Anything better than Lie-Nielsen?

[Steve Mathews]

While I think Lie-Nielsen planes are quality tools there are features in the manufacturing and machining that could be improved. Are there more quality crafted planes?

[Mike Henderson]

Having used LN planes and antique Stanley planes, I'm wondering what problems in the manufacturing and machining are of concern to you in the LN planes. The planes I've used have worked fine for me. I never felt I was limited in any way by their manufacturing or machining.

Mike

[Andrew Hughes]

Well that’s a bold statement Steve. I find Lie Neilson stuff to be top shelf much better then anything I can make.
One area I would like to be different is the A2 steel blades. It’s tough to sharpen

[mike holden]

Karl Holtey made the "ne plus ultra" planes. You will need to find them used though as he stopped making them.
Sauer and Steiner in Canada make planes that are outstanding in looks and function.
Old Street Tool makes wooden body planes that are lust-worthy.

That is just off the top of my head, there are many more.

Mike

PS, please share with us what can be improved on Lie-Nielsen planes. I would be very interested to know what you think is lacking.

[roger wiegand]

You can certainly find more expensive planes, some of which are stunning in appearance eg http://www.lazarushandplane.com/shop/infill-panel-plane-282

Whether they wok any better I wouldn't know. I've never found reason to fault L-N.

[Matt Day]

I thought you were bummed about not “getting your hands on” some LN tools?

I’m also interested in what you think could be improved on the LN planes.

[Matthew Hills]

I like my LN tools, which are generally very well-made versions of classic designs. Good story overall (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsGMOVtddlM).

There are some more expensive planes -- usually infill or the occasional Bridge City tool. Not clear to me whether there is a performance improvement or whether this is largely an issue of aesthetics. Some folks like the classic stanley planes better -- these will tend to have some patina/history, a curved chip breaker and lighter weight (which can be good for some uses); but tend to be a bit sloppier on things like depth-adjustment knob and are in varying conditions.
Others like wood planes for the weight/aesthetic.

Veritas tends to build to a similar quality level. Their PMV11 blades tend to get more positive feedback than LN's A2. Veritas also tends to rethink the design a bit -- you will see additions like the set screws to lock the low-angle jack plane blade lateral adjustment. And they are selling their plow plane.

I'd recommend researching on a tool-by-tool basis. Ultimately, none of the tools will hold back your woodworking (unless you use up your wood budget buying them!)

Have fun!

Matt

[Stephen Rosenthal]

I have a lot of planes, most of which are Lie Nielsen. Among the menagerie are a few older Stanleys and newer Veritas and one wood Philly coffin smoother. Without exception I place the LNs above the others. They’re almost always ready to use out of the box. While I like the Veritas planes (all with PMV 11 blades), I feel they’re a bit over engineered for my taste. But that’s quibbling, because there’s no question that the build quality is excellent. There are other plane makers producing quality and aesthetics that LN and Veritas cannot match, but they cost thousands of dollars, not hundreds. So count me among the group seeking an answer to your comment.

[mreza Salav]

Almost all my planes are Veritas and I thought both Veritas and LN are top quality. I've never felt that the tool is limiting me (almost always its my own technique or limitations).
There are certainly other brands that are quite a lot more money but I've never owned any to judge whether they are better quality
(e.g. https://www.leevalley.com/en-ca/shop/tools/hand-tools/planes/bench/110556-bridge-city-hp-12-dual-angle-bench-plane)

[Edwin Santos]

While I think Lie-Nielsen planes are quality tools there are features in the manufacturing and machining that could be improved. Are there more quality crafted planes?

If LN doesn't quite do it for you, have you looked into Sauer & Steiner planes? https://sauerandsteiner.blogspot.com/
Quite beautiful if you ask me. All hand made with price to match:

430072430073430074

[Dominik Dudkiewicz]

I cannot fault my Lie Nielsen planes so likewise am curious to hear where you feel they need improvement in manufacturing / quality. Other than one-off makers i don't know of any higher quality, manufactured, planes.

In fact, other than perhaps more exotic materials, i'm not sure if there are any meaningful improvements one could make to say a Lie Nielsen No.4 etc? Maybe if one prefers a lighter casting - but that is a preference not a manufacturing quality issue.

I'm more than happy to buy your sub standard Lie Nielsens at a large discount... :)

Cheers, Dom

[Tony Zaffuto]

From my perspective (I own a manufacturing plant, fabricating automotive parts from powdered metal, along with a number of CNC machining centers, for finishing operations), both LN and LV are at the top of the manufacturing game for their planes. Could each go further? Maybe, but what is there to gain? You can already get sub .001" shavings thickness, the controls are all smooth and products visually attractive.

I'm curious what the OP would want (don't want to sound snarky, but am interested what he would like to see improved). However, I have to add (can't remember what maker), one plane maker, maybe Record, had a higher finished model for sale. I think LV sold them about a dozen years ago, but didn't seem to sell well.

[Frederick Skelly]

I wonder if the OP simply wants the best things money can buy? I mean, Holtey, Marcou and others mentioned are the cats' meow of finish and precision. But I don't know that they function a whole lot better than an LN.
Fred

[James Pallas]

Incoming!!! Duck and cover

[Jim Koepke]

For me the Bailey design is more appealing. That is my only gripe about LN planes. If one of their flat top planes were mine, it might get the flat top filed over to be a more rounded shape like a Bailey plane.

jtk

[steven c newman]

Hmmmm...
430082
WHY would I even change a thing....

[Frederick Skelly]

Hmmmm...
430082
WHY would I even change a thing....

