First and last Stanley handplane restoration

[Steve Mathews]

I'm almost finished with my first handplane restoration, a Stanley #5. It will be my first and only such attempt because of not only the work involved but the experience has me convinced the time and effort does not offset the savings in buying new. I'm also disappointed in myself for not checking the base of the plane before beginning the project. It ended up having a crown in the middle that is so far difficult to remove. So, my next purchase will be NEW. What quality can I expect from a Lie Nielsen? I plan to purchase a 5 1/2. Will the base be perfectly flat and sides perfectly square to the base?

[Patrick Chase]

Yes, new LV or LN planes have very well-machined bases and sides. There are always machining tolerances of course, but those planes are never off by more than a mil or so.

With that said, I also think that the "cult of flat" is a bit overdone. People did excellent work with those old Stanleys after all.

[Archie England]

I've rehabbed dozens of vintage hand planes but have drastically slowed down in doing so. That's because I like the LN and LV products. They work right out of the box. Expensive, YES; but they are worth the cost IMO. OTOH, rehabbing has taught me so many needed skills in trouble shooting. Once that new plane is taken apart, you must go through the same steps as using a vintage plane. So, learning the ropes via rehabbing older stuff is still good.

Like another thread poster, if I've only got a few hours, giving all that to fixing something isn't as fun as working the wood.

[ken hatch]

Steve,

You are a smart dude, it usually take a half dozen or more re-habs to figure the secret out :).

The old Stanley planes work well and I will usually pick up one of the Stanley's before either of the equivalent LN or LV (my woodies are a different story) but unless you can find one that is basically ready to go with a good cutter and chip breaker it will end up costing only a little less than a new one and will be a lot of work....At my time of life time is more precious than money and I'd rather spend my time working wood vs. cleaning up rust.

ken

[Jim Koepke]

I wish I had one of those jobs that would pay me enough to purchase a new LN or LV plane for a few hours work when ever I felt up to it.

In the case of my $10 #5 it would have had to be over $300 an hour to pay off. About the same with the #5 that cost me ~$17.

My $21.25 #7 took a few hours, but it was also documented (From Junker to Jointer) and painted.

Like Archie I have done a lot of rehabs but haven't done any lately. There is a #8 sitting in a corner just waiting for some TLC to get back to work. Of course the #8 sitting on the shelf is working just fine.

A few of my old "rehabs" worked fine out of the box after a sharpening. Just the same, many of them were taken apart and cleaned.

Patrick said,
I also think that the "cult of flat" is a bit overdone.

If you want to make sub-thousandths shavings, then flat is important. If you want to remove saw marks and make a piece of wood flat, then flatness isn't so important.

jtk

[James Pallas]

I'm almost finished with my first handplane restoration, a Stanley #5. It will be my first and only such attempt because of not only the work involved but the experience has me convinced the time and effort does not offset the savings in buying new. I'm also disappointed in myself for not checking the base of the plane before beginning the project. It ended up having a crown in the middle that is so far difficult to remove. So, my next purchase will be NEW. What quality can I expect from a Lie Nielsen? I plan to purchase a 5 1/2. Will the base be perfectly flat and sides perfectly square to the base?
I'm with you on this one Steve. I went thru enough rust buckets to suit me. Then I went to just finding ones that I could clean up with mineral spirits and 600 w/d a little oil and a sharpening. Then I finally had money enough to spare to buy new and never looked back. I all but given away the old Stanley herd. Hardly get what's left out anymore.
Jim

[Bill Houghton]

Check the sole for flat; look the plane over for cracks. If both are good, then clean off the rust (I use a white vinegar soak, 24 hours; brush off the rust; wash off the vinegar; soak it in WD-40 to "absorb" the water). Wax and reassemble. Total time to "restore" is probably two hours. Even when I was doing consulting work at an obscene income level, I didn't make that hourly wage.

This is not to say, "don't buy LV/LN." Life is tradeoffs. But a plane will not plane any better with fresh japanning on it than without; the sole doesn't have to be so flat it sticks when you put it on a surface plate; the tote and knob don't need refinishing unless the existing finish is ruined. Quick can work fine.

[Kees Heiden]

Steve, you are WRONG! :D


To each their own, I'd guess. Personally I like diddling with antique tools, so it is not a waste of time for me. And the old Stanleys just ooze charisma, something new planes are sorely lacking.

[Jim Koepke]

Steve, you are WRONG! :D


To each their own, I'd guess. Personally I like diddling with antique tools, so it is not a waste of time for me. And the old Stanleys just ooze charisma, something new planes are sorely lacking.

Ok, :D means not wrong so much as "To each their own... "

Sometimes just to have a little time in the shop rust is cleaned off of some acquisition in the pile of rusty things.

jtk

[Archie England]

Until I bought my first LN hand plane, I didn't know how well I had fettled some of my vintage Sargents, Millers Falls, Union, Ohio, and Stanley planes. IMO, purchasing a LN or LV is like paying tuition for a class. I get the primo plane, all set up and see the desired results; and this, then, motivates me to reassess what's needed on the vintage planes. Like Jim Koepke, I've got some vintage planes that perform beautifully--and wouldn't have know it if I hadn't bought a representative LN/LV.

As I have been able to pick up a few LV and LN planes, my desire for fettling has dwindled. Rehabbing planes has given me confidence to keep improving the performance; but, I'd rather spend those two hours gaining ground on the projects for wife and daughters rather than fiddling with the tools. As a hobby, I derive pleasure from both, so I guess that I'm happy either way...just behind on some projects.

[Don Dorn]

Fortunately, I was able to purchase a couple of LV planes and a couple LN. The bench planes are gone and went full circle back to the old Stanley's. The reason isn't that I think they are better quality, and did take some work to flatten. You might assume that I like fixing them up which is wrong - it was a pain. The main reason was that actually didn't like the 1/8 thick irons. With a Stanley iron, I can sharpen it (Sellers method) in two minutes including stropping. When I have to grind, that is done is less than 5. I simply prefer the thinner iron for that reason and find them every bit as sharp.

[Todd Stock]

About the third time one of your students sends a well-loved and used 603 to the concrete, you'll realize that ductile iron is wonderful stuff, and if you do manage to break a LN, Tom is an email away. I sold off or put my old stuff away and went to planes that can take a trip off the bench in stride (wood works as well). That I can put a LN or a LV in service in about 10 minutes is icing on the cake.

I really do need a wood floor in the shop...but not happening anytime soon with a kid in college.

[andy bessette]

...I really do need a wood floor in the shop...

I use the rubber mats from HF over the concrete floor near my work centers.

[Patrick Chase]

You are a smart dude, it usually take a half dozen or more re-habs to figure the secret out :).

The old Stanley planes work well and I will usually pick up one of the Stanley's before either of the equivalent LN or LV (my woodies are a different story) but unless you can find one that is basically ready to go with a good cutter and chip breaker it will end up costing only a little less than a new one and will be a lot of work....At my time of life time is more precious than money and I'd rather spend my time working wood vs. cleaning up rust.

It depends on how much each individual thinks their time is worth. As anybody who reads this forum knows, I'm willing to shell out $$$ to avoid (what I consider to be) excessive tool setup work. Most of my planes are modern as a consequence.

There are people who have very different time/money tradeoffs, and there are also people (like Jim) for whom tool setup work is an enjoyable part of the journey.

I acquired a vintage #20 last week
which was in solid "user" condition, but even so getting it cleaned up and the iron to what I consider OK condition took hours. I would have gone for a modern compass plane in a heartbeat if such a thing existed, but that's just me and my preferences.


From Patrick Leach aka Supertool - I wanted a known quantity that had been looked over by somebody who knows what they're doing, as opposed to taking a flyer on Ebay or spending a bunch of time rust-hunting.

[Todd Stock]

Even with air cleaners and a good Oneida system, a daily wet sweep is still needed for dust control...so mats end up being moved around as needed. We have them by all four benches, the buffer, and most of the machines, but despondent planes still manage to launch themselves on trajectories guaranteed to earn a place on the disabled list. Oddly enough, when students bring their own tools, they seem to stay on the bench with a bit more regularity...

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

I suppose I'll be the dissenter here--I enjoy restoring tools. I'm also an indebted student with no money so a new LN or LV is not within reach anyway...but even if I did have the money I would spend some time restoring old tools. Sure, I'd love a low angle jack plane and I would be more selective with my restoration project mediums but restoration is its own pursuit for me. I get a kick out of the aesthetics of these old things, the knowledge that I'm using a tool made 100 years ago, and the idea that I kept one more valuable item out of a trash dump or some hoarder's basement. It provides a fun vehicle for me to learn about the old toolmakers and manufacturers, and how craftsmen did things a century or two ago. And as much as I would like to support great companies like LN or LV, I also believe that increasing recycling and/or decreasing consumption are usually good things so putting an old tool to work also fits into that aspect of my worldview. It probably also helps that I like a lot of the skills involved in restoration but there are plenty of enjoyable mechanical skills in woodworking as well.

