#4 Planes

[ken hatch]

I ordered a #4 Clifton not too long ago mostly just to see what Clifton planes were like.

Yesterday I sharpened the cutters of four of my #4 planes, just for Mark I included my Record #4 (best I can recall it was bought in the late '70's early '80's). So the line up was the Record with a Hock iron, a Type 13 Stanley with a Japanese bi-metal cuter, a LN with a Veritas O1 iron, and The stock Clifton. I didn't include either the classic or new modular Veritas planes because of their Norris adjusters, try as hard as i can I just can't develop any love for 'em.

While the cutters were sharpened freehand so all things may not be equal but the sharpness should be reasonably close, at least good enough to get a feel of each plane. Of course something like this is totally subjective.

Cut to the chase: the order of comfort/pleasure/ease of use was: Stanley, LN, Clifton, and sorry to say Record. The Record sucked hind tit mostly because of its tote, by the time this one was made both Record and Stanley were not producing well made planes. The tote is almost unfinished, rough and made of mystery wood, add in the bent metal adjuster and if it weren't for sentiment the Record would walk the plank.

The LN is just heavy, it brings a little to table because of quality of build but that is not enough to beat the Stanley. The Clifton I wanted to love but no joy. The quality of build is great, as good as the LN, but the screw head on the knob extends above the knob making it uncomfortable to hold and it really is too damn heavy.

The Stanley, while not as well made, fits my hand better. The sum is greater than the parts. I know everyone would have a different opinion but whatever the Stanley blows my skirt. Of course I kinda knew that going in :p.

ken

[Derek Cohen]

Ken, for comparison:

The LN bronze #3 weighs 4lbs. The Stanley #4 weighs 3 3/4lbs (which may increase a little if you add a thicker-heavier blade/chipbreaker). Not much in it. Interestingly, the Veritas Custom #4 weighs 4 1/2lbs ... it really does not feel heavier than the LN #3 (perhaps it has a lower centre of gravity?).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[ken hatch]

Ken, for comparison:

The LN bronze #3 weighs 4lbs. The Stanley #4 weighs 3 3/4lbs (which may increase a little if you add a thicker-heavier blade/chipbreaker). Not much in it. Interestingly, the Veritas Custom #4 weighs 4 1/2lbs ... it really does not feel heavier than the LN #3 (perhaps it has a lower centre of gravity?).

Regards from Perth

Derek


Derek,

Yeah, I have a bronze #3 and use it often. I really have tried to love the Veritas, I love that you can get whatever iron you want to use, the quility of build, and they are comfortable to push. I just have a hard time using the adjuster with one hand.

ken

[steven c newman]

My "line up" would include the Stanley No. 3, Type 11, the Millers Falls No. 8,type 2, and a Sargent No. 408, type 5......YMMV

Oh..No. 4s? Stanley No. 4c,type 20, Millers Falls No. 9, Type 2, and Type 4....right now, I prefer the #3 sized planes...

[Allen Read]

Ken, Thanks for the comparison. It makes me feel better about my Stanleys. I can justify not saving up for a LN or Veritas. :)

I've noticed the thing about fit is so important, not just for planes, but for many other things.

Allen

[Nathan Johnson]

I have three #4 planes in the shop, currently. Well, four if you count an old Stanley parts plane.

Dunlap 4DBB with Erik Anton Berg iron (made by Millers Falls, and the replacement iron was in it when I bought it – it’s thin, and I’m sure it’s O1)
Millers Falls No9
Woodriver V3

The Dunlap is my favorite. It’s a feel thing.

[Marinus Loewensteijn]

Ken thanks for this comparison. Some time ago I was having a good look at the Clifton #3 and did not buy it and your observations confirm a similar impression.

For what it is worth (and for completeness I'll repeat myself): All my woodworking tools went just over two years ago. With building a new home I'll be having to do some things myself.

I first bought a (very nice) Stanley Four Square #5-1/4 (I've got arthritis) because of the longer sole (than a #3) and a 1-3/4" blade (easier to push than a #4 or #5). A little while later bought a WoodRiver #3 (and not a Clifton). The action of the adjustment lever on the Woodriver was very sloppy and the sideways lever was next to impossible to move. It planed OK but was quite heavy and it takes some time to get used to.