I like your design. I'll copy it one day. Thanks.

[David Bassett]

I've waited all day for someone to tell me what's wrong with L-N tools. I'm thinking OP was bored and wanted to watch the chaos. (Sorta' like the guy who starts a fire to watch the firetrucks.)

[Ron Bontz]

My only complaint about Lie Neilsen planes is that I am too poor to buy a full set. :( I would be more of a Wood River guy, but I"ll stay with my war time Stanleys with the Veritas A2 irons. :)

[ken hatch]

Ok, I'll be the guy. LN planes use an frog design that is not as functional as the Bailey frog, are too heavy, cutter is only A2 and is too thick, other than that they are well made tools. I even have a few that I've changed the cutter on and the #4 and/or #3 make very good finish planes with the cutter change.

ken

[David Bassett]

Ok, I'll be the guy. LN planes use an frog design that is not as functional as the Bailey frog, are too heavy, cutter is only A2 and is too thick, other than that they are well made tools. I even have a few that I've changed the cutter on and the #4 and/or #3 make very good finish planes with the cutter change.

ken

Not wrong, but I'd rate those more as not meeting your preference than as manufacturing deficiencies that need improvement.

ETA: it'd be like me claiming LV planes are defective because of the Norris adjuster. No, they're pretty close to perfect, but I'm hamfisted enough I find separate Stanley (and LN) style adjusters less trouble. (Arguably slower, but you don't screw up one while changing the other.)

[Warren Mickley]

Ok, I'll be the guy. LN planes use an frog design that is not as functional as the Bailey frog, are too heavy, cutter is only A2 and is too thick, other than that they are well made tools. I even have a few that I've changed the cutter on and the #4 and/or #3 make very good finish planes with the cutter change.

ken

I was thinking the same thoughts. They took a design, "bedrock", that was never very popular with workers and was always too heavy and made it even heavier. The steel in the cutter is a downgrade. They altered the cap iron, making it less functional, because they had no idea how to use it.

On the other hand the Lie Nielsen planes are far better than stuff like Marcou or Holtey, who have little feel for how a plane works.

[Steve Mathews]

Alright, alright, alright settle down folks. I've had other things to do today besides keeping up with the unanticipated rancor caused by my original post, which was certainly not my intention BTW. As previously stated I think LN planes are quality tools. I was merely asking if there were any better. To those that answered that question directly thank you for the heads up. I simply was not aware of any. As for Matt Day's comment about "not getting my hands on some LN tools" I don't recall ever stating that. Actually, I recently ordered 2 #140 LN Skew Block Planes, both left and right and just received them a few days ago. Both were immediately available. Now, as to what can be improved with LN planes I'm surprised at the limited responses toward that end. Any tool can be made better and LNs are no exception. Here's my take on the few planes that I own, which number about 6 with a few more I expect to order soon.

5 1/2 Jack Plane
The sole is slightly twisted and out of square with the sides primarily at the heel. It's out about .0015".
The sides are not flat and off by .003"
There is a casting defect on one side about the size of a quarter.On that same side there is slight grinding chatter.
The upper curved sections of the body are not chamfered like the straight sections.

Shoulder Plane
Sharp and unchamfered edges. The worse of the bunch. I intended to return it to LN but decided not to bother.

Adjustable Mouth Block Plane
This was the best of the bunch with square and flat sides. However, the unchamfered edges still apply.

#140 Skew Block Plane
I haven't looked at this one closely yet. The wood knob arrived broken in 2 pieces. No fault of LN as it was probably damaged in transit but I was surprised about the wood softness.

[Aaron Rosenthal]

Steve, with respect, maybe you’re looking for a solution that may not be a problem.
I own no LN equipment since I live only about 4 km from a lee valley store. Canadian $ vs US buck, included.
If your LN planes seemed that far out of whack, the Jack and Shoulder planes, why not return them/speak to customer service rep? They must be (assumption on my part) equal to LV reps. Tell THEM about your findings.
And pardon me, but, if you’re so unhappy with the build quality of the planes, WHY WOULD YOU TELL US YOU’RE PLANNING TO BUY MORE!
Having been in business for many years, my first thought upon doing business with you at this juncture with this history would be to politely hang up the phone.

[Derek Cohen]

While I think Lie-Nielsen planes are quality tools there are features in the manufacturing and machining that could be improved. Are there more quality crafted planes?....

Now, as to what can be improved with LN planes I'm surprised at the limited responses toward that end. Any tool can be made better and LNs are no exception. ....




Hi Steve

The questions you asked, and then the response you gave, indicate two different issues.

To answer your second item first: you have problems with the build quality of the LN planes you own. This is a quality assurance issue, and one you should take up directly with LN. LN make very fine planes - which should not need any significant tuning to work - and they pride themselves (quite rightly) on this, as well as their lifetime warrantee. They are very approachable, and their reputation is really amongst the best in this regard. I believe strongly that all issues like this should be taken up with the manufacturer or seller, before aired on a forum. Give them a chance to make good - everyone has a bad day. I am, however, surprised that you have had a few!

To the first question. There are very expensive planes you can purchase which require no tuning at all. A few have been mentioned, such as Holtey (!!!!), Sauer and Steiner (I would kill for the chance to fondle one of these), and Marcou (I have an early plane of Philips, and it is one of the best performing smoothers I have ever used. Simply breathtaking performance). What you are paying for here is not just construction, looks and exclusivity, but also performance. These planes should come to you ready to perform at the highest level.