Now all that said, if I didn't enjoy history and care about saving relics from junkyards the appeal would diminish quite a bit. If my focus and desire was entirely centered on working wood then tool restoration would be a nuisance. And while I have learned a lot about how planes work by restoring a few, I'll echo Archie's sentiment above. You can shorten the learning curve quite a bit by knowing what a well tuned plane, saw, etc. is supposed to feel like. It can be hard to determine whether deficiencies are in my own skill or in some poorly-functioning aspect of a tool sometimes. With a new LN/LV tool you can't misplace the blame--it's all on you!

One thing I'd advise to anyone interested in tool restoration is to be selective in your restoration candidates. Since I started out with such little money, I'd often pass up a decent plane for $30 because I found a slightly crappier one for $15. That $15 savings, more often than not, translated into hours more time in restoration and a less refined final product. Some things should be deal breakers. If something has a lot of deep rust that will leave pitting after its removal, you should either be fine with the pitting or you should suck it up and fork out the cash for a better project. Grinding, sanding, or draw-filing pitting out of metal isn't enjoyable nor is it much of a learning experience. It simply isn't worth the often minor savings up front. There are definitely great deals to be had out there, and I've gotten lucky on some tools in great condition for $10-15 or so, but those deals take a lot of time and effort to find. You won't find them on ebay or in an antique shop--you have to put in some hours digging through flea markets and estate sales. So if that kind of thing isn't worth your time then finding old tools becomes much less financially advantageous.

[Rob Luter]

My core user set of planes is made up of Stanley Sweetheart era and older restorations (#18 and #65 blocks, #3, #4, #5, #6, & #7 bench planes) and some new (LN #102 & #60 1/2 Block, LN #4 1/2 Smoother, LV #62 1/2 LA Jack). The new planes perform marginally better than the restorations. They are typically reserved for finer work. That said, the restorations work pretty well. New Hock Blades for the #3, #4 and #5 made a huge difference.

[Warren Mickley]

I use a Bailey #3 plane that is about 100 years old. I have used it for 36 years. I would not trade it for a Lie Nielsen plane.
It is superior to the LN plane because

1. Better cap iron. The LN cap iron was designed by people who did not know how it worked.
2. Better iron. The steel is finer; easier to sharpen and takes a finer edge.
3. Lighter weight. The LN plane is too heavy for serious use.

[ken hatch]

I use a Bailey #3 plane that is about 100 years old. I have used it for 36 years. I would not trade it for a Lie Nielsen plane.
It is superior to the LN plane because

1. Better cap iron. The LN cap iron was designed by people who did not know how it worked.
2. Better iron. The steel is finer; easier to sharpen and takes a finer edge.
3. Lighter weight. The LN plane is too heavy for serious use.

What Warren said.....But in todays market finding a good base plane is hard and it is even harder finding good cutters and cap irons. All my primary use planes are either Stanley/Bailey, Record, or wood stock, the LN and LV stay on the shelf for the most part. That said, if someone starting out wants to work wood then new is usually a better option. Rust can take too much time to fix, the burn rate can be high even if you know what to look for, and if the cutter or cap iron needs replacing (they often do) there isn't a lot of savings. over a new Woodriver v3.

ken

[Todd Stock]

Chip Breaker: Isn' t that why we take the time to fit CB's? 30 seconds of file work and a quick lick with some 600 will do the trick...less work than what I often had to do for vintage restos

Blade: After the first few swipes, the advantage to O1 in taking a better edge is lost in much of the stock I work in as a luthier, and then it's all about edge retention. Cherry, pine, mahogany and walnut are easy - any alloy will do just fine. Not so much in tropical abrasives like flamed anigre, ipe, etc. Customers being customers, I go for what works in the stuff they want their instruments built with.

Weight: I can see this as being a concern for some...if the extra 4 ounces of weight (60 oz vs. 64 oz on an iron #4) is truly an issue, maybe a move to a #2 or #3 is in order. Three of my four female students - all of whom have been quite svelte - preferred the #3/#5-1/4 combo. The odd woman out was a 5' 2" former power lifter that has no issues with anything in the shop, including the #8. If you tend toward the smaller glove and shoe sizes, these smaller planes are awesome!

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

New Hock Blades for the #3, #4 and #5 made a huge difference.

Ah, I knew I forgot to mention something! Not only do the Hock or LV blades function better, in my opinion, they also save quite a bit of time if you have an old blade that isn't flat or has pitting that would need to be ground out.

To follow up on my above post (because I finally feel like I've encountered a subject I can offer a helpful opinion on!), I want to point out that little things like that might be the difference between someone thinking that the old Stanleys are vastly inferior to new planes or them realizing that a properly-tuned Stanley can hold its own. For those of us that are on a tight budget, the realization that you can set up a very nice plane with a little bit of work and knowledge opens up a whole new realm of woodworking.

For me, I probably wouldn't have even gotten into hand tools if I couldn't restore and fix up my own tools. When I first got into this whole ordeal I thought I wouldn't be able to get into hand tool woodworking. I knew I couldn't afford the nice tools that I saw a lot of craftsmen on the internet or in magazines using, so I figured it was out of my range. That idea probably seems silly to a lot of you with experience and good mentors early on but I remember being a beginner (well, even more of a beginner than I am now at least) and really not knowing these things. I thought hand tool woodworking was expensive and was some niche for people with a lot of time and money. But now I have 3 finely-tuned Stanley planes that work about as well as anything out there with less than $200 invested in the lot.

So circling back to the original post--if the OP really just wants to learn how to work wood with hand tools, is short on time but not on a very tight budget then ya, I can't argue that you shouldn't throw down some money on nice tools from LN or LV. But maybe your experience in restoration could be more enjoyable if you changed the way you went about it, and maybe it could open a whole new realm for you.

[James Pallas]

In my previous post I may have sounded like I have no use for old planes. That is not so. A well tuned old plane works just great. I just don't have the patience for it now. I still have all the tools needed to do them up right. I do love my new planes tho. I have some extra funds because I had to give up some other vices, hunting fishing, old cars. Now I have the extra to spend on woodworking. And yes I would rather be woodworking than plane rebuilding. I had a #6 Stanley out yesterday flattening a nice cherry board for a new project. It worked just fine. The board had a knot and it was just as nice to grab my LVLA Jack with a 38* blade and make easy work of it. Rehab is the way to go if you can't find the funds.
Jim

[Patrick Chase]

My core user set of planes is made up of Stanley Sweetheart era and older restorations (#18 and #65 blocks, #3, #4, #5, #6, & #7 bench planes) and some new (LN #102 & #60 1/2 Block, LN #4 1/2 Smoother, LV #62 1/2 LA Jack). The new planes perform marginally better than the restorations. They are typically reserved for finer work. That said, the restorations work pretty well. New Hock Blades for the #3, #4 and #5 made a huge difference.

As much as I hate to agree with Warren, I think that many people are too quick to dispose of the original irons when then fettle old planes. IMO if a Hock makes a huge positive difference then we should ask whether our tuning or planing techniques could be improved.

Using my new-to-me #20 as an example, some previous owner had managed to crown the back of the iron (such that it was slightly convex in both length and width) and dub both corners. I had to grind off about 3 mm to get rid of the worst of the dubbing, and then lap out ~3 mils of center thickness to get the leading ~1/2" of the back flat. All of that took a bit of time and effort, but the iron now takes a great edge and doesn't chatter in use. I've had similar experiences with other old Stanley irons in the past.

I'm sure that an O1 Hock would do just as well (if you could fit a 3/32" thick iron to an unmodified #20, which you can't) but why replace what isn't broken to begin with?

[Pat Barry]

As much as I hate to agree with Warren, I think that many people are too quick to dispose of the original irons when then fettle old planes. IMO if a Hock makes a huge positive difference then we should ask whether our tuning or planing techniques could be improved.

Using my new-to-me #20 as an example, some previous owner had managed to crown the back of the iron (such that it was slightly convex in both length and width) and dub both corners. I had to grind off about 3 mm to get rid of the worst of the dubbing, and then lap out ~3 mils of center thickness to get the leading ~1/2" of the back flat. All of that took a bit of time and effort, but the iron now takes a great edge and doesn't chatter in use. I've had similar experiences with other old Stanley irons in the past.

I'm sure that an O1 Hock would do just as well (if you could fit a 3/32" thick iron to an unmodified #20, which you can't) but why replace what isn't broken to begin with?
Why would you hate to agree with Warren? He has been doing the same thing, with the same tools, and the same techniques for the last 40 years and is totally happy with all of the above.

[steven c newman]

I'll just stand back and watch......and maybe go back to smoothing out some Curly Maple with a "old" Millers Falls No. 11....with the original iron. Was using it on Poplar, wasn't much effort needed there.

Lost track of how many planes I have rehabbed over the years.....does NOT take all that long to do one plane....usually an afternoon for me. Wonder what the OP was doing all that time....milking the job? Glad I don't pay him by the hour.....

