood. I was sure looking forward to doing some woodwork in the old cars that had fabric over wood in the bodies.
I sure wish this dog of an economy would take a leap forward. I wouldn't mind getting back where I was about ten years ago.

[Winton Applegate]

Hello Kent,

Sounds like you sure know how to live.
I better stop pushing it by talking cars.
My bad.

How about them hand planes . . .

[Tony Wilkins]

Now not only are you guys feeding my tool addiction but you're making me miss my old jag as well! Dangerous forum this.

[george wilson]

Very nice Jaguars,Winton. I remember when you could buy those for $3000.00 back in the 60's. Chrome wire wheels and all. What do they cost now?

I had a Triumph GT 6+ in the 60's. A nice little car with a 6 cylinder engine and 2 carbs. But,it was really a Spitfire with a cab over the body. They were prone to tearing up rear ends because the makers left the little 4 cylinder rear end in them. Mine had a burl walnut dash. It would absolutely not go one MPH over 100. The valves just started sort of floating. Eventually I had to sell it because it would often not start in the Winter,and no one here would work on them back then.

Lucas: AKA "Prince of Darkness" !

Nah,that bugeye isn't making it!! Sorry.

Let us not forget Astin Martin.

[Paul McGaha]

I guess my tastes are different. Mustangs, Cameros, Challangers and the like for me. I like the looks of the older ones but the reliability of the new ones.

I own a 2006 Charger R/T. I bought it new and it's been a good car to drive and own.

PHM

[Jeff Heath]

I guess my tastes are different. Mustangs, Cameros, Challangers and the like for me. I like the looks of the older ones but the reliability of the new ones.

I own a 2006 Charger R/T. I bought it new and it's been a good car to drive and own.

PHM

Don't get me wrong.....my favorite car of all time was my old Dodge Charger R/T, 1970 style. I restored it myself, including swapping out the smallblock 318 for a totally rebuilt and .060 bored 440 block. I poured every penny I made into that car for 2 years straight. I used to take it to the local weekend races at the track (not to mention my daily munching of the odd foreign job on the street) until, after a while, nobody wanted to enter the bracket against me. The track owner wouldn't let me enter anymore......so sad. :)

The trunk on that ride was so huge that I could keep two big tires in it for swapping out to race.

Along with the old XKE, another one that would be worth a mint today.

[Tom Vanzant]

George, the joys of SU carbs! And don't forget the very rare Jag XKSS...a friend used to race one right after the factory burned. That was a kick to drive once you sorted out how to get into the seat...open "door", step onto the seat, go bow-legged, then slide down. 0-60 acceleration time 5.1 to 5.7 was purely a matter of wheel-spin control off the mark...very high ratio gearing. IIRC, 1st was good for about 63-65 mph before RL.

[george wilson]

I don't recall what carbs my Triumph had. But,one kept getting the float stuck. I'd have to knock on it with a wrench to free it up.

[Winton Applegate]

carbs . . . kept getting the float stuck

George,
Rebuilding carburetors is the reason God invented the kitchen table.
So we would all have a place to rebuild our carburetors where it was warm and clean and there is lots of hot running water.
and
it is an easy way to spend more quality time with SWMBO. At least that is one way of presenting it to SWMBO.
Yah
That never worked for me neither.


Triumph GT 6+ in the 60's. A nice little car with a 6 cylinder engine and 2 carbs. But,it was really a Spitfire with a cab over the body. They were prone to tearing up rear ends

I was kind of given one of those by an employer (needed a ton of work; he was given it in lew of payment and he just wanted to get it out of the shop and out of his hair) but I had to abandon it during an emergency/long story/settling in period.
I heard they had an interesting tendency to tuck an outside rear wheel under and then hop across the tarmac during hard cornering. Independent rear suspension right ? Any experience with that ?

[Winton Applegate]

Jeff,

440 block. I used . . . daily munching of the odd foreign job on the street) :)

Along with the old XKE

Which one would you rather be in during a - going into it too hot - decreasing radius turn ?

[Derek Cohen]

Rebuilding carburetors is the reason God invented the kitchen table.

:)

One of the reasons I spent 11 years rebuilding the Porsche 356A was that it could be done by someone with limited skills such as myself. Even the Weber 40 IDF carbs were doable with a manual. Dropping the engine was no different to a VW Beetle. I learned to and became reasonable at metal bumping. In the end I sold the car because the gearbox was costing me a fortune and there was no one around to work on it (successfully, that is - many promised and did a shoddy job .. I went through three pinion rings).

