Am I Crazy?

[David Justice]

I have had 4 different Lie Nielsen and Veritas planes over the years and have sold them all, except for a LN block plane. I just prefer old Stanley planes. It has nothing to do with the price difference. I think LN and LV handles are too small and the overall weight is too heavy. LN planes just don't feel good in my hands, but Stanleys fit just right. Anytime I buy a Stanley plane I get a new Hock blade to fit. Usually a little clean up and sole flattening is all they need. I have a No. 4 that cuts much, much better than the LN low angle smoother that I had for a while.

The one exception is the LN No. 60 1/2. Hands down the best block plane I have ever used.

Anyone else prefer Stanleys based on performance and fit, not price?

[ken hatch]

I have had 4 different Lie Nielsen and Veritas planes over the years and have sold them all, except for a LN block plane. I just prefer old Stanley planes. It has nothing to do with the price difference. I think LN and LV handles are too small and the overall weight is too heavy. LN planes just don't feel good in my hands, but Stanleys fit just right. Anytime I buy a Stanley plane I get a new Hock blade to fit. Usually a little clean up and sole flattening is all they need. I have a No. 4 that cuts much, much better than the LN low angle smoother that I had for a while.

The one exception is the LN No. 60 1/2. Hands down the best block plane I have ever used.

Anyone else prefer Stanleys based on performance and fit, not price?


David,

Nope not crazy. Many of us prefer early Stanley Bailey type planes. More after walking the dogs.

ken

[steven c newman]

Mine are older Stanleys, and a few Millers Falls....still getting used to the WR No. 62....

[Simon MacGowen]

You are definitely crazy -- not!

Paul Sellers has been promoting the use of vintage tools, not just planes, since he became an internet sensation. He himself has some Veritas handplanes, including notably the Veritas router plane, spokeshaves, etc. which he has blogged about a couple of times, but apparently no LN brand (probably he thinks LN and Stanley are essentially the same thing).

I have heard people complain about the Veritas handle design (their new custom planes offer both Veritas and Stanley style handles), but I have had no issues with both styles. I suspect many hand tool users hold a plane with dead grips, and hence the discomfort with one style or another. Sellers is one of those who hold a plane right -- no dead grips whatsoever on the handle or knob. If you get a chance to see him work in person, you will understand what I am talking about. That is why he can plane without tiring himself -- he relies on a sharp blade and relaxed planing to do his trick.

Simon

[Jim Koepke]

To me the Bailey style is preferred over the flat top Bedrock.

If my old Stanley/Bailey planes can be tuned to the point of taking a shaving finer than 0.001" or as fat as 0.016" what more can be asked of it to do?

To me they look fine on the bench or shelf with their battle scars and patina of age.

jtk

[Robert Hazelwood]

I do like my LN #4 a little better than my two Stanley smoothers. But I had to put a Hock O1 blade in it before that was true- I did not care for the original A2 blade at all.

It's not that the Stanley's aren't as capable, but the LN is the one I reach for first. Totally subjective (although there is less apparent vibration in the cut, which could just be the dampening effect of extra mass). It's heavier but I have not yet noticed fatigue being an issue for the planing jobs I've done.

[Prashun Patel]

"I have a No. 4 that cuts much, much better than the LN low angle smoother that I had for a while."

Two different animals. A better, but needless, comparison is to the LN#4.

I like my Stanleys fine. I like my LNs fine. I like my Veritases fine.

I never understood the need to make a blanket statement about planes. Everyone but me seems to feel the need to be in one camp. A good plane is a good plane. Some cost a lot and are new, some are great finds and perfect and have lasted 75 years. The existence of one does not negate the value of the other.

Use what makes you feel good and makes a good product. Other proclamations are moot - as is my very engaging in this thread ;)

[Hasin Haroon]

I agree with Prashun. A finely tuned old plane can be as good as any Veritas or LN. The rest is just aesthetic/ergonomic/based on your budget.

[Simon MacGowen]

I agree with Prashun. A finely tuned old plane can be as good as any Veritas or LN. The rest is just aesthetic/ergonomic/based on your budget.

You added an important qualifier there: finely tuned.

Many beginner hand tool users have neither the time/interest nor the skill to get a rusty old Stanley to good working shape. For them (who can afford the budget), the new planes from LN, Veritas, WR, etc. are the easiest path to starting their hand tool journey. These modern plane makers set their sights on those who enjoy "out of the box" experience in addition to the seasoned woodworkers who enjoy the improvements made to those planes.