[Archie England]

Patrick, I agree that we shouldn't fix what's not broken.

Like other posts, I've replaced old Stanley blades with a couple Hocks and LVs. These make great replacements but can also introduce new problems. Now, I do my best to restore the original blade and chip breaker and only replace sparingly. When a vintage blade is crap, I don't hesitate to replace; but like others, I've found the good vintage blades to be genuinely very good. So, if it ain't broke.....

[Patrick Chase]

Why would you hate to agree with Warren? He has been doing the same thing, with the same tools, and the same techniques for the last 40 years and is totally happy with all of the above.

That was mostly a joke.

Also, while I think that old Stanley irons are quite good and (less strongly) that coarse-grained high-alloy steels aren't a panacea, I don't believe that everything that is new and/or made by L-N is bad :-).

[Larry Frank]

Patrick Chase....I found the comment about coarse grained high alloy steels to be interesting. I had thought that most high alloy steels are made fine grain and only have coarse grain due to poor heat treating. Perhaps, you could give a reference or explanation of which steels you are mentioning. Thanks

[Jim Koepke]

So circling back to the original post--if the OP really just wants to learn how to work wood with hand tools, is short on time but not on a very tight budget then ya, I can't argue that you shouldn't throw down some money on nice tools from LN or LV.

One of my often said lines, let having more time than money or more money than time be what determines whether to pursue new tools or old tools.

For me fettling old tools is an enjoyable pursuit. If one finds it frustrating then by all means find a way to purchase new tools or those that have already been restored.

jtk

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

One of my often said lines, let having more time than money or more money than time be what determines whether to pursue new tools or old tools.

jtk

Dammit why can't I just have both?! Time and money, that is.

[Chris Parks]

I would have a new plane in a heart beat if they weren't so heavy. It is most probably something I would get over if I bought one but the old ones I have match my skill level anyway. Why do modern planes have to weigh so much, anyone got the answer?

[steven c newman]

This jointer was a total rust bucket when it came to the shop...
363625
The iron was so bowed, it snapped when I went to straighten it out. Had the Globe logo-ed iron welded, honed up and away we went...
363626
Was even using it tonight. Ohio Tool Co. No. 0-7....all original parts. Was jointing a bit of Curly Maple.

As for weight of new planes....seems to be a Myth going round that heavier plane HELP you to plane, once you get the weight moving, that is. However,....then you have to drag the heavy plane back and start again. maybe good for a Cardio Workout.

I like these BECAUSE they don't weigh a "ton" and are light and agile in use..
363627
Bronze is soooo..Bronze Age.

[Patrick Chase]

I would have a new plane in a heart beat if they weren't so heavy. It is most probably something I would get over if I bought one but the old ones I have match my skill level anyway. Why do modern planes have to weigh so much, anyone got the answer?

Because that's what the market demands. I've seen a stupendous number of articles and reviews that tout "heft" or "solidity" as if they are ends unto themselves. I don't agree with that perspective FWIW.

With that said, I think that the heft of the modern planes is sometimes exaggerated in these discussions. The Stanley #4 was 3.75 lbs, whereas the iron-bodied LN #4 is 4.0 lbs and the Veritas Custom #4 is 4.25 lbs (I can't find the number for the older Veritas #4 and am too lazy to weigh mine, but it's lighter than the Custom). Similarly, the Stanley #7 was 8.125 lbs, the LN #7 is 8 lbs, and the Veritas Custom #7 is 8.5 lbs. These are not huge differences.

There certainly are some notable offenders, though. The bronze-bodied L-Ns and the Cliftons are on the hefty side (4.5 lbs each for #4), and the Quanshang/WoodRiver planes are piggish (5 lbs for #4).

EDIT: I checked the weights of a couple L-Ns and a few Veritas planes this morning. The Veritas planes are all spot-on at their spec'ed weights, but the L-Ns run heavy (for example 10 lb 6 oz actual for the #8 vs 10 lb claimed). Interpret my remarks above accordingly.

[bridger berdel]

I would have a new plane in a heart beat if they weren't so heavy. It is most probably something I would get over if I bought one but the old ones I have match my skill level anyway. Why do modern planes have to weigh so much, anyone got the answer?

I think they make them thick so that they will have fewer q.c. rejects from machining to the unnecessarily high tolerances that the current market demands. Marketing the extra weight as a feature is all shuck and jive.

[Patrick Chase]

I think they make them thick so that they will have fewer q.c. rejects from machining to the unnecessarily high tolerances that the current market demands. Marketing the extra weight as a feature is all shuck and jive.

The difference in machining tolerance amounts to a few mils, so the required amount of extra iron in a #4 is at most about 0.12 in^3, or about 1/2 of an ounce of iron.

While your theory may validate your preexisting emotional biases about modern tools, from a mathematical perspective it's nonsense.

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick Chase....I found the comment about coarse grained high alloy steels to be interesting. I had thought that most high alloy steels are made fine grain and only have coarse grain due to poor heat treating. Perhaps, you could give a reference or explanation of which steels you are mentioning. Thanks

Yep, like many people I [mis-]used "grain" as a shorthand for "carbide distribution".

In the sorts of hypereutectoid tool steels we're discussing here, my recollection is that carbides tend to form segregated networks (at least I think that's the proper terminology - it's been a long time), particularly at high alloyant fractions. I don't have a reference offhand, though I've seen plenty of micrographs of O1/HCS vs higher-alloy tool steels like A2, D2, or various HSS alloys that clearly demonstrate the effect. The entire point of PM processing is to inhibit the formation of said networks IIRC.

Certainly microalloyants as in an HSLA steel do refine the grain size, so this is very much phase-specific.

IIRC you have a backgorund in metallurgy, so by all means please correct where I've made mistakes.

[Stewie Simpson]

The difference in machining tolerance amounts to a few mils, so the required amount of extra iron in a #4 is at most about 0.12 in^3, or about 1/2 of an ounce of iron.

While your theory may validate your preexisting emotional biases about modern tools, from a mathematical perspective it's nonsense.

Then that would add strength to Bridger's 2nd point, "Marketing the extra weight as a feature is all shuck and jive."

[Jason Dean]

If I am not mistaken newer planes are cast from ductile iron rather than gray cast iron in the Stanley case. Having never designed a casting for either, I wonder if the greater coefficient of thermal expansion for ductile iron necessitates different draft angles and web thicknesses for the mold. Even some subtle variations over the whole casting could account for the difference in weight.

The heft argument sounds a bit like marketing spin to counter the lighter weight argument. Ductile irons greater impact strength is a definite advantage when it meets with the concrete floor.

[Pat Barry]

I think the weight issue is a bit overblown both ways. A few ounces doesn't really make a difference in comparison to the force required to plane off some material. Heavier weight means maybe you don't have to bear down as hard but I doubt this is really a big deal. Lighter means, under no load, that its easier to push - someone should figure out the actual planing force as compared to sliding / static friction for a number 4 plane - my bet is the cutting force will be significantly higher. If you use a plane all day, every day, you may be sensitive enough to actually feel a bit lighter plane but most of us (80% maybe) don't care.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

I think the weight issue is a bit overblown both ways. A few ounces doesn't really make a difference in comparison to the force required to plane off some material.

I don't use a plane all day every day. My shop time is a lot more limited than that. But when I am dimensioning rough lumber, and spend an afternoon working with a jack, try, and jointer, I certainly notice a difference. It may not matter much on any individual stroke, but over the course of the day it adds up. I used to use my Stanleys (7, 5, 4 1/2, 3), but now that I have a set of wooden planes (a jack, try, smoother) up and running, the Stanleys see a lot less use. A lot of that is because I just get more done with the wooden planes.

For occasional use, I think it is hard to beat the wooden planes. Their disadvantage is that they wear compared to metal, but a hobbyist is not going to wear one out in a lifetime. If I were a gazillionaire hobbyist, I would seriously be looking at something like what Steve Voight is making. I am confident they are better than what I am using, and the ones I am using are pretty darn good. The adjustment thing bothers a lot of people I guess, but it really is pretty simple once you get the hang of it.

On the other hand, if you use a lot of machines and are just looking smooth the occasional board, or do some light edge jointing, the extra weight in a Stanley (or LN/LV) probably is not noticeable.

[James Pallas]

The extra weight is in the heavier iron and cap iron:D. I don't "bear" down on planes or saws or fountain pens. If you find that you are doing so something is amiss.
Jim

[James Waldron]

[snip] I don't "bear" down on planes or saws or fountain pens. If you find that you are doing so something is amiss.
Jim

+1

When you find it necessary to push down on the plane to take a shaving, it's past time to sharpen.

If you avoid sharpening enough that you have to bear down a lot, it can become a bad habit. Planing is a lot more pleasant (and productive) if you avoid bad habits.