That was about 5 years ago now. I immediately regretted selling it, and eventually used the proceeds (which had increased quite a bit over the original outlay) to purchase a very good used Boxster S (triple black). I wanted something reliable now. The irony is that I have never seen the motor - you cannot get to it, and everything is now measured by a computer.

This is such a sweet car. Very powerful but an absolute delight to drive along twisty roads at speed. Top down is my therapy. My wife is making hints at something a little taller off the ground, however, saying it is difficult to climb in-and-out of of .... I guess that I may have to look for a new co-driver ... :)

Regards from Perth

Derek

[george wilson]

The Triumph rear end had universal joints on either side of the differential. Same rear end as the Spitfire(which is why the big 6 cyl. engine broke them!) I never cornered hard enough to tuck a wheel.

This thread is entirely off track. We ought to get back to planes.

[Tony Wilkins]

This thread is entirely off track. We ought to get back to planes.

true... So whose had a Cessna or Piper

[Winton Applegate]

true... So whose had a Cessna or Piper

er . . . . yah . . . but you mean who's had a Cessna or Piper
with
a hand made built in wood cabinet with dovetails for smuggling contraband high dollar hand planes past custom duties . . .
right ?
((:cool: pst just go with me here we gotta get past the moderator))

[Jeff Heath]

Jeff,


Which one would you rather be in during a - going into it too hot - decreasing radius turn ?

I think that answer is obvious! :D Mopars were designed to go very fast in a straight line (as I know you know). Turning, not so much. My 928 handled well, but not as well as my 911. Fastest car I ever owned and drove was a Viper, by far. They are absolutely amazing, but sadly, now are silly money. That car blows the doors off of any previously mentioned. When they first came out, they were in the $50K range, which is a lot of money for a car, but a far cry from $160K (current offerings).

My days of fast cars and go-fast boats are in my rear view mirror. I'm more into cruisin', now, and I limit my pleasures to American made.....a personal choice.

[Winton Applegate]

My 928 handled well, but not as well as my 911.
I will show my ineptitude here and say that that surprises me being the 928 is so well balanced with the transaxle in back and engine up front. I always thought the the 911's had a strong tendency to spin around and be most in their element when going backward down the road. But what do I know; I ride a bicycle most of the time.


Fastest car I ever owned and drove was a Viper, by far. They are absolutely amazing
Sounds like I missed out by not learning more about them.
As far as George's reference to FLOW . . . vipers always looked . . . to me . . . like they were about to break in half in the middle. I couldn't look at them for long.


That car blows the doors off of any previously mentioned. . . . originally priced at $50K range
That is a serious world beater there.

My days of fast cars and go-fast boats are in my rear view mirror. I'm more into cruisin', now
Yah, just as well. As I always think when I see someone blasting by in traffic in a piece of junk :
"Why don't you get a real car and go some place with it where you can drive it at it's potential
or better yet
buy a baby jet plane if you want to go "fast" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glS4YtEnMJA)."

Thanks for telling me/us about your smooth rides.

[Larry Edgerton]

He (Scott) has a table for sale very basic table for like 4 grand on his website. I do not begrudge him profit, but his prices seem a little steep. However, he has a backlog of orders so more power to him.

Nothing against woodworking celebrities, but woodworking seems to be more about selling premium webpage memberships than actually building things some days....

I'm on my third table in a row just now, and all of them are over $4,000. $4000 is not really an astronomical number when figured by the hour minus the cost of materials. I am certainly not a celebrity. When the hours are added up I make more on kitchen cabinets, but I have less fun.;)

The plane question is tough as I have never thought of spending $1000 on a plane.

[Brian Thornock]

I have only one "premium" plane, and that is a Veritas LA block that was a manufacturing second. However, I do enjoy building infills. I have a couple going one right now. If it were me, I would spend the $1k on materials to build myself a whole stable of infills with exotic woods and high quality metals...like brass :). That stuff has gotten pretty expensive lately, to the point where if I make a lever cap out of it, it can be the single most expensive component of the plane (depending on infill wood). I like the art as well as function of infills.

[Chris Hachet]

I have only one "premium" plane, and that is a Veritas LA block that was a manufacturing second. However, I do enjoy building infills. I have a couple going one right now. If it were me, I would spend the $1k on materials to build myself a whole stable of infills with exotic woods and high quality metals...like brass :). That stuff has gotten pretty expensive lately, to the point where if I make a lever cap out of it, it can be the single most expensive component of the plane (depending on infill wood). I like the art as well as function of infills.

I wish I was skilled enough to build one....sigh...I need to start a thread on vintage infills, but I have a couple of modern planes I want first. Just finished paying Mr Ron Bontz for a Half back saw, so an infill is out of the budget right now.