Lie Nielsen and Lee Valley/Veritas are very good planes. For their price, they are superb - and bargains compared with the custom planes above. However, in reality, they are just mid-range. The good news about this is that they may be tweaked and modified to perform at the highest level. As they arrive, out of the box, they work very well, but they can be made to work a lot better. I consider all these planes to be kits, which means that there is some work to do, and just that there is a continuum along which the planes exist for the amount of tuning required. Some of the cheaply made planes, such as out of India, can be made to work as well, but recognise that they are at the lower end of the continuum. That may be more than your time is worth.

For example, let's take the bevel down bench planes - neither come with the chip breaker tuned to use as it optimally can be used (that is, closed up). Of course, not everyone wants to use their planes this way, and so they both provide the option to add a frog with a higher angle, to increase the cutting angle and control tearout this way. If you prefer to use the chip breaker, then the leading edge of both needs to receive a secondary bevel. The factory angle is 30 degrees. Somewhere between 50 - 80 degrees is needed. But first ensure that the underside of the chipbreaker is flat and mates with the back of the blade. It goes without saying that all blades need to be sharpened. I am not going to say so :)

The mouth may need to be tuned. This may just require finding the balance between the position of the frog and how open the mouth is to be. That appears all one can do on the LN as, unlike the Veritas planes, where you can open the mouth. A small mouth does reduce tearout, but the problem with setting a close chip breaker is that its leading edge closes the mouth and blocks the escapement. So there is something one can do to the back of the mouth (first mentioned as a tuning tip by David Charlesworth), and that is to file it at about 70 degrees (it is usually vertical). This keeps the mouth closed while allowing shavings to flow.

Do you like the handle? Is it comfortable? Does it facilitate the kind of power you consider it should. I wrote a long article on this (as part of the review of the Veritas Custom Planes - but really it was an opportunity to write some ideas about plane ergonomics). I think that it is worth reading. This is the introduction page of the three-part article: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes1.html Skip ahead, if you wish, to part 3, Handles and Knobs (http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3.html).

It is possible to write a book about the many tuning tips one can implement. I shall stop here, however, and allow others to share their thoughts. More later, if there is interest.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Frederick Skelly]

Hi Steve.
I'd call LN and tell them what you have. I don't know if amount of twist you describe affects the work of a 5 1/2. But if it is out of spec - or if you are just plain unhappy - they'll make it right with you. Same with that casting flaw. They are reputable.

FWIW, I sometimes break a sharp corner with a rub of 1000 grit wet/dry sandpaper. It's never affected how my tool operates.

Something to think about, anyway.. Hope you can get things addressed to your satisfaction.

Fred

[Jake Hillestad]

5 1/2 Jack Plane
The sole is slightly twisted and out of square with the sides primarily at the heel. It's out about .0015".
The sides are not flat and off by .003"


Not intending to criticize, but what methods did you use to come up with these measurements?

Lie Nielsen's stated tolerance is .0015". If you feel that isn't what they delivered why not contact them and let them make it right? Same with grinding chatter.

[Derek Cohen]

A couple of tweaks for LN ..

I like a #3 size plane, and prefer them to the #4. Smaller is generally better when you are smoothing. Mass is a personal thing - some like heavy(try a Marcou!) and some like light. I like both. In the LN #3, I went for bronze for the extra weight ... that is does not rust is a bonus.

https://i.postimg.cc/B6d2yGDf/4.jpg

The Cocobolo handle and knob were a bonus, purchased a few years later. What is actually different about this handle is that it was for a #4 (I have larger hands). I reshaped a little off the top so it could fit the #3. The following photo was taken before the Cocobolo handle was modified. In front is a modified #4 handle ...

https://i.postimg.cc/SRFkzX6Y/3.jpg

One other tweak was to the chipbreaker. Not only was the leading edge changed to 50 degrees, but this area was rounded. The chip breaker was also carefully bent very slightly, to create a little spring when tightened down. The original is very flat, and this is more difficult to secure as a result. (I did the same to the Veritas chip breaker).

I replaced the A2 blade with a PM-V11 blade from Lee Valley. It is a little thinner, but that does not matter (the blades are thick enough).

Edit to add: there is nothing wrong with A2 as a steel. It works very well. If all I had was A2, it would be fine. However, PM-V11 is significantly better ... less likely to chip, holds an edge twice as long (really!), and leaves a cleaner finish overall. I actually find it easier to sharpen as it does not cling to the wire edge as tenaciously as does A2.

One quick tweak for your #140 ...

This is a Howard Adjuster on my LN #60 1/2 ...

https://i.postimg.cc/9M6Cqx3B/2.jpg

It has a bearing built into it, which aids in adjustments, making this smoother and easier.

https://i.postimg.cc/RFkG5tfF/4.jpg

These are made in Australia and sold here: https://www.thetoolworks.com.au/product/906/

Available for #102/103 as well.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Rob Luter]

I've refurbished a number of vintage Stanleys and got quite good at it. I had a user set (#3, #4, #4 1/2, #5, #7) of Sweetheart era planes that had been fettled to the enth degree and I was quite proud of how they worked.

I had occasion to try a LN #4 and out of the box it performed better. I was frankly surprised. I liked the extra mass and prefer the Bedrock design. I've since replaced my Stanley #4, #4 1/2 and #5 with a LN #4, #4 1/2, and #62. The Bevel Down planes were tweaked a bit. The frogs were adjusted to deliver the mouth opening I like and the chip breakers were refined as Derek mentions above. All the irons were lapped a bit on the backside and had a secondary bevel honed. They perform exceptionally well and give me more control over shaving size than the Stanleys. Or it's my imagination.