[ken hatch]

I think the weight issue is a bit overblown both ways. A few ounces doesn't really make a difference in comparison to the force required to plane off some material. Heavier weight means maybe you don't have to bear down as hard but I doubt this is really a big deal. Lighter means, under no load, that its easier to push - someone should figure out the actual planing force as compared to sliding / static friction for a number 4 plane - my bet is the cutting force will be significantly higher. If you use a plane all day, every day, you may be sensitive enough to actually feel a bit lighter plane but most of us (80% maybe) don't care.

Pat,

I will disagree, weight can make a difference when working wood more than a stroke are two. After 15m or so with the LN #8 I'm nackered. With a Stanley #8 I'm good for 45 or so minutes, with one of the wood stock planes even longer. If your cutter is sharp you shouldn't need to "bear" down, the cutter should pull the plane into the wood.

Lighter, even if it is just a few oz makes a difference. Heavier and thicker is a bill of goods....It is a shame that is all that can be found.

ken

[Pat Barry]

+1

When you find it necessary to push down on the plane to take a shaving, it's past time to sharpen.

If you avoid sharpening enough that you have to bear down a lot, it can become a bad habit. Planing is a lot more pleasant (and productive) if you avoid bad habits.

Sounds good in theory.

[andy bessette]

If lighter was necessarily better planes wouldn't be made of cast iron and bronze. And Lie Nielsen planes would not be in such demand.

[Patrick Chase]

I think the weight issue is a bit overblown both ways. A few ounces doesn't really make a difference in comparison to the force required to plane off some material. Heavier weight means maybe you don't have to bear down as hard but I doubt this is really a big deal. Lighter means, under no load, that its easier to push - someone should figure out the actual planing force as compared to sliding / static friction for a number 4 plane - my bet is the cutting force will be significantly higher. If you use a plane all day, every day, you may be sensitive enough to actually feel a bit lighter plane but most of us (80% maybe) don't care.

My own "don't care" threshold is about 1/2 pound. I notice but don't mind the difference between, say, a Stanley #4 and a Veritas Custom #4 (3.75 and 4.25 lb). I find the bronze L-N #4 (4.5 lb) to be notably heavy, and the Quangshang/WoodRiver #4 (5 lb) to be unusable. I'm sure everybody has their own pain threshold, though.

EDIT: Veritas' claimed weight #s are accurate, but it turns out that L-N "rounds down" a bit. That bronze #4 is probably a bit more than 4.5 lb, which would explain why I can tell the difference from the Veritas Custom #4. And here I always wondered if that was my head playing games with me :-).

[Patrick Chase]

If lighter was necessarily better planes wouldn't be made of cast iron and bronze. And Lie Nielsen planes would not be in such demand.

As just about any experienced designer can tell you, "better" and "in demand" are at best weakly correlated. The fact that the clueless herd prefers heavy planes doesn't say anything about whether that's functionally better.

[Patrick Chase]

I will disagree, weight can make a difference when working wood more than a stroke are two. After 15m or so with the LN #8 I'm nackered. With a Stanley #8 I'm good for 45 or so minutes, with one of the wood stock planes even longer. If your cutter is sharp you shouldn't need to "bear" down, the cutter should pull the plane into the wood.

A quick fact/reality check is in order. The classic Stanley #8 weighs 9.75 lbs. The L-N #8 weighs 10 lbs 6 oz (they claim "10 lbs" but I weighed mine just now and that's where it came in).

If that 6% weight difference drops your endurance from 45 min and 15 min, then you either have highly unique physiology or the exhaustion you feel with the L-N is of the psychosomatic variety.

This happens over and over and over in these "plane weight debates" BTW. People make assertions about how heavy modern plane X is compared to classic plane Y and how much longer they can work with the classic plane, but when you actually look at the data the difference turns out to be far too modest to support the claims.

EDIT: Replaced L-N weight with actual measured value as opposed to spec'ed

[Rick Malakoff]

Did anyone respond to the OP's original question?

Truthfully I don't care how much a plane weighs as long as it gets the job done.
Rick

[steven c newman]

Until you USE said planes for an afternoon....I routinely move from the bigger Jointers down to the #5-1/2 sizes as the day goes on. Shoulders and arms tend to get a bit tired, otherwise. Nice when the surface is right next to you, as you plane merrily along...but when the centers of the panels you are trying to plane are at arm's length away.....makes for a very tiresome day.

I normally work 2-5 hours in the shop....try doing that with the heavier planes, not just a few wispy passes, talking about standing ankle deep in shavings to go from rough sawn to finished surface, before you call it a day...less weight I have to shove around, the better I feel at the end of the day. My #8 is nice, but I quickly move to either the #7 or the #6.....Sometimes, even a 5-1/4 will get used. I tend to hate those Charlie Horses that happen at the shoulder blades...

[Patrick Chase]

Until you USE said planes for an afternoon....I routinely move from the bigger Jointers down to the #5-1/2 sizes as the day goes on. Shoulders and arms tend to get a bit tired, otherwise. Nice when the surface is right next to you, as you plane merrily along...but when the centers of the panels you are trying to plane are at arm's length away.....makes for a very tiresome day.

That makes complete sense. Dropping from an 8 to a 5-1/2 reduces the weight from 9.75 lbs to 6.75 lbs. It also reduces the contact area and therefore any "suction" effects. That's well over my threshold of noticeability, and I suspect it is for basically everybody.

What I'm harping about here are the claims that switching between two near-equal planes makes a significant difference (say, a Stanley 7 at 8.75 lbs and a Veritas Custom 7 at 8.6 lbs - note that this is a case where the newer plane is lighter)

[Patrick Chase]

Did anyone respond to the OP's original question?

Truthfully I don't care how much a plane weighs as long as it gets the job done.
Rick

Several of us did. We (Jim, me, others) all said the obvious:

- If you place a high value on your time then by all means buy new.
- If you're willing to spend the time (or enjoy spending it) then you can obtain terrific tools by restoration.

The O-P's point had been addressed as much as it ever will be by about the 5th post :-).

[Rick Malakoff]

Thanks Pat, guess I forgot because that was so many posts ago.

I'm in this camp " If you're willing to spend the time (or enjoy spending it) then you can obtain terrific tools by restoration."

Rick

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Did anyone respond to the OP's original question?

Truthfully I don't care how much a plane weighs as long as it gets the job done.
Rick

I think we've moved a little bit, to whether there are non-economic reasons that make the older planes worth repairing.

[steven c newman]

Don't know, but ones like these ain't all that cheap..
363649
That #8 was listed as $110...that is a #6 on the left side of it....The #4s were "cheap" at around $35 each...YMMV

[Andy Nichols]

As just about any experienced designer can tell you, "better" and "in demand" are at best weakly correlated. The fact that the clueless herd prefers heavy planes doesn't say anything about whether that's functionally better.

The "weakly correlated" concept diminishes greatly when the "herd" is not completely clueless...LN and LV sell to very specific and limited customer base, which for the most part are skilled craftsmen with knowledge of the tools and their usages. Even more so when one considers the mean cost per tool ;-)

Have a herd of Stanley's, plus many LN's, a good selection of wood planes and a kit of infills.... Very happy with with all the old Stanley's in my tool chest or they wouldn't be there.

However my disabilities do cause me to drop planes more than the average individual, and in those instances the LN & LV planes are even more appreciated.

Won't argue which works best, however I have never had a "bad" LN or LV hand plane, they are exceptional tools built to exacting standards with excellent QC & QA and outstanding customer service.

Do still rescue an old plane when they come along, can't stop myself,

Andy

[Patrick Chase]

The "weakly correlated" concept diminishes greatly when the "herd" is not completely clueless...LN and LV sell to very specific and limited customer base, which for the most part are skilled craftsmen with knowledge of the tools and their usages. Even more so when one considers the mean cost per tool ;-)

Please.

Just a few short years ago the thundering clueless herd was in full stampede towards bevel-up and single-iron planes of varying sorts, to the point that LV was considering offering the custom line without cap iron (per Derek's account of the development/testing). Go back and read some SMC posts or magazine articles from c. 2010 and you'll see what I mean. Warren was one of scarily few voices of reason on that point.

Herds made up of "informed" people are just better at coming up with plausible sounding justifications for our groupthink. We are all subject to the pitfall (it's human nature), and really the only antidote is to challenge assumptions with hard data wherever possible. I say "we" here because I was one of the many who were caught on the wrong side of the cap iron fiasco. I had to go through that !@#$ video frame by frame to finally reset my thinking.

[steven c newman]

Random Plane Photo...
363684
Stanley #4c, T-20, Made in England..
363685
Will just have to do..
363686
Millers Falls No.8,T-2 was a hair too narrow..
363687
That is why I went with the #4c
363689
Yep, just a cheap old plane....

[Stewie Simpson]

Please.

Just a few short years ago the thundering clueless herd was in full stampede towards bevel-up and single-iron planes of varying sorts, to the point that LV was considering offering the custom line without cap iron (per Derek's account of the development/testing). Go back and read some SMC posts or magazine articles from c. 2010 and you'll see what I mean. Warren was one of scarily few voices of reason on that point.