Simon

[lowell holmes]

I take pride in my collection of Bedrock Planes with Veritas irons and breakers.
I have a 604, 605, and a 607.

[ken hatch]

Dogs walked.

Bailey type planes were developed over many years to the point where the sum is greater than the parts. Change too much and the system becomes unbalanced. The Stanley cap iron works better as a chip breaker than replacement chip breakers. As best I can tell thicker irons bring nothing to the table other than additional weight. I have most of the LN planes and a number of cltasic and New style LV planes setting in the plane rack along with the type 13 and earlier Stanley’s. I will usually reach for one of the Stanley’s

BTW, Ray Iles and Stew offer thin replacement cutters that work much better than the thicker irons from other sources.

ken

[Prashun Patel]

Maybe the same kinds of things are said on guitar player forums, but the musicians I know may have their favorite instruments, but never feel the need to rank theirs as objectively better than others. The debates on SMC about old/new seem to smell of superiority in using old iron. I'm much more impressed by the maker's hand and eye than his toolbox or wallet.

[Simon MacGowen]

The debates on SMC about old/new seem to smell of superiority in using old iron.

There is?

I thought people would feel superior when they show their fancy $300 coping saw or what have you than the guy who has been scooping out the same kind of waste with his $10 gear for the past 20 years. At least that is the kind of feeling I get when I read some of the Instagram comments. That observation of mine applies not just to hand tools but to power tools, too. "The newer, the better!" seems to be a trendy thing. Skill? What about it?

Simon

[Van Huskey]

There is?

I thought people would feel superior when they show their fancy $300 coping saw or what have you than the guy who has been scooping out the same kind of waste with his $10 gear for the past 20 years. At least that is the kind of feeling I get when I read some of the Instagram comments. That observation of mine applies not just to hand tools but to power tools, too. "The newer, the better!" seems to be a trendy thing. Skill? What about it?

Simon

Frankly, it is both and it permeates every corner of the internet. Show pictures of a surgically clean shop with Martin machines, a wall of Festool Systainers, Holtey planes, sets of Japanese chisels by master blacksmiths and a LN bench and I guarantee there will be lots of "tools don't make the furniture the man does". Just because one has several hundred grand to drop on their hobby doesn't mean they aren't good at it. While snark is less likely to be openly projected at very modest shops I guarantee there are a bunch of people thinking how can they build anything with all those rusty old tools.

The internet is full of people that need to find the high ground in their position, they need to think their way is superior. Everyone is guilty of it to some extent but often the mob mentality allows it to become obnoxious.

More to the OP. Planes like most Neander tools are very intimate and thus ergonomics are extremely important. I am personally surprised Paul Sellers and many others don't prefer the more upright Veritas handles based on their angle of attack. Ergonomics outweigh most everything else with handtools especially when the rest of the performance metrics are similar.

[Simon MacGowen]

Just because one has several hundred grand to drop on their hobby doesn't mean they aren't good at it.

I know a guy who has a well-equipped and spacious shop (many retirees have lots of disposable income) and all the power conduits and dust collection ducts run under the floor. He makes fine pieces with his machinery, from tables to chairs to cabinets. Not a hand tool guy, but he is very good at what he does (partly because he also has the time). Then, not too long ago, I also saw a guy using an Adria (discontinued now?) and overcutting almost every tenon he cut. He said he did not like those filmsy light-weight backsaws!

Simon

[Aaron Rosenthal]

I have a little of all three!
2 older Stanleys, a #3 with a replacement Veritas blade and cap. and a #6, dead stock.
Finally got rid of a #5 Record, and replaced it with a Veritas 5 1/4; Replaced 2 #4 Records with one Veritas Bevel up smoother and a low angle smoother (ie 4 1/2).
They all feel fine to me.
Around here, (Vancouver, Canada), junk on Craigslist sells for about half of a Veritas; A really good example costs nearly the same. Why bother?

[Chris Parks]

I inherited a few planes from my Dad and they might have been his Dad's but everyone of them was assembled using different brands of components, they worked OK but my OCD had a bit of trouble dealing with the bitzas that they were. After picking up an LN plane for the first time and feeling the weight of it I decided that new planes weren't for me due to the weight and I was actually disappointed I could not buy a few. The only place I might see the added weight as an advantage is in a shooting plane where the mass keeps it moving. I am still using the bitzas.