Enjoying the Half Back, though!

Chris

[Jon Snider]

Just ONE??? That's like asking me to eat just one potato chip out of the bag, or one spoonfool of ice cream, or one chocolate chip cookie. I really don't believe it's even possible.

That said, wow, I do love my LN #4 bronze, but that means I'd have to give up my LV bevel up smoother, which I also love, and the blades swap with my other LV bevel-ups, but if I can only have ONE premium plane, I am going to go with the LN #4. This does mean I get to have other old Stanleys, right? I mean, if I can't even have old Stanley #5, #7, etc., then please just shoot me and don't torture me to death.

Oh wait... the LV shooting plane... you know what, I think I would keep that one because I can tune a Stanley #4 to do close enough to as good as the LN (close enough, mind you- not better) but the shooter has taken my joinery to new levels. I don't think I can replace it. Sure, I could use a Stanley #5, but not with different blade angles for end versus straight grain. Also the shooter can become a jointer on a very long shooting board. I'm going to change paddles mid-stream- I'd keep the LV shooter.

Oh wait.... my beautiful LN bronze block plane would have to go then??? You know what- I hate you. Why even suggest such a thing as only ONE premium plane???? Are you real, or was this thread started by my wife? (HAHA)


Malcolm, I know this is really old but was diffing through searches of custom planes (thinking of building my own) and found this. Just wanted to say I always enjoy your posts. Always courteous, enthusiastic, and fun to read. Thanks for making my time on SMC better. Happy holidays.

jon

[steven c newman]

I would settle for a Stanley No. 55...with ALL of the cutters, plus all the Hollows and Rounds that were made for it AND the #45...don't forget the Nosing set. I think that should about hit the $1K mark....

[Osvaldo Cristo]

If you could get just one more premium plane...by building it yourself or buying it, what would you do?

Assuming you had the skills to build the plane, or perhaps set the cap at $1000 to keep out the exotic infills and Bridge city tool works.

So, what hand planes do you dream about? I have really been lusting after the work of Scott Meeks.

Chris

Actually it was not so difficult for me: I went to LN bevel up Jack plane and five irons: straight 25°, 35° and 90°. One 35° camberred. One toothed iron.

Plenty glad with it.

[Jim Koepke]

I would settle for a Stanley No. 55...with ALL of the cutters, plus all the Hollows and Rounds that were made for it AND the #45...don't forget the Nosing set. I think that should about hit the $1K mark....

To the best of my knowledge the only hollows & rounds made for the #55 were eight blades for cutting hollows and rounds. They didn't have a special base for those. The central tower and shoe performed the support when needed for the round blades and other shapes.

The #45 & #55 have different spacings for the rods used to support the movable skate and fence and add on bases.

There are at least two of the nosing sets currently on the auction site. One is Buy It Now for $99.99 + free shipping. The other is $125, also including shipping.

If you know someone who wants to pay $1K they can have mine and you can get a 15% finders fee.

Didn't look deep in everything that popped up but there were a couple of H & R bases for sale without blades. Both were BIN @ $110 + free shipping. The blades from the #55 can be used with these.

For my needs, it was less expensive to put together an almost complete set (mostly even sizes) of wooden hollows & rounds.

Looking back to the beginning of this thread, that was my answer to, "if you could do just one premium plane." Though it is more like a few dozen planes purchased than just one.

jtk

[steven c newman]

I have 2 Stanley No. 45s both have the OEM sets they came with when new. The 4 sets of H&Rs and the Nosing set all will fit the 45. It would be nice to have a complete No.55...but not NEEDED for what I do...

However....

[John Redford]

Another vote for the LN 5 1/2. I love mine.

[steven c newman]

I have 2 Stanley No. 5-1/2 ( T-11, and T-19) AND a Millers Falls No. 15......I think I'm set....

[Jim Koepke]

I have 2 Stanley No. 45s both have the OEM sets they came with when new. The 4 sets of H&Rs and the Nosing set all will fit the 45. It would be nice to have a complete No.55...but not NEEDED for what I do...

However....

There were five #45s in the shop until one was given to my grandson recently. One is a type 3 or 4, no blade adjuster, that doesn't get used much. One of them came with all the cutters including the special cutters. Over the years many spares of those were acquired here & there. Record & possibly Clifton made them into the 1980s if my memory is working. Most of the duplicates were also given to my grandson with the other blades for his #45.

My #55 is complete. It gets used to make moldings for different projects.

A #50 also gets used regularly.

jtk

[Mike Soaper]

Here's a pic of a Clifton Multiplane, not mine

edit: based on the owner i would guess it was made around the 1980's

470344