Herds made up of "informed" people are just better at coming up with plausible sounding justifications for our groupthink. We are all subject to the pitfall (it's human nature), and really the only antidote is to challenge assumptions with hard data wherever possible. I say "we" here because I was one of the many who were caught on the wrong side of the cap iron fiasco. I had to go through that !@#$ video frame by frame to finally reset my thinking.

Patrick; your comments reminds me about the story of the 2 bulls.

There's two bulls standing on top of a mountain. The younger one says to the older one: "Hey pop, let's say we run down there and ____ one of them cows". The older one says: "No son. Lets walk down and ____'em all".

____ (abbreviation for kiss).

[Stewie Simpson]

Discussions on old vs new, bevel up vs bevel down, a close set cap iron vs a high angle approach, a wooden plane vs a metal plane, it all counts for zip. Its the grain direction and species of timber that will have the final say.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/New%20Sherwood%20Thicknesser/_DSC0184_zpsdmquzxxc.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/New%20Sherwood%20Thicknesser/_DSC0184_zpsdmquzxxc.jpg.html)

[Derek Cohen]

I'm coming into this thread quite late. I find it another example of how many opinions there are, and that there is no one "right" answer. There are just too many exceptions to a "rule". For example:

Plane weight only becomes an issue if you are wielding it all day long ... and even then it depends on the work you are doing. For example, there is a big difference between a jointer and a smoother in size and weight. But how much time goes into using each? This may be a factor for someone who is working at it full time, but for weekend warriors ... really?!

The planes that are more of an issue are the jacks and the scrubs, if you are working with rough boards to flatten them before using a jointer. How many here actually spend all day long with a jack in one hand? I certainly do not. I use machines for a lot of early preparation, and while I still do a fair bit of dimensioning with handplanes, it is not to the extent that I refer to myself as a Neanderthal.

I use jointers and smoothers mostly. How much jointing does one do that the weight of the plane becomes so critical? Smoothing is a final step, not a phase of preparation. On weekends I can be in the shop for 16+ hours. I still could not say that more than 2 hours is given over to a jointer. The same may be said of a smoother. I use other time sawing, sharpening, marking, measuring, scraping, thinking, etc. The mental image of a feverish demon with a plane in the hands working up a sweat ... just is not true. I get through a lot of work (the recent Sofa Table took 3 weekends) and I am not breathing hard.

Here's a question about planes: which jointer and which smoother would you choose when you make that final shaving, and to do so without a test shaving? A do-or-die situation (not that I would recommend this)? Which do you trust to do the job? I include here planing without concern for chatter or tearout, and irrespective of grain direction (after all, planing book-matched panels has the grain going in opposite directions).

I get excellent results from planes that are BD, BU, heavy, and light. I would state that the absolute trust first goes to a BU smoother. I would have no hesitation with a Veritas BU Smoother. I would also trust a HNT Gordon BD smoother (with the iron set on a glass setting plate!). Both are high angle planes. I would rather use a double iron smoother, whether Stanley #3, LN #3 or a Veritas Custom #4, since I achieve superb results with these, however they all need a test cut to ensure that they are set up perfectly (most of the time they are close to perfect, but just not quite there).

I could take a few shavings with a Marcou BU smoother - which is the best smoother I have used ever. This one weighs in at 1oz under 8lbs! Would I like to use it all day? Absolutely not (I am not Popeye). But, as I pointed out earlier, a few swipes are generally all that are needed, and this plane is simply amazing - high cutting angle and it leaves a shine in its wake. Why don't I use it more often? Eh .. I prefer sharpening for BD.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Frederick Skelly]

Well, when LN wants $750 for a new bronze #4, I'm thinking that learning to restore is still a good move - for me anyway.
Fred

[Kees Heiden]

[...]
Here's a question about planes: which jointer and which smoother would you choose when you make that final shaving, and to do so without a test shaving? A do-or-die situation (not that I would recommend this)? Which do you trust to do the job? I include here planing without concern for chatter or tearout, and irrespective of grain direction (after all, planing book-matched panels has the grain going in opposite directions).
[...]
Regards from Perth

Derek

For me, that would be my Stanley #4. It's an old low-knob model. It does have a Ray Iles iron, but that's because the original was too far gone. Sharpen it first, set the capiron close to the edge if I think that'll be neccessary and start the cut on a skew.

I also have a #3, but the silly thing has a right hand thread on the adjuster, making it more unpredictable for me. Some wooden smoothers, but I am not yet good enough in setting them for a very fine shaving. And I have a finely fettled heavy infill that I almost never use.

BTW, I don't fear a mistake on those last smoothing shavings. Shit happens and can usually be cleaned up with a few extra plane strokes.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Kees

Don't forget this is a hypothetical. But it makes you think about how easily and reliably it is to use a particular plane. This is essentially the main difference between a new plane, such as a Veritas or LN, and a restored vintage Stanley (to take us back to the OP). All these planes can be set up to work as well as one another. How you feel about using them is also important. Familiarity with the large backlash of the Stanleys is important for those used to modern planes.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Yes, familiarity with the plane is important. Collecting planes is kind of counter productive (but it's fun of course).

Before 2012 (the year of the big chipbreaker debacle!) I wouldn't have been so sure and I probably should have answered that the ROS was my final smooting tool.

[Patrick Chase]

Well, when LN wants $750 for a new bronze #4, I'm thinking that learning to restore is still a good move - for me anyway.
Fred

The bronze L-N #4 is $350, though the more appropriate comparison to a used plane is probably the iron version for $300. The classic (non-custom) Veritas #4 is $220 for that matter.

[Warren Mickley]

In November 2009 I tried out a Marcou "smoothing plane" at a Lie Nielsen event. A nine pound block plane. David Weaver reminded me recently that on one forum I said planing with the thing was like playing ping pong with a frying pan. You can do it but not too deftly. The surface it produce was none too fine. My #3 smoothing plane is 47 ounces.

I got called a lot of nasty names for my evaluation of this plane. One guy who called himself "lataxe" (his real name was David Trusty), apparently alerted by one of the Marcou faithful, joined the forum just to berate me. My friends got a chuckle that some old man called me "feeble". The guy registered for the forum 11/21/09, made four posts and disappeared.

We have come a long way since then. At that time people were insisting that a heavier plane was needed for a fine surface and the makers obliged. Forum members insisted that a thick iron was helpful for reducing tear out, and that a cap iron's office was to stiffen the iron. The makers responded with thicker irons and thicker cap irons. The double iron was called a hoax. This resulted in an ineffective "improved chipbreaker". The importance of a fine mouth was trumpeted and the makers responded with minuscule openings and adjustable mouth planes. The old steel was called too soft and the makers responded with ever nastier steel. High angle planing was championed and then high angle planes were produced.

I would say that the manufacturers were more following the herd than leading. One plane maker showed himself flattening a piece of wood: instead of one of his $5000 planes he used a milling machine and abrasives. Did he ever learn to use a plane?

[Derek Cohen]

Now now Warren, that Marcou may indeed feel like a "nine pound block plane" to you, but it is an exceptionally good nine pound block plane!

I think that you miss my point: weight may mean a lot to you if you were using a Marcou all day long, but then even you would not use a smoother all day. Most weekend warriors would not use a smoother all day on a weekend. Mass comes to be less meaningful in planes like these. What does have importance is how well they work. If one cannot use a chipbreaker (and all these planes had their heyday <2012 when we began discussing the chipbreaker in seriousness on the fori), then the Marcou is a winner. If you want to take final shavings over a panel, and you plonk this plane on top and just push it along, it will take fine, full shavings and leave a silky surface. That result is undeniable.

Incidentally, David Trusty (or "Lataxe") is not only a fine woodworker, but one of the most eloquent writers I have come across. The fori are the poorer for his absence. He had a knack of recognising bullies and turning them into baloney.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Todd Stock]

I suspect that if you don't train, everything feels heavier.

[Todd Stock]

Let's see...the Take Frid bench in the late 1970's, the Japanese tool thing in the 1980's, the super blade stuff in the early 1990's (Hock, etc.), the aforementioned Swiss Army Plane approach to woodworking (one body and many, many blades), and the vise-less, 'tree as bench' fad now. Any fads I missed?

[Jim Koepke]

Any fads I missed?

Using a #7 for a smoother?

jtk

[andy bessette]

...Any fads I missed?

Lightweight planes for girly-men? :)

[Kees Heiden]

Krenov planes? That really was a fad for a while. It's quite some time ago since I saw a thread about these.

[Stewie Simpson]

Krenov planes? That really was a fad for a while. It's quite some time ago since I saw a thread about these.

With an luck it will stay that way.

[Kees Heiden]

At one time there was even a guy selling them for something like 600 dollars or so!