The WoodRiver was passed along and a second Stanley #5-1/4 NIB Type 19 was acquired together with a Stanley #39 1/2" dado plane (as it is easier on the hands than a shoulder plane). And a Record #20 compass plane (as I cannot use a spokeshave) completes the list. This collection will allow me to do all the planing that is required for our new home.

[ken hatch]

Ken, Thanks for the comparison. It makes me feel better about my Stanleys. I can justify not saving up for a LN or Veritas. :)

I've noticed the thing about fit is so important, not just for planes, but for many other things.

Allen

Allen,

You are welcome. I've never found any plane that works better than a Bailey with OEM type cutters and cap irons.

ken

[Andrew Seemann]

I have to admit, I really haven't found a #4 (or #3) that I like better than just a standard WWII-ish Stanley (I don't get into type studies, so somewhere around mid thirties to late forties) with the stock blade. The fact is by WWII, planes were a pretty mature technology, and things like totes, frogs, blade thickness, and geometry were pretty well understood and worked out. Not much left to improve on, despite our best efforts to the contrary.

[ken hatch]

Ken thanks for this comparison. Some time ago I was having a good look at the Clifton #3 and did not buy it and your observations confirm a similar impression.

For what it is worth (and for completeness I'll repeat myself): All my woodworking tools went just over two years ago. With building a new home I'll be having to do some things myself.

I first bought a (very nice) Stanley Four Square #5-1/4 (I've got arthritis) because of the longer sole (than a #3) and a 1-3/4" blade (easier to push than a #4 or #5). A little while later bought a WoodRiver #3 (and not a Clifton). The action of the adjustment lever on the Woodriver was very sloppy and the sideways lever was next to impossible to move. It planed OK but was quite heavy and it takes some time to get used to.

The WoodRiver was passed along and a second Stanley #5-1/4 NIB Type 19 was acquired together with a Stanley #39 1/2" dado plane (as it is easier on the hands than a shoulder plane). And a Record #20 compass plane (as I cannot use a spokeshave) completes the list. This collection will allow me to do all the planing that is required for our new home.

Marinus,

You are welcome. A Bailey type plane is hard to beat.

ken

[Jim Koepke]

I have to admit, I really haven't found a #4 (or #3) that I like better than just a standard WWII-ish Stanley (I don't get into type studies, so somewhere around mid thirties to late forties) with the stock blade. The fact is by WWII, planes were a pretty mature technology, and things like totes, frogs, blade thickness, and geometry were pretty well understood and worked out. Not much left to improve on, despite our best efforts to the contrary.

This pretty much agrees with my opinions other than my feeling plane technology was mature by the end of WWI. In the '30s into and following WWII the 'improvements' were mostly ways to cut costs in manufacturing.

jtk

[Eric Danstrom]

This pretty much agrees with my opinions other than my feeling plane technology was mature by the end of WWI. In the '30s into and following WWII the 'improvements' were mostly ways to cut costs in manufacturing.

jtk

Very interesting claim. Can you point out which features were changed to reduce cost?

[Marinus Loewensteijn]

Very interesting claim. Can you point out which features were changed to reduce cost?

I'm not Jim but this is my impression.

The frog got changed and did not require as much machining. The cast iron did not get aged as much - it got machined too soon with the risk of twisting later on due to the stresses still present in the iron. The lever knob changed, the lever fork and the side adjustment lever became some cheesy bit of twisted steel and the tote and knob eventually became plastic. In the end even the frog did not get machined properly. The early type 19 are about the latest that have some resemblance of being decent. I rather have a Stanley Four Square than type 19 (or later). The later Stanley Defiance is of a lower quality than the early Four Square and I would not touch it with a bargepole either.

[William Fretwell]

walk the plank.

The Clifton I wanted to love but no joy. The quality of build is great, as good as the LN, but the screw head on the knob extends above the knob making it uncomfortable to hold and it really is too damn heavy.



ken

Yes you have to grind the front knob screw down to make it acceptable or it wears a hole in your hand. I have told Clifton but clearly they are not listening!