I guess I've never had a problem with A2 irons. My Stanley planes all had Hock O1 irons and they took a good edge that lasted. The LN planes have A2, which takes a good edge that lasts. I don't notice any difference. My Veritas shooting plane has a PM-V11 iron. It takes a good edge that lasts. That said, I'm a hobbyist. Perhaps if I was planing boards for hours every day the difference would become apparent.

I have had a couple issues with LN quality. My #4 1/2 showed up with a tote that was marred by a pitch pocket. They furnished a free replacement immediately. My #102 block plane has a small area of discoloration on the top of the lever cap casting. Kind of like a birthmark. I grew to like it. As the bronze develops a patina it's less and less visible. I also received a Boggs shave with handles that don't match very well. It turns out to be a handy way to tell the flat shave from the curved shave at a glance. These were all minor issues. They are tools after all.

[Derek Cohen]

Here's a LN #103 tweak ..

I've had the #103 for about 25 years. It was the first new hand plane I ever purchased. I've told this story before: it was purchased in error - my plan had been to get the #102, but it was a rainy afternoon and I did not have my reading glasses. I dashed into the store, there was only one left on the shelf, grabbed it, and left.

About 3 or 4 years later, I purchased the LN 60 1/2, and then it occurred to me that the bed angles were different! All those years of using a block plane with a 20 degree bed, demonstrated just how well one could cut end grain with a common angle (20 degree bed + 25 degree bevel = 45 degree cutting angle).

The only down side to this plane was the large mouth. I put up with it until about 5 years ago.

The bed was built up with brass shim (epoxied on) ...

https://i.postimg.cc/j5pXPn6M/LN103-2a-zpsykbbtf0z.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/W3BBz3dv/LN103-3a-zpsg9fhr6hf.jpg

... until the mouth closed up ...

https://i.postimg.cc/RFk3XcDn/LN103-1a-zpsuxrwlahs.jpg


To complete the tweaking, a Howard adjuster was added - a word of warning here: let David Eckert (https://www.thetoolworks.com.au/product/howard-adjuster-small-316-thread/) know if your plane is an old one like mine as the thread is different. He has one for the current model as well. These adjusters do improve the smoothness of the action ..

https://i.postimg.cc/pTw5XYqw/3.jpg

After adding the shim to the mouth, the bed angle lowered to 19 degrees.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Ben Darrah]

Steve and others who are dissatisfied with their LN tools can mail them to me and I will rightly dispose of them...... into my shop.

[bill epstein]

Posted a link to this discussion on the audio forum I regularly visit, Audio Asylum, under the headline "I really get a kick out of the similarities between all hobby equipment forums".

One reply there,"My Stanley Planes sound better after 30 minutes". :D

[Jim Koepke]

Sharp and unchamfered edges.

[different plane] However, the unchamfered edges still apply.

If the edges were chamfered, it is likely others might complain about the edges having too much chamfer.

This is how we as individuals can "customize or personalize" our tools.

jtk

[Steve Mathews]

Not intending to criticize, but what methods did you use to come up with these measurements?

Lie Nielsen's stated tolerance is .0015". If you feel that isn't what they delivered why not contact them and let them make it right? Same with grinding chatter.


No criticism taken Jake. I used an Interapid .0005" indicator with the appropriate indicator stand and a Class A granite surface plate to determine flatness on the sides of the plane. A precision cylinder square and feeler gauges were used on the surface plate to determine the square of the sides relative to the sole of the plane. I'm not an experienced metrology expert or machinist but feel confident of my findings. I didn't know about Lie Nielsen's stated .0015" tolerance until you mentioned it. I just may send the 5 1/2 back to them for adjustment.

PS While writing this I recalled some of Rob Cosman's videos where he uses the sides of his 5 1/2 (WoodRiver?) to determine flatness of a board. The 1/3 wiggle on mine wouldn't work.

More later in response to Derek Cohen's superb posts.

[Brian Deakin]

This is probably as good as it gets

http://www.holteyplanes.com (http://www.holteyplanes.com/)

Please explore the website to see the range of planes

This is my favorite A13 smoother

http://www.holteyplanes.com/infill-planes-A13.html (Click on images to enlarge)

[Rob Luter]

This is probably as good as it gets

http://www.holteyplanes.com (http://www.holteyplanes.com/)

Please explore the website to see the range of planes

This is my favorite A13 smoother

http://www.holteyplanes.com/infill-planes-A13.html (Click on images to enlarge)

Those are serious bench candy. Damn! I love the vibe of infill planes. While Holtey and Marcou both make stunning planes, I would be afraid to use one as a “daily driver”. I get a glassy surface with my LN 4 1/2 and don’t see one of those gems being that much better for the 8X price premium. If I needed a massive smoother on my budget I might try a LN #5 1/2 with a high angle frog.

[Jim Koepke]

I get a glassy surface with my LN 4 1/2 and don’t see one of those gems being that much better for the 8X price premium.

My Stanley/Bailey planes are also capable of glassy smooth surfaces:

430142

Seeing reflections is easier than photographing them.

jtk

[steven c newman]

Stanley No. 3, Type 11...making them curlies..
430167

[Graham Haydon]

Hi Steve

Sorry to hear your expectations have fallen short. The 51/2 sounds like a seconds, especially the cosmetic issue. I would expect a replacement item. I'm sure you'll be sent one along with a replacement knob for the block plane.

On the sharp edges you feel, I'm guessing it could be inherent in the copy they made of the Record shoulder plane. The veritas shoulder planes are ugly as sin in my book, but they work brilliantly. If you don't like the edges being so sharp, ease them with some abrasive or a file.