[Mike Baker 2]

I have read this thread with pleasure. Lots of opinion, good information, and wonderful humor here.
I myself prefer vintage tools. Just because they are vintage. I'm like that with a lot of other things, too, and like to restore them to working order and use them.
If I had the cash for new, I just might buy them, but there is a character, or a feel/emotion for me using the older stuff that really makes using them such a pleasure, especially when they were restored to usable condition by my hands.
But I'm not doing this for money, I'm doing it for pleasure, so I can spend my time as I choose, and part of that pleasure is what I just mentioned above. I know it's not technically wood working when we spend time restoring, but it for me is soooo much fun. There is time for it all, for me.

[Rick Malakoff]

+1 what Mike said.
Yesterday I cleaned up a type 17 1946-47, some surface rust and grime, did a little file work on the frog seat and face and I know I was the first person to sharpen it.
I think the guy who bought it used it a few times and put it on the shelf for 70 years I think that happens a lot with planes.
Rick

[Bruce Haugen]

I think the guy who bought it used it a few times and put it on the shelf for 70 years I think that happens a lot with planes.
Rick

Some years ago I picked up a nice type 11 no. 4 at a garage sale. The seller said it was his favorite plane and that he used it a lot. The blade was in bevel up, the chip breaker set back a quarter inch, and the blade looked like it had been sharpened on the sidewalk. It cleaned up nicely, once I got all the surface rust off.

[Mike Baker 2]

The blade was in bevel up, the chip breaker set back a quarter inch, and the blade looked like it had been sharpened on the sidewalk. It cleaned up nicely, once I got all the surface rust off.

:o :o :o :o

[Andy Nichols]

Rick:

Makes on feel good to put an unused plane back into operation, helps a bit when they obviously were never really used ;-) what a lucky guy you are....

mos maiorum,
Andy

[Rick Malakoff]

This Craftsman #3 size I found in this condition a few weeks ago, the iron was recessed behind the chip breaker (rust line)and you can still see the hollow grind. I'm not sure if it was ever used and if it was the guy was using the chip breaker as the cutting edge and decided that it was too dull.
363785363786363787363788

[steven c newman]

Seen that a lot. One of the Craftsman plane I rehabbed..turned out to be made by Millers Falls, and was almost the same as their No.8 plane..
363789363790363791
Made to Sears' spec, of course, but..
363792
No, 8 in from (type 2) and the Craftsman 3C bb behind it.
363793
The shavings back there came from this little plane.

When there isn't any Projects going on, nice to have something to do....never know what might turn up..
363794
Like a # 0-8 ( they wanted $110 for it...) that be a No.6 on it's left...

[Patrick Chase]

Clarifying my previous remarks and responding to a couple others...

Just because something is good or works for one person doesn't mean that everything else is bad or isn't the right answer for others. Unlike the movie "Highlander", there can be more than one.

The fact that proper use of the double iron had been lost to "common woodworking knowledge" meant that many of us were missing out on a very useful approach to avoid tearout with difficult woods. IMO it doesn't mean that the approaches we used instead were bad or aren't still useful, but rather that we had lost an important and useful tool.

With respect to weight, I think that some posts in this thread have implied that some newer planes (iron-body L-Ns for example) are much heavier than they actually are. As was demonstrated earlier, those planes and particularly the larger/longer ones are generally within ~10% of their Stanley counterparts. That's a simple statement of physical reality, and doesn't contain or imply a judgment as to whether light weight is good or not. If you prefer heavy planes then by all means use Marcou, Holtey, etc.

[Rick Malakoff]

Steven, thanks for the comparison, just took mine apart and cleaned it a little. Yours must be older it has brass fittings, mine they cheepend up with nickel adjustment and cap heads on the knob and tote.
Also do you know if Sargent made planes for Sears on the bottom of the frog casting 408 was cast in?
Rick

[steven c newman]

Hmmm...could be..
363798
This one had a 408 under the frog..
363799
Sargent, made for sears Craftsman line of planes

Compare to the Fulton they also made..
363800
and..
363801
Sears alway called for a Red Frog....regardless of whom made the plane.
This is a tad older, sold before the Craftsman line started...

[Warren Mickley]

The fact that proper use of the double iron had been lost to "common woodworking knowledge" meant that many of us were missing out on a very useful approach to avoid tearout with difficult woods. IMO it doesn't mean that the approaches we used instead were bad or aren't still useful, but rather that we had lost an important and useful tool.

With respect to weight, I think that some posts in this thread have implied that some newer planes (iron-body L-Ns for example) are much heavier than they actually are. As was demonstrated earlier, those planes and particularly the larger/longer ones are generally within ~10% of their Stanley counterparts. That's a simple statement of physical reality, and doesn't contain or imply a judgment as to whether light weight is good or not. If you prefer heavy planes then by all means use Marcou, Holtey, etc.

I don't know where you get your 10% figure, but my iron planes are much lighter. I have only ever owned five bench planes, all put into service from 1973 to 1983.

The Lie Nielsen #3 is 36% heavier than my #3 Bailey.
The Lie Nielsen #4 is 28% heavier than my #4 Stanley.
The Lie Nielsen #7 is 19% heavier than my #7 Record.

The Lie Nielsen equivalents are 48% and 50% heavier than my wooden jack and trying planes.

As mentioned earlier, we have come a long way in the last eight years. A discussion like this years ago would have brought out arguments that the "additional mass produced the momentum" to "power through the cut". And that the weight would help with chatter and tear out. Guys were excavating wooden planes and incorporating lead.

There is still a plane maker who claims that additional mass makes for less effort on the part of the user. Maybe you would want to comment on that, Patrick.

The main advantage of light planes is the speed and ease with which one can work.

[Patrick Chase]

The Lie Nielsen #3 is 36% heavier than my #3 Bailey.
The Lie Nielsen #4 is 28% heavier than my #4 Stanley.

I said "iron-body L-Ns" in the post you quoted. The numbers you cite here are obviously for the heavier bronze versions (though admittedly L-N only makes the #3 in Bronze).

The iron-body L-N #4 is 4 lbs, vs 3.75 lbs for the Stanley #4.



The Lie Nielsen #7 is 19% heavier than my #7 Record.


Numbers/data?

The L-N 7 is 8.25 lbs. The Stanley #7 is 8.125 lbs (~1.5% lighter). Unless the Record is a *lot* lighter than the Stanley I don't see how you get to 18%.



The Lie Nielsen equivalents are 48% and 50% heavier than my wooden jack and trying planes.


Sure, woodies can be pretty light. No argument there. The point I was responding to in this thread was a comparison to rehabbed Stanleys, though.



As mentioned earlier, we have come a long way in the last eight years. A discussion like this years ago would have brought out arguments that the "additional mass produced the momentum" to "power through the cut". And that the weight would help with chatter and tear out. Guys were excavating wooden planes and incorporating lead.

There is still a plane maker who claims that additional mass makes for less effort on the part of the user. Maybe you would want to comment on that, Patrick.

As I've already stated, I'm personally not a fan of truly heavy planes like Marcou or even WoodRiver/Quangshang.

Furthermore, if we look at the physics, it's impossible that a heavier plane would take less overall mechanical work (i.e. energy input in Joules), so in the strictest possible interpretation that manufacturer's statement is false.

With that said the maker claimed lower "effort" (not "lower force" or "less energy"), and "effort" is a subjective perception that is not always the same as mechanical work. Physics also undeniably tells us (unless you think Newton was also a quack) that a heavier plane will tend to smooth out disturbances, i.e. the user won't feel as much variation in planing force throughout the stroke. The average force may be higher, but the peaks will be a bit lower. I can easily see how some people would subjectively perceive that as "less effort" and prefer it, and IMO there's nothing wrong with that.

I think that the difference here is that even I am not arrogant enough to take the step from "X works better than Y for me" to "X is the right answer period and everybody who prefers Y is insane/a quack/etc". And I'm pretty darned arrogant, so that's really saying something.

[Rob Luter]

..... And I'm pretty darned arrogant, so that's really saying something.

I knew there was something special about you Patrick. At my house, we call it confidence :D

[Frederick Skelly]

The bronze L-N #4 is $350, though the more appropriate comparison to a used plane is probably the iron version for $300. The classic (non-custom) Veritas #4 is $220 for that matter.

Yah, you're probably right Pat. (Man I hate when that happens.:D But fair's fair. :)

[Steve Mathews]

OP here .... I sure learned a lot from the responses in this thread and for that I want to thank all of you. There was more at play than frustration with my first restoration. The availability of woodworking tools, especially vintage Stanley planes are few a far between in this rural location. One could scavenge local garage sales, etc. for months and never come across a single plane. When the Stanley #5 mentioned earlier finally came about it was just unfortunate that the sole was severely convex and it required so much work to get into shape. I still haven't been able to flatten it to my satisfaction. Balancing the scarcity of used planes around here and the effort required to get what I do find in shape it makes sense to me for now to buy what I need in order to continue with my woodworking projects. Fortunately the cost of the LNs are not out of reach for me. Perhaps afterwards with less urgency and more patience I'll tackle another restoration, that is if I find a better prospect next time. Thanks again everyone!