[William Fretwell]

I told them again, the next batch will have flat screws!

[steven c newman]

Have a Type 20, Made in England Stanley #4c.....use it quite a bit, while doing raised panels with hand planes....
417476
And have no issues with it...

BTW: Just looked in the shop...
Millers Falls No. 9 and a No.8..smooth sole, thicker, solid tool steel irons ( and, have never had one chatter)
There is a Stanley No. 3c to go along with the Brit No. 4c
There is also a Type 10 No. 4 smooth sole to go with the No. 3, Type 11
There is also a Sargent No. 408, type 5, smooth sole.

IF you ever get the chance to get the Millers Falls irons....you will find them a LOT thicker than the Stanley irons..Calipers read .074 Stanley, to .085 M-F......
Stanley went with the 2-piece depth yoke, because everyone was breaking the cast iron ones...and to copy the Millers Falls ones already on the market.

IF you are wondering where Clifton got the idea for the 2 piece lever cap....look no further than the Millers Falls lever caps....that started in 1929....

[Jason Kamery]

This is interesting to hear. I have really wanted to try the Clifton planes. I currently have a Type 19 Stanley #4 with a PM-V11 blade in it. As my main "finishing" plane. Then I use a Sargent VBM 409 that I love for general work. Then a Millers Fall #9 that I like ... but don't love. Probably will sell sometime soon.

[Jim Koepke]

Very interesting claim. Can you point out which features were changed to reduce cost?


I'm not Jim but this is my impression.

The frog got changed and did not require as much machining. The cast iron did not get aged as much - it got machined too soon with the risk of twisting later on due to the stresses still present in the iron. The lever knob changed, the lever fork and the side adjustment lever became some cheesy bit of twisted steel and the tote and knob eventually became plastic. In the end even the frog did not get machined properly. The early type 19 are about the latest that have some resemblance of being decent. I rather have a Stanley Four Square than type 19 (or later). The later Stanley Defiance is of a lower quality than the early Four Square and I would not touch it with a bargepole either.

Marinus sums it up quite well. My preference for a low knob makes it hard for me to like Stanley/Bailey planes after type 14, 1929 and on.


IF you are wondering where Clifton got the idea for the 2 piece lever cap....look no further than the Millers Falls lever caps....that started in 1929....

This has me confused. Maybe it is from not being current on planes other than Stanley/Bailey.

It was my understanding Millers Falls created a 2 piece lever cap to apply pressure to the blade and chip breaker at three points.

My impression of the Clifton design is a chip breaker that is two pieces to make it quicker/easier to hone a blade.

Maybe it is time for me to do a little reading on what is going on in the modern world of planes.

Though my two type 6, 1888-1891, #4s are both doing quite fine despite there accumulation of dings, nicks and rust.

jtk

[ken hatch]

Marinus sums it up quite well. My preference for a low knob makes it hard for me to like Stanley/Bailey planes after type 14, 1929 and on.



This has me confused. Maybe it is from not being current on planes other than Stanley/Bailey.

It was my understanding Millers Falls created a 2 piece lever cap to apply pressure to the blade and chip breaker at three points.

My impression of the Clifton design is a chip breaker that is two pieces to make it quicker/easier to hone a blade.

Maybe it is time for me to do a little reading on what is going on in the modern world of planes.

Though my two type 6, 1888-1891, #4s are both doing quite fine despite there accumulation of dings, nicks and rust.

jtk
Jim,

I think Clifton has dropped the two piece cap iron. At least this one has a one piece chip breaker.

I'm with you on the older Stanley's but I do have tool round heels and like to occasionly see if anything is better. I haven't found it yet but maybe it is out there somewhere.

ken

[Jim Koepke]

Jim,

I think Clifton has dropped the two piece cap iron. At least this one has a one piece chip breaker.

I'm with you on the older Stanley's but I do have tool round heels and like to occasionly see if anything is better. I haven't found it yet but maybe it is out there somewhere.

ken

Many of the new(er) planes are quite nice. The LNs have much less backlash on there depth adjusters if that is a problem for someone. The machining is top notch and they tend to work superbly out of the box, something few old Stanley/Bailey planes have going for them.