I judge a tool on how it works, not by measuring it. Edge join a panel, break edges, trim a shoulder or smooth a board. If the tools can do that they are fit for purpose. The LN planes are solid as they copied old designs with their own twist. My pet hate with them is the thin smooth edged cap iron screw. There are other things that are not my preference but they can be made to work as well as anything else.

LN are priced very fairly for domesticly made products. They seem expensive for people outside the US as the get hit with taxes.

The makers listed by other here are beautiful works of functional art. I would be proud to own one and respect all the skill that goes into making them. However, they don't work any better than a well set up Stanley. Many are less effective as they have single irons and no adjusters. Leonard Bailey pioneered quite the concept!

Good luck with your customer services and woodworking.

[Michael Bulatowicz]

They took a design, "bedrock", that was never very popular with workers and was always too heavy and made it even heavier.

I have seen it mentioned previously that the bedrock planes were never as popular as the Bailey pattern: this seems clear based on availability today. I've seen differing opinions on why that is, ranging from things like weight (indisputablly heavier) to performance (however one chooses to define it) to simply price--the argument there being that even today, less-expensive "good enough" tools tend to be more popular/common.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the reasons why the bedrock planes weren't as popular.

Thanks in advance.

[Warren Mickley]

I have seen it mentioned previously that the bedrock planes were never as popular as the Bailey pattern: this seems clear based on availability today. I've seen differing opinions on why that is, ranging from things like weight (indisputablly heavier) to performance (however one chooses to define it) to simply price--the argument there being that even today, less-expensive "good enough" tools tend to be more popular/common.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the reasons why the bedrock planes weren't as popular.



I am not sure I can do justice to this question. Stanley was engaged in research and development and constantly making improvements, trying to have patents indefinitely. They wanted to claim superiority over the competition. Apparently they were not confident enough of the design to replace the old line with the improvement.

Stanley marketed to hardware dealers, who might have been skeptical about offering another line and buying more inventory. It could be that some woodworkers were not even aware of the Bedrock planes. They were not included in the 1922 Sears catalog, which had a page packed full of Stanley and Fulton planes. The prices for bedrock planes seemed to be about 15% higher than the Bailey models, which seems like a small amount if there was a perception of improvement.

Forty years ago there were a lot of guys collecting Stanley planes, so something that was more scarce got bid up. The perception was that the expensive Bedrocks were more desirable as planes. So Lie Nielsen might have had his eye on the collecting market when deciding which plane to copy. At that time a regular Bailey #7 used was higher priced than a new Record #7. There was definitely a market for a well made line of iron bench planes.

[Jim Koepke]

I have seen it mentioned previously that the bedrock planes were never as popular as the Bailey pattern: this seems clear based on availability today. I've seen differing opinions on why that is, ranging from things like weight (indisputablly heavier) to performance (however one chooses to define it) to simply price--the argument there being that even today, less-expensive "good enough" tools tend to be more popular/common.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the reasons why the bedrock planes weren't as popular.

Thanks in advance.

My understanding is the Bedrock style was less popular because of the higher price. One of the large scale buyers at the time was public and vocational schools. The cost difference, when buying in quantity, was an important factor.

Now the modern buyer prefers the 'flat top' Bedrock over the 'round side' model. It is easier to change the frog position on the 'flat top' model.

How often does anyone actually adjust the mouths on their bench planes?

jtk

[Mike Henderson]

My understanding is the Bedrock style was less popular because of the higher price. One of the large scale buyers at the time was public and vocational schools. The cost difference, when buying in quantity, was an important factor.

Now the modern buyer prefers the 'flat top' Bedrock over the 'round side' model. It is easier to change the frog position on the 'flat top' model.

How often does anyone actually adjust the mouths on their bench planes?

jtk

I agree with Jim on this. I've always wondered what the real advantage of the Bedrock is. Sure you can change the position of the frog without removing the iron, but as Jim says, how often do you do that. And even if you do, changing the position of the frog means that you moved the iron up or down (because the frog is on a ramped mount). So even if you did change the position of the frog, you'd then have to adjust the depth of the blade.

I think it was just a marketing thing to charge a higher price. While I like the "flat top" look of the later Bedrocks I haven't found that they perform any better than a Bailey.

Mike

[Michael Bulatowicz]

How often does anyone actually adjust the mouths on their bench planes?

jtk

I can’t speak for others, but I’ve never had the need to adjust the mouth after initially setting up the plane. I prefer to adjust the cap iron to control tearout, and my Bailey #5 handed down from my grandfather’s grandfather has always done well planing figured hard maple having the “ramp” at the back of the mouth coplanar with the face of the frog. Sharp blade, closed up (tuned) chipbreaker, set for a light cut, and so far all is well. Maybe something more challenging would tempt me to close up the mouth. . .

[Tom M King]

I just looked on the very early 20th Century wholesale supplier's "catalog" (multi-hundred page hardbound book) for my Grandfather's General Store, that was closed in 1935. There is not a single Bedrock plane listed. You have your choice of smooth bottom, or corrugated with all the regular planes, but no existence of a Bedrock. I expect most stores that sold them used a similar supplier.

[Derek Cohen]

This is the way I put it together.

The Bedrock did have advantages, and was considered the premium smoother. But it was more expensive, and the advantages were more than most could afford. This is no different today - if someone offers to sell to a better plane (say, Lie Nielsen) but you can only afford its cheaper sibling (say, Stanley Bailey), which would you purchase if there was a work around (in the form of manually moving the frog)?