[Kees Heiden]

When I think about proclaimed advocates of antique tools, I see dirty dungeons, overflowing with rusty and unrestored planes, saws, chisels and what not. They were so cheap, couldn't leave them behind but due to the early hours of fleamarket bargains, no energy left anymore to do anything about or with said tools.

The "only new for me" fraternity opens a vision in my mind of large, spotless workshops with the latest machines and lots of tool cabinets. Mostly empty. New hand tools are expensive you know. The owner never makes anything because he or she is working day and night to finally get the cash to buy a new bronze LN 4 1/2.

[Archie England]

Kees,

Great visual depiction there. Quite humorous, too.

[Frederick Skelly]

When I think about proclaimed advocates of antique tools, I see dirty dungeons, overflowing with rusty and unrestored planes, saws, chisels and what not. They were so cheap, couldn't leave them behind but due to the early hours of fleamarket bargains, no energy left anymore to do anything about or with said tools.

The "only new for me" fraternity opens a vision in my mind of large, spotless workshops with the latest machines and lots of tool cabinets. Mostly empty. New hand tools are expensive you know. The owner never makes anything because he or she is working day and night to finally get the cash to buy a new bronze LN 4 1/2.

Yes. Very entertaining Kees!

[Rick Malakoff]

Kees, you a funny guy!
I fall into the first paragraph but on Thursdays I clean whatever suits me when I wake up. I'm caught up on saws and have 4 planes that need work 2 weird ones with just a patent number and 2 #3 size, D H Prutton and Eclipse.

Tomorrow is Sunday and who knows what will follow me home!

[Jim Koepke]

When I think about proclaimed advocates of antique tools, I see dirty dungeons, overflowing with rusty and unrestored planes, saws, chisels and what not.

How about a two car garage overflowing with pieces of scrap wood?

Lot of "rusty old planes" but they are almost all good users. Only a few remain unrestored or totally broken.

There are a couple of boxes with odd or mismatched parts. This seemed to upset someone I met in town. I do not know why she started emailing me. It seemed kind of flirty at the time. She was a bit older than me and it never occurred to me a cougar might be stalking me. One time she emailed, "send me a picture of your junk." My reply was that it wasn't likely that it could all fit into one picture. She seemed rather excited about that. So I went out to the shop and took some pictures of all my junk around the shop. I haven't heard from her since.

jtk

[Archie England]

It's just not right--that you could manage such humor with such deadpan honesty!!!! :)

[Pat Barry]

How about a two car garage overflowing with pieces of scrap wood?

Lot of "rusty old planes" but they are almost all good users. Only a few remain unrestored or totally broken.

There are a couple of boxes with odd or mismatched parts. This seemed to upset someone I met in town. I do not know why she started emailing me. It seemed kind of flirty at the time. She was a bit older than me and it never occurred to me a cougar might be stalking me. One time she emailed, "send me a picture of your junk." My reply was that it wasn't likely that it could all fit into one picture. She seemed rather excited about that. So I went out to the shop and took some pictures of all my junk around the shop. I haven't heard from her since.

jtk
Not a cougar, a sabertooth!

[Patrick Chase]

There are a couple of boxes with odd or mismatched parts. This seemed to upset someone I met in town. I do not know why she started emailing me. It seemed kind of flirty at the time. She was a bit older than me and it never occurred to me a cougar might be stalking me. One time she emailed, "send me a picture of your junk." My reply was that it wasn't likely that it could all fit into one picture. She seemed rather excited about that. So I went out to the shop and took some pictures of all my junk around the shop. I haven't heard from her since.

Well played. You would score slightly higher style points if you worked "your wood" and/or "fettling your junk" into it somehow, but very well done all the same.

[Steve Mathews]

I put a little more effort into the sole of the #5 today and was able to get most of it flat. The rear tapers off 1" from the end where it is off by about .005". I suppose it could be looked at as a 12 1/2" long plane instead of 13 1/2" and be done with it. It's probably unrealistic to remove another .005" to make it flatter. LN apparently advertises their planes to be flat within .001". I look forward to seeing how the 5 1/2 that I purchase from them turns out.

[Patrick Chase]

One last aside about "weighty" planes:

Lest anybody get the perception that heavy-casting planes like the L-N bronze line are something new, it's worth noting that Stanley did basically the same thing all the way back in 1902 with the thick-casting 4-1/2H and 5-1/2H. They were apparently only sold in the UK, so the logical interpretation (and the one cited in Blood & Gore and similar sources) is that they were made that way to cater to the preferences of infill users.

[steven c newman]

Second World War planes were also cast thicker.....Combat Engineers were not exactly the easiest on tools...Tools were stashed in the "Pioneer Tool Chest" without much in the way of protection.

[J. Greg Jones]

The WWII planes from Stanley were cast thicker, but the reason I heard why is because the people making them at that time were all new to factory work. Their inexperience lead to a high rate of scrap during manufacturing, and the thicker castings helped with that.

[Ray Selinger]

Three words : Stationary Belt Sander

I've just brought home a Stanley #8 and a MillersFall #15 . The # 8 won't fit so I'm hoping for a flat sole.

[Jim Koepke]

Three words : Stationary Belt Sander

I've just brought home a Stanley #8 and a MillersFall #15 . The # 8 won't fit so I'm hoping for a flat sole.

A jointer would have to be really bad off to cause a problem.

Smoothers are supposed to be able to take extremely thin shavings. If a jointer can make a super thin shaving it is fine, but it isn't what it is made to do.

jtk

[Nathan Johnson]

In the last year or so now I've refurbished two Stanley 4s, a MF 9, three Stanley 5s, a Stanley 7, a couple block planes, and I haven't yet gotten to the 5 1/2, the cabinet scraper, or the combo plane. I've had bad soles, horrendous irons, irons that were twisted, evaporust, vinegar, sandpaper everywhere, and I said to myself very recently, "self, do you want to learn woodworking, or fix rusty tools?" So I gave some things away, and I sold some other things, and I cleaned up my shop space. I did some sharpening and I got back to work on my bench. And I said to myself, "self, this is good. Let's finish this bench, and if you do, you're getting a nice new #3 plane from LN or a sbus from Veritas. No fettling."
Self was content.
Self was happy.

Today self bought a type 12 Stanley #3.

*sigh*

[Jim Koepke]

[edited]
Today self bought a type 12 Stanley #3.

*sigh*

My type 13 Stanley/Bailey #3 is one of my favorite planes.

jtk

[Nathan Johnson]

My type 13 Stanley/Bailey #3 is one of my favorite planes.

jtk

I have no doubt.
Mostly I was giving myself a hard time...and maybe letting OP know he may find his way back to a restoration down the road.

[lowell holmes]

I am puzzled, why did this old string pop back up? :)

[Jim Koepke]

I am puzzled, why did this old string pop back up? :)

Because Nathan decided to share his story of multiple planes restored followed by some introspection about his time being spent doing restorations as opposed to woodworking. This led to a swearing off of restorations. Then one day a sweet little plane singing a siren song about needing some TLC coaxed him back into the realm of plane restoration.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

I did some sharpening and I got back to work on my bench. And I said to myself, "self, this is good. Let's finish this bench, and if you do, you're getting a nice new #3 plane from LN or a sbus from Veritas. No fettling."
Self was content.
Self was happy.

Today self bought a type 12 Stanley #3.

*sigh*

I recently bought a #55, and have been steadily working at bringing all 52 irons up to what I consider an acceptable state. Some previous owner over the past century apparently knew all about the "ruler trick", though rulers were apparently a lot thicker back then :-). The good news is that it seems that they didn't use all that many of the irons.

One the one hand it's time spent not woodworking. On the other hand that sort of thing can be enjoyable and almost meditative in itself for some (me included). The question to ask is whether you fall into that group?

[steven c newman]

Or it is simply doing Maintenance Days on the tools needed to work in the shop. New, or used, they will all need a little "touch up" from time to time.

[James Pallas]

I recently bought a #55, and have been steadily working at bringing all 52 irons up to what I consider an acceptable state. Some previous owner over the past century apparently knew all about the "ruler trick", though rulers were apparently a lot thicker back then :-). The good news is that it seems that they didn't use all that many of the irons.

One the one hand it's time spent not woodworking. On the other hand that sort of thing can be enjoyable and almost meditative in itself for some (me included). The question to ask is whether you fall into that group?
Patrick you might check out Derek's write up about combo planes and back bevels. You may want to leave some of the irons with a small back bevel.
Jim

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick you might check out Derek's write up about combo planes and back bevels. You may want to leave some of the irons with a small back bevel.
Jim

I've seen it, and I'm not opposed to back bevels. I've said several times that I think that the bevel trick is valid in moderation (and posted pictures of one of my own ruler-tricked irons) and I understand how a controlled back-bevel could be useful to deal with tearout in a mouth-less, cap-iron-less plane like the 55.