Though having become accustomed to the quirks of my old planes, it is easy to use them to do what ever is required of them.

My third #4 was more of a type 13 Franken plane. It was recently sold to another member. My third #3 size plane was a Dunlap by Millers Falls and given to my grandson.

jtk

[steven c newman]

Hmm..
417486
Millers Falls No. 8 and No. 9, with the thicker "Solid Tool Steel" irons
417487
Brit Stanley #4c, Stanley No. 4, Type 10, Millers Falls No.9, type 4 Last of the good, Premium planes
Why 2 Stanley No. 4s?
417488
One sole is smooth, one isn't....same with my 2 Stanley No. 3s
417489
The "newer" one is a "c" model..
417490
The older Type 11 is the smooth soled one...
handle choices?
417491
Actually, I kind of like that taped handle, gives a bit more "grip"...no idea what is under the tape, handle came with the plane..
I said I also had a Sargent #408..
417492
Complete with the round Sargent logo on the iron.

All have their OEM blades, and chipbreakers. When one plane gets a little dull, I just reach for the next in line...then do a sharpening when the shop is between projects...

Millers Falls went with one piece lever caps for their "made for ( insert brand name) planes, also left off the frog adjuster bolt. In the 50s, they came out with the Mohawk-Shelburne line ( after WW2) then went to the V-Line planes...finally, the type 5 planes were....bad....barely machined, one piece lever caps, phillips headed bolts everywhere....stay away.
There were 2 type 2 eras, the type 3 was during the WW2 era, then they went back to the type 2, then the type 4.

I don't usually have any Sargent planes ( Fulton/Dunlap for sears, too) they don't seem to stick around very long. Don't know why...

But, this is about it for smoothers in the Dungeon Shop..YMMV, it is your shop.

[Marinus Loewensteijn]

...
My preference for a low knob makes it hard for me to like Stanley/Bailey planes after type 14, 1929 and on.
...
jtk

The Stanley Four Square (that I have) does not have the raised ring around the knob. If I remember correctly the cracking of the knob base got worse after the low knob was replaced by the higher knob.

Since the Four Square does not appear to be holding any collectors value I have been wondering how easy would it be to replace the later knob with the earlier low knob? Would someone be making low knobs (I have no friends / know no-one who has a lathe to make one for me) and then I've got the problem with the screw holding the knob being too long.

[Jim Koepke]

Most of my spare parts come from finding junker planes at yard sales and such. Sometimes you can find one on an auction site with the screw included. The problem for you might be if it is in the U.S. the shipping is going to be substantial.

jtk

[Marinus Loewensteijn]

Most of my spare parts come from finding junker planes at yard sales and such. Sometimes you can find one on an auction site with the screw iincluded. The problem for you might be if it is in the U.S. the shipping is going to be substantial.

jtk

The global shipping costs on the ePray website are just ridiculous. A long time ago I started to use the New Zealand Post freight forwarding service in Portland, Oregon 97203 and that has saved me a lot of expense. Unfortunately if a seller is less than honest in their description and/or fobs you off with something of lesser quality then shipping it back makes it not worthwhile. The result is that I only buy from sellers with 100% positive feedback and with a large number of sales.

[justin sherriff]

Here is a guy Bill Rittner that make knobs, totes, and has knob studs. I think they where talking about him on finewoodworking podcast a few weeks ago.
http://hardwarecitytools.com/products.html

[steven c newman]

Do you have a drill press? If so, select a block of whatever wood you'd like as a knob. Drill a hole through the center. Use a LONG bolt, to where you can add a washer, and a nut, and still chuck the end into the DP's chuck....

Rasps, files, all sorts of snadpaper....spin the blank until a shape YOU like/want appears...remove bolt from the finished knob. Drill the counter-bores as needed, using the bolt hole as a center. Top counter-bore is USUALLY about 0.475", but measure beforehand for the drill bit sizes. Boss where the knob attaches to the base is sometimes a tad larger diameter. IF the rod is now too long to attach the knob...there is usually plenty of threads on each end, that you can shorten each end a few threads..be sure to champfer the rods ends when you do.