What was the advantage of the Bedrock frog? Well, for one, it can move quickly in-and-out. Now this is important when it is believed that a closed up mouth (not chipbreaker) is responsible for controlling tearout. It is also important when the mouth needs to be opened to take a rank cut (again, rather than just projecting the blade further since the mouth size does not have much of a bearing on chip formation when the chipbreaker is closed up).

Secondly, the Bedrock frog has a better seating than the Bailey frog, and this is important when construction is viewed as one of the keys to performance (it still is).

So, all-in-all, the Bedrock is the better plane, and viewed as desirable. It is the reason, and not surprisingly so, that Lie Nielsen chose it as the basis for their line up of bench planes.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[ken hatch]

Derek,

A small quibble, the bedrock frog is harder to move in and out because as it moves it changes the projection of the cutter. With the Bailey frog, if (a big if) the frog screws are installed correctly the frog can be moved in and out with out removal of the cutter assembly (post type 10 IIRC) and it does not change the projection of the cutter. Not that I find moving the frog an important feature.

Whether it, the Bedrock design, is a better plane is subjective. Kinda like where I'm from there were Ford folks and Chevy folks and woe to you if you were on the wrong side during Thanksgiving dinner.

ken

[Graham Haydon]

Derek,

For you the Bedrock might be "better" and that's great. However from my perspective it is no better. To be harsh, it's a solution looking for a problem. The only advantage these days is you can buy a decent bedrock new, thus saving a new owner time resolving issues. A decent Bailey will be a second hand and that could be an issue. I've yet to find a wood that can't be worked with a Bailey or left me wanting more. History suggests this too.

[Derek Cohen]

Graham, you're missing my point.

I wrote from the perspective of someone who did not know how to use a chipbreaker. Once you do, there is no advantage in the Bedrock, only a personal preference for style.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Graham Haydon]

The Bedrock did have advantages, and was considered the premium smoother. But it was more expensive, and the advantages were more than most could afford. This is no different today - if someone offers to sell to a better plane (say, Lie Nielsen) but you can only afford its cheaper sibling (say, Stanley Bailey), which would you purchase if there was a work around (in the form of manually moving the frog)?

Secondly, the Bedrock frog has a better seating than the Bailey frog, and this is important when construction is viewed as one of the keys to performance (it still is).

Sorry, Derek.

The point was easily missed :). "Better seating". There is no problem with the seating on my Bailey planes. It is impossible to improve. However, you could make an overley complicated way of doing it, get the same results, and pass it off as an improvement. Sounds at best a knoble effort, at worst marketing and hype by Stanley.

[Derek Cohen]

Derek,

A small quibble, the bedrock frog is harder to move in and out because as it moves it changes the projection of the cutter. With the Bailey frog, if (a big if) the frog screws are installed correctly the frog can be moved in and out with out removal of the cutter assembly (post type 10 IIRC) and it does not change the projection of the cutter. Not that I find moving the frog an important feature.

Whether it, the Bedrock design, is a better plane is subjective. Kinda like where I'm from there were Ford folks and Chevy folks and woe to you if you were on the wrong side during Thanksgiving dinner.

ken

Ken, what sells the Bedrock system is that the blade does not have to be removed to move the frog back-and-forth. This is perceived to be better if you consider moving the frog important.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[ken hatch]

Ken, what sells the Bedrock system is that the blade does not have to be removed to move the frog back-and-forth. This is perceived to be better if you consider moving the frog important.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek,

As stated, you do not need to remove the cutter to move the frog on a post type 10 Bailey if the frog screws are installed correctly. BTW I'm a Chevy guy even though I've owned a number of Fords including a 1934 Ford 1/2 ton truck.:)

keb

[Jim Koepke]

Derek,

As stated, you do not need to remove the cutter to move the frog on a post type 10 Bailey if the frog screws are installed correctly.
[edited]
keb

From what you are saying it implies my procedure of tightening my frog screws is incorrect. Unless there is some other way of installing them.

Is this in an instruction booklet that has been missed by others and myself?

jtk

[ken hatch]

From what you are saying it implies my procedure of tightening my frog screws is incorrect. Unless there is some other way of installing them.

Is this in an instruction booklet that has been missed by others and myself?

jtk


Jim,

Most folks over tighten the frog screws. They should just be tightened to what we at one time called "handy". Of course I should add YMMV.

ken

[Rafael Herrera]

The Stanley catalog from 1926 lists bench planes at the following prices, note that they also offered Gage planes at the same time:
(https://archive.org/details/StanleyCatalogue341926/page/n73/mode/2up)

No. 3 - Bailey: $4.00, Gage: $ 4.25, B.R.: $4.40

No. 4 - Bailey: $4.40, Gage: $ 4.60, B.R.: $4.85

No. 5 - Bailey: $5.00, Gage: $5.30, B.R.: $5.55

I also found some statistics for the weekly wages of a carpenter in that year (https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/union-scale-wages-hours-labor-3912/union-scales-wages-hours-labor-may-15-1927-493144?start_page=82). Roughly a carpenter made from $44 to $65 a week.

The price difference is about 10%, not a lot. If the Bed Rocks were an significant improvement, it was not huge based on the price differential. They seem to me a like a different solution to the same problem. The Bailey pattern was as refined as it could be made, it really worked. When coming up with a new product the manufacturer may want to differentiate itself from the common design. The Bed Rock design, heavier weight and thick blades seem to be an appeal to the user's subjective perceptions of what is "good".