The thing is that these specific blades are so badly dubbed (let's call it what it is) that it's not possible to apply any sort of controlled back bevel. IMO the iron has to be reasonably flat before you can start using advanced techniques like that with any degree of precision.

FWIW I use variable back-bevels (in which the tool has a significant back- or outside-bevel at the center tapering to almost none at the edges) with certain carving tools as described in Leonard Lee's sharpening book, so I'm more than familiar with this sort of thing.

[Jim Koepke]

Once time has been taken to get a sharp edge on a complex shaped blade, there really isn't much reason for a back bevel. It would also be difficult to make an accurate back bevel or to "ruler trick" a blade shape such as an ogee.

My philosophy on such is if it is flat leave it flat.

Besides most molding planes are already at a steeper angle than the 45º used by metal combination planes.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

Once time has been taken to get a sharp edge on a complex shaped blade, there really isn't much reason for a back bevel. It would also be difficult to make an accurate back bevel or to "ruler trick" a blade shape such as an ogee.

My philosophy on such is if it is flat leave it flat.

Besides most molding planes are already at a steeper angle than the 45º used by metal combination planes.

jtk

We're talking about a #55 here. It's at 45 deg.

It's entirely possible to put a controlled back bevel on a complex profile, provided you use properly shaped slips and present them to the blade at a constant angle and direction. It's not intrinsically much more difficult than honing a consistent out-cannel bevel on a carving tool, for example.

The key thing to realize is that cutting is a very localized phenomenon, so the back bevel doesn't have to extend very far to have the desired effect of preventing tearout.

As I said above, I'm a firm believer that having a flat back is a necessary starting point to any such modifications though. It's pretty hard to present the slip at a consistent angle w.r.t. the back of the iron if you haven't ground the iron flat to begin with. Ditto with the conventional "ruler trick".

[Jim Koepke]

The key thing to realize is that cutting is a very localized phenomenon, so the back bevel doesn't have to extend very far to have the desired effect of preventing tearout.

There are eight million stories of sharpening in woodworking city.

For me a sharp blade taking a fine cut and careful selection of the wood used to make molding have the desired effect of preventing tear out.



jtk

[steven c newman]

365374
Stanley No. 6c, Type 10 vs Black Walnut....YMMV

[Patrick Chase]

The key thing to realize is that cutting is a very localized phenomenon, so the back bevel doesn't have to extend very far to have the desired effect of preventing tearout.


There are eight million stories of sharpening in woodworking city.


The claim I made there shouldn't be remotely controversial.

Here's the same observation worded in a slightly different way: "A small, higher-angle micro-bevel on a bevel-up blade serves to increase the cutting angle and reduce tearout"

The wood can't tell the difference between:

A small "back bevel" that adds several degrees to the angle of the blade back at its leading edge in a BD plane.
A small "micro bevel" that does the same to a primary bevel in a BU plane.

If you absolutely must see pictures, Steve Elliott c (http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/cutting_angles.html)overed this a while back. His back-bevels were only 5 mils deep (http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/a_controlled_test.html) but still improved tearout in his tests.



For me a sharp blade taking a fine cut and careful selection of the wood used to make molding have the desired effect of preventing tear out.


Sure, and that's why I keep saying over and over that you must start with a properly honed iron that is flat immediately behind the edge before you get fancy. If the wood is straight-grained as you say then that will be sufficient and everything else is just needless complication and wasted time. Sometimes the wood is not so cooperative.

[lowell holmes]

I have always put a small micro-bevel on a plane iron.
When I was learning to sharpen plane irons, it was called a "micro-bevel".
I do it on bevel up or bevel down irons.

[Pat Barry]

The claim I made there shouldn't be remotely controversial.

Here's the same observation worded in a slightly different way: "A small, higher-angle micro-bevel on a bevel-up blade serves to increase the cutting angle and reduce tearout"

The wood can't tell the difference between:

A small "back bevel" that adds several degrees to the angle of the blade back at its leading edge in a BD plane.
A small "micro bevel" that does the same to a primary bevel in a BU plane.

If you absolutely must see pictures, Steve Elliott c (http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/cutting_angles.html)overed this a while back. His back-bevels were only 5 mils deep (http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/a_controlled_test.html) but still improved tearout in his tests.



Sure, and that's why I keep saying over and over that you must start with a properly honed iron that is flat immediately behind the edge before you get fancy. If the wood is straight-grained as you say then that will be sufficient and everything else is just needless complication and wasted time. Sometimes the wood is not so cooperative.
If the wood can't tell the difference with a small microbevel, then really you are saying that a higher cutting angle is the key thing, not the microbevel. Therefore, a higher angle blade is better to reduce tear out leading to the idea that a scraper is the ultimate. So, on the other hand we have lower angle devotees that love their BU planes and tout that this lower angle reduces tearout. Finally we have the 4 mil close set cap iron crowd saying this reduces tearout. Guess what, they are all probably right. Hence the never-ending discussions here. It's really all more a function of edge sharpness quality - without a very sharp and clean edge it's all moot.

[Jim Koepke]

Sometimes the wood is not so cooperative.

Then if possible find a different piece of wood, works for me.


If the wood can't tell the difference with a small microbevel, then really you are saying that a higher cutting angle is the key thing, not the microbevel. Therefore, a higher angle blade is better to reduce tear out leading to the idea that a scraper is the ultimate. So, on the other hand we have lower angle devotees that love their BU planes and tout that this lower angle reduces tearout. Finally we have the 4 mil close set cap iron crowd saying this reduces tearout. Guess what, they are all probably right. Hence the never-ending discussions here. It's really all more a function of edge sharpness quality - without a very sharp and clean edge it's all moot.

Bingo!

And all of this from a thread started about not ever wanting to restore another hand plane.

Next thread to go to four pages should be about bevel up molding or combination planes.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

If the wood can't tell the difference with a small microbevel, then really you are saying that a higher cutting angle is the key thing, not the microbevel. Therefore, a higher angle blade is better to reduce tear out leading to the idea that a scraper is the ultimate. So, on the other hand we have lower angle devotees that love their BU planes and tout that this lower angle reduces tearout. Finally we have the 4 mil close set cap iron crowd saying this reduces tearout. Guess what, they are all probably right. Hence the never-ending discussions here. It's really all more a function of edge sharpness quality - without a very sharp and clean edge it's all moot.

If cutting angle were all that mattered then we'd all be sticking profiles with scratch stocks.

With that said, I was in fact saying that higher cutting angle is a key factor for mitigating tearout (not "the" as you posited in your strawman statement, as there are others).

What you're missing is that nothing is free. Higher angles increase effort and leave a less "glassy" surface, which is why we also turn to other mitigations such as cap irons or super-tight mouths. Those aren't relevant to a combo plane like the #55 we were discussing as it has neither, hence the unusual level of focus on back bevel. It's a useful mitigation in this specific situation and for this specific plane.

Every time I've posted in this thread (including the one you quoted) I've acknowledged the primary importance of sharpness, so I don't understand why you bring that up as though it's a counterargument. Thanks for agreeing with me.

[Pat Barry]

If cutting angle were all that mattered then we'd all be sticking profiles with scratch stocks.

With that said, I was in fact saying that higher cutting angle is a key factor for mitigating tearout (not "the" as you posited in your strawman statement, as there are others).

What you're missing is that nothing is free. Higher angles increase effort and leave a less "glassy" surface, which is why we also turn to other mitigations such as cap irons or super-tight mouths. Those aren't relevant to a combo plane like the #55 we were discussing as it has neither, hence the unusual level of focus on back bevel. It's a useful mitigation in this specific situation and for this specific plane.

Every time I've posted in this thread (including the one you quoted) I've acknowledged the primary importance of sharpness, so I don't understand why you bring that up as though it's a counterargument. Thanks for agreeing with me.
The agreement you perceive is merely an acknowledgement of facts pure and simple, not that you invented the concept.. Your reference to a strawman is mistaken as well.

[Patrick Chase]

The agreement you perceive is merely an acknowledgement of facts pure and simple, not that you invented the concept.. Your reference to a strawman is mistaken as well.

It's awesomeley ironic that you say this while simultaneously erecting yet another strawman, namely the implication that I sought recognition for or implied that I "invented the concept".

I believe that a couple of us acknowledged Derek's article pointing out the value of back-bevels for combo planes, though the concept is obviously much much older. Likewise I linked to Steve Elliott's website w.r.t. the required extent of the back bevel to mitigate tearout though again that's just a particularly good writeup of "ancient knowledge". The importance of a sharp blade is common enough knowledge that it needs no citation or attribution. I know as well as anybody that there's truly nothing new under the Sun.

[steven c newman]

New arrival today...
365409
#3 Dunlap.....$3....

[Pat Barry]

It's awesomeley ironic that you say this while simultaneously erecting yet another strawman, namely the implication that I sought recognition for or implied that I "invented the concept"..
This isn't high school debate class Patrick.