[Christopher Charles]

The only variation on theme here I'll offer is that I've found money spent on jointer planes to be a good value compared to bench planes b/c they are much tougher (for me) to tune to high performance. Agree with the OP on the LN 60 1/2 for the same reason- just tougher to tune up a LA block plan to the same level.

[Charles Guest]

The notion that accuracy needs to be inherent in the tool is a machine-tool concept that doesn't apply to hand tools. Most hand tool woodworkers seem to port this attitude over in the switch to hand tool woodworking. This is unfortunate in my opinion.

If you can determine where wood needs to be removed, then it doesn't usually take an incredibly accurate, perfectly machined hand tool to do it. If you think it does, you're missing a good part of the advantage of working with hand tools in the first place.

WWII and earlier Stanley planes are a pretty safe bet.

[Brian Holcombe]

It depends on what’s not accurate about it. I work with wooden planes most often, and you pick your battles at times with them. If you adjust the sole constantly you will be in need of a new wooden plane sooner than necessary. Same applies to iron bodied planes in that they can work fine without being made into a precision instrument. That however depends on how the are out, not just not being perfect.

I did a presentation last weekend and made the point that machine tool work relies on a different preparation than hand tool work. Same idea, you need to know where the perfection is absolutely necessary and where it isn’t.

[Jim Koepke]

The notion that accuracy needs to be inherent in the tool is a machine-tool concept that doesn't apply to hand tools.

Maybe never having had much time with power tools has made my hand tool journey less reliant on the precision of each tool.

My concern about the precision of a tool is when boring a hole for a dowel. If they are too tight, something might split. If they are too loose it may not hold. Before dowelling my dowels our checked for size and a bit is chosen to match. Auger bits tend to vary in size depending on the maker and the intended use when they were made.

For my planes the most concern is for my smoothers. They need to be able to take a very fine shaving for the final surfacing. It is nice to have a perfectly flat sole on a jointer, but it will work fine as long as it isn't warped beyond being predictable in use.

IMO the mistake many folks make with a plane is to try and fix it before they use it. Was it Will Rogers who said, "if it ain't broke, don't try fixing it."

More important to me is repeatability in that a tool will work the same way today as it did yesterday and it will tomorrow. Knowing how a tool will perform and how to control it in its work is what makes for precision with hand tools.

jtk

[Hasin Haroon]

I think this is true of a platform such as instagram, where the better known or more followed individuals then get sponsored by various companies and keep advertising new products.

I don't see why it should be this way in these forums, but I definitely get the vibe that Prashun mentioned from certain individuals here, repeatedly.

[steven c newman]

Ymmv..
393781

[Simon MacGowen]

IMO the mistake many folks make with a plane is to try and fix it before they use it. Was it Will Rogers who said, "if it ain't broke, don't try fixing it."


jtk

Some folks copy without understanding the why. Many threads talk about flattening the back of a chisel or the sole of a plane. Then there were people who asked or SHARED how they flattened the back of a new Veritas chisel they just bought. More than once, here or elsewhere, Rob Lee had to show up to clarify that those chisels could not be humanly (by hand) made flatter.

Simon

[Jim Koepke]

More than once, here or elsewhere, Rob Lee had to show up to clarify that those chisels could not be humanly (by hand) made flatter.

There are some things a machine can do better.

To paraphrase what was said in a previous post, "you can't fix something that isn't broke."

jtk

[Andrew Seemann]

I tried a few LN planes at a hand to event a few years back. They were the shiny bronze ones. They were nice, but I couldn't see the reason for the extra weight. I preferred the lighter old Bailey's I had at home, friendlier on the back and the hands. I think that might have been back in the days were people thought planes needed to weigh as much as a cinder block and have irons thicker than your thumbs. Hopefully we are coming out of that. Planes were a pretty mature technology by WW2, and there really aren't a lot of improvements left to be made in them (and that is coming from someone who likes to constantly fiddle with things to make them better :) ).

[Jim Koepke]

I tried a few LN planes at a hand to event a few years back. They were the shiny bronze ones. They were nice, but I couldn't see the reason for the extra weight.

My feelings on this are about the same. One of the things liked about my pre 1900 Stanley/Bailey planes is the castings are lighter than the later later planes.

My LN 60-1/2 is a fantastic plane, but it is a bit heavy for me.

jtk