I myself am biased in some of my perceptions. I'm air drying 3" and 4" oak slabs that I intend to use as my workbench top. Thicker, heavier is better, right? I could also laminate 2x4s and get a perfectly serviceable bench top too, but it's not the same.

[Brian Deakin]

Hotley planes a slightly more expensive than 8x a LN a A13 smoother sold for $5830 in 2107

https://www.sportscards.com/item/holtey-a13-smoothing-infill-plane-with-an-additional-holtey-blade/253247404285/

[Rafael Herrera]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Bill Carter, http://www.billcarterwoodworkingplanemaker.co.uk/carter-metal-planes-for-sale/, his planes have an antique look to them and he uses old cast steel blades. Do you have £3000 to spare?

[Jim Koepke]

The Stanley catalog from 1926 lists bench planes at the following prices, note that they also offered Gage planes at the same time:
(https://archive.org/details/StanleyC...e/n73/mode/2up)

No. 3 - Bailey: $4.00, Gage: $ 4.25, B.R.: $4.40

No. 4 - Bailey: $4.40, Gage: $ 4.60, B.R.: $4.85

No. 5 - Bailey: $5.00, Gage: $5.30, B.R.: $5.55

I also found some statistics for the weekly wages of a carpenter in that year (https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/...?start_page=82). Roughly a carpenter made from $44 to $65 a week.

The price difference is about 10%, not a lot. If the Bed Rocks were an significant improvement, it was not huge based on the price differential. They seem to me a like a different solution to the same problem.

In 1926 40¢ could likely buy a person lunch:


1923 De Croes’ French Restaurant, Indianapolis: “Delicious tee-bone steak. French fried potatoes, salad, hot biscuits and syrup, tea or coffee, all for 40 cents.”

1926 Business Men’s Lunch at the Boston Oyster House is 80 cents and consists of soup, a main dish such as Stuffed Pork Tenderloin or Corned Beef and Cabbage, potatoes, and pie.

https://restaurant-ingthroughhistory.com/restaurant-prices/

Maybe half a lunch in a fancy big city establishment.

In my experience the difference between the Bailey design and the Bedrock design is minimal in use or feed back. This may be one of those things some feel and others do not.

Without knowing which plane is in my hand there is no discernible difference between a pre-type 9 and the later type's change to 'a better' frog seating design. In practical terms the change on the Bailey design was to improve the yield of base castings.

Many buyers likely didn't see the Bedrock planes having any added value.

For me this is why every Bedrock that has entered my shop has been cleaned up, used a little, then sold.

jtk

[Tony Zaffuto]

In 1926 40¢ could likely buy a person lunch:



https://restaurant-ingthroughhistory.com/restaurant-prices/

Maybe half a lunch in a fancy big city establishment.

In my experience the difference between the Bailey design and the Bedrock design is minimal in use or feed back. This may be one of those things some feel and others do not.

Without knowing which plane is in my hand there is no discernible difference between a pre-type 9 and the later type's change to 'a better' frog seating design. In practical terms the change on the Bailey design was to improve the yield of base castings.

Many buyers likely didn't see the Bedrock planes having any added value.

For me this is why every Bedrock that has entered my shop has been cleaned up, used a little, then sold.

jtk

Jim might be on to something with "...one of those things some feel and others do not..."! Maybe if we have a peak of some of the advertising of that era? Maybe the Bailey line meant for house builders? Maybe the Bedrock line for cabinet/furniture makers? Different timbers, perhaps?

[ken hatch]

Jim might be on to something with "...one of those things some feel and others do not..."! Maybe if we have a peak of some of the advertising of that era? Maybe the Bailey line meant for house builders? Maybe the Bedrock line for cabinet/furniture makers? Different timbers, perhaps?

Tony,

Doubtful, most likely sizzle vs. steak. I'm not sure but no Mr.Bailey.

ken

[Jim Koepke]

Jim might be on to something with "...one of those things some feel and others do not..."! Maybe if we have a peak of some of the advertising of that era? Maybe the Bailey line meant for house builders? Maybe the Bedrock line for cabinet/furniture makers? Different timbers, perhaps?


Tony,

Doubtful, most likely sizzle vs. steak. I'm not sure but no Mr.Bailey.

ken

My first #7 was from a man who worked in a cabinet shop. It was a Bailey style type 11.

My thought is the differences between those who bought Bailey and who bought Bedrock was more of personality or intellectual trait than a working need. Some buyers were surely swayed by the promotional literature. It is similar to why some buy Ford and some buy GM or Chrysler.

More than once my preference for the appearance of the rounded sides of a Bailey plane as opposed to the flat top sides of a Bedrock plane has been stated. There are likely just as many who look at the flat top sides of the later Bedrock models and say, "yeah, that's for me."

jtk

[Bob Jones 5443]

The flat top design of the Bed Rock sides seems to offer more bearing surface for shooting. Plus, there’s the hype/halo effect bestowed on the Bed Rock by Tom Lie-Nielsen’s decision to base his contemporary high-quality planes on them, reinforced now by Rob Cosman and the WoodRiver brand. So: one real benefit and one imaginary one.

[John Makar]

How could they be improved... A repeat buyer/customer loyalty reward program. Retroactive, including the frencie nails I bought last year.

[Aaron Rosenthal]

My late uncle was a master cabinetmaker and teacher in the Los Angeles school system. I visited his home workshop every time I went down there.
I can’t remember ever seeing a Bedrock style plane there.

[Chris Fournier]

I think that LN nails the "value" target where quality and performance make them worth the price. I drooled over Some of those uber expensive planes as I really admired and lusted after the craftsmanship and finished product. I'd also like a Vincent Black Lightning reproduction... When I do my part to set up my LN for the task and make sure that it is as sharp as I am able to produce I have never been left wanting, the job gets done every time. Spending more money than I have on LNs would be a waste from a purely practical standpoint. And I do enjoy their presence and quality! I have sent two LN planes back over the years for deficiencies and one had been in my possession for years (out of square Low Angle Jack). In both cases LN treatment was beyond courteous, fair and fast. I have recently acquired a CNC milling machine and would like to make my own English style smoother for the challenge.

[Mike Allen1010]

Posted a link to this discussion on the audio forum I regularly visit, Audio Asylum, under the headline "I really get a kick out of the similarities between all hobby equipment forums".

One reply there,"My Stanley Planes sound better after 30 minutes". :D

Hysterical! maybe there's some vacuum tubes hidden in there that need a little warm up!

[Mike Allen1010]

Oh boy this thread is interesting! I tried to stay away but can't resist. :)

For context, I confess hand planes are my favorite woodworking tool and my holy Grail is that "ultimate" smoother that will peel off microscopically thin shavings off curley maple/difficult grained woods and leave a shimmering, tearout free surface. In fact, when people ask me why I prefer woodworking with hand tools, one of my favorite demos is to hand plane a piece of wood and sand half of it with the finest grain sandpaper I have and then ask which side they think looks better? Never fails to impress!

I in my quest for the holy Grail also confess I've acquired lots of planes including tuned up Stanley's with aftermarket blades, Lee Valley, Lie Nielsen and original and reproduction infill planes. Holtley, Carter and other boutique infill makers are out of my price range, but if I won the lottery I'd be first in Line!

All that said, I think woodworkers are incredibly blessed to have quality firms like LV, and LN producing broadly available, high-quality tools today. When I started working in the late 1970s, after being inspired by reading Jame Krenov's "cabinetmakers notebook", I almost quit immediately because with the hardware store plane I had on hand at the time I couldn't even take a decent shaving, much less achieve the finished surfaces I was aspiring to. Today that's no longer a problem, with just a little bit of knowledge and preparation you can make an LV/LN tool work like a charm right out of the box.

As much as I fuss over and love my metal planes (I have a Norris #5 that's a bear to sharpen and adjust, but when it's right – kind of magic!), Over the last five years I've increasingly reached for my wooden planes. For example, my Steve Voigt Jack and coffin smoother produce efforts effortlessly produce full with shavings that shoot out of the top of the plane like magic for their intended purposes. Why do they work so well? I have no idea. I do think given the tight tolerances etc. good performing planes are great example of "the whole being greater than the sum of the parts". It's not just quality components/materials, but how well they're all fitted together to produce the final product that counts for that infinitesimal 5% of maximum performance were all looking for.

Okay, I realize I didn't really add anything to this discussion, but I do appreciate the opportunity to share my opinions on the subject were all passionate about – hand planes!

Cheers, here's to the plane makers that bring so much joy to our hobby!

Mike

[steven c newman]

Millers Falls #709 and the #714.....IF you can find them..

[Jim Koepke]

Okay, I realize I didn't really add anything to this discussion, but I do appreciate the opportunity to share my opinions on the subject were all passionate about – hand planes!

But Mike, it was an enjoyable read.

jtk

[Tony Zaffuto]

Millers Falls #709 and the #714.....IF you can find them..

I agree on the 709, but until I wrestle the 714 from your hands, I cannot comment!

[steven c newman]

I'm still looking for the Vaughn & Bushnell planes that were made like the Bedrocks....#900 series, I think? They were also Drop Forged....

[steven c newman]

Hmmm...when one makes a knock-off of someone else's designs for a plane...90% of the "design work" has already been done for them.....all they have to do is figure a way to use it....like how to machine it.

[Rafael Herrera]

Any designer or engineer builds from the work of his/her predecessors, they copy and sometimes improve on previous work. That is how we make progress, we stand on the shoulders of those that came before us. To label contemporary work as knock-offs does not make sense. The Bailey or Bed Rock designs are not the ultimate in wood planing, that no improvement can be made on them; they built from previous work and one could argue that their works were knock-offs using the same opinion of some here in this thread. The first neanderthal that used a sharp piece of rock or volcanic glass to sharpen a stick deserves all the credit, everything else that came after are knock-offs.

[Tony Zaffuto]

I'm still looking for the Vaughn & Bushnell planes that were made like the Bedrocks....#900 series, I think? They were also Drop Forged....

I've passed on a couple. I have plenty of Baileys, a few Bedrocks, quite a few LN and LV, but for my money, give me a MF any day, with the 2 piece lever-lock. Frog has a blade bearing surface similar to Bedrocks, with excellent bedding to the sole. Fairly inexpensive, even on Ebay. Out in the wild, they're cheap!

[Mike Henderson]

I'm still looking for the Vaughn & Bushnell planes that were made like the Bedrocks....#900 series, I think? They were also Drop Forged....

I have a number of V&B planes. They are like the early round top Bedrocks but with flat tops. A big advantage of them is that the body is steel and not cast iron so they don't break if one falls off your bench onto a concrete floor. I lost a really nice Bailey #4 type 11 that way. I brazed the break but it was never the same.

I'm not an expert on V&B planes by any means but they made a 700 version and an 800 version as well as the 900 version. The 900 version is definitely the premium product. I forget what the differences are between them.

Mike

[steven c newman]

Ok..stand a Stanley No. 604 beside an LN #4 and a Wood River #4.......