What Makes Post WWII Stanleys so Bad?

[Erich Weidner]

My google-fu is failing me today. But trying to scratch a curiosity itch.

What is it (specifically) that makes the post WWII Stanleys garbage compared to previous years?

Long before I read more than a smidgen about planes, I acquired the sharpening book by Lenard Lee, having bought a few spoke shaves from Record and Kunz, I got my first block plane (I have previously stated the Veritas was my first, but I guess technically no).
This was a Buck Bros. plane I bought at Home Depot. I proceeded to get abrasive and a glass plate and went to work to flatten the sole. Chunks actually came out of the plane. (I had previously tuned up my spokeshaves, so knew this shouldn't be happening). It was definitely garbage.
That "tool" went to the trash. I went to Woodcraft and purchased a #4 Stanley. This I again followed the advice of Mr. Lee's book and though it took a lot of hours to flatten the sole to flat, the plane cuts just fine and I used it to flatten and thickness a whole project and it took good shavings. (Yes, you read that right, I didn't yet know about jack planes or taking heavy shavings... Doh!)

Subsequently I got a new Stanley #5 (2004 vintage), it didn't see much use, but recently when I got back into wood working, the threaded rod for the front handle snapped off after several heavy hours of use.

Now, when I got the Stanley's I noted they were made in Sheffield England. Which I equated to "English steel, and the tool capital of the word back in the day), so I actually took that to be a sign of quality. However, I despised the included plastic handles, and the blisters I'd get after planing for a while. I bought some 3rd party handle/knobs to replace them and that fixed the blistering problem. (Though the handle for the #5 never worked right, I tried shimming it/ drilling out the hole a bit deeper, etc. But it was just horrible to use as a result. But since I'd tossed the plastic handles... just had to live with it.

So the plastic handles are an obvious undesirable quality of the modern Stanley. The rod in the #5 front knob breaking is a very bad thing. But the #4 still works fine. So if this is the worst of the quality in the Stanley line (made in the first decade of the 21st century), what makes all the others after WWII so bad.

PS. Long path to get to the question, but I am feeling "chatty". :)

[Blake M Williams]

Before ww2 companies were a lot more competitive with each other. Better quality was a selling point. As the years went by more and more things were mass made and made cheaper. Casting quality dropped cheaper metal started to be used.

Personally I have found up to the 60s to be pretty good once tuned in. Off brands can be good. A lot of them were made by stanley and the other big companies. Frog screw adjustment isnt a must. Look for planes that have a ring around front knob. Ringless is ok but the knobs tend to crack more often.

[Aaron Rosenthal]

I’m not sure it was only Stanleys.
I had some post WWII Records, probably made in the ‘60s, that seemed impossible to adjust laterally. Never happens with the Baileys. In fact, my last Record is a #7; takes wonderful shavings, is flat on the bottom, but the “blessed” thing just won’t adjust the blade to the left. I’ve reworked it for hours, and just given up.

[Andrew Seemann]

Post WWII is used as a convenient break in the Stanley timeline, but the entire lineup didn't magically go bad in August of 1945. Many are good into the 1950s and even 1960/1970s; it depends on the model. A lot of the features that pre war people value like fully machined frogs were already gone by WWII, whether those features make a difference in the use of the plane is up for debate. A couple of my favorite user planes are from the late 1940s, I think.

The big problem is that the demand for planes started falling after the war, and slowly the quality decreased and features were cheapened or dropped to keep prices competitive. The first casualty was the variety of planes; during the war, the less popular ones were dropped, for example specialty planes that had become more or less obsolete, and quite notably the Bedrock series. The Bedrocks are far more popular with modern woodworkers than they ever were with people who used hand tools for a living (a thought provoking thing to ponder). More planes got dropped after the war, and when that wasn't enough, manufacturing was streamlined as much as possible and things like frog adjustment screws and cast yokes dropped. For a lot of models, it's that death by a thousand cuts thing. For a model like a #4 they went from perfectly usable to quite poor, but it can be hard to pinpoint when exactly they went from usable to awful, each new version was a little poorer than the last.

[Jim Matthews]

the “blessed” thing just won’t adjust the blade to the left. I’ve reworked it for hours, and just given up.

Try using a small hammer. There's likely enough play around the iron to shift laterally, even if the mechanism won't reach.

I like the Grace hammer, made in USA.

The classic Warrington hammer or hpholstery hammer have a narrow end, if clearance is tight.

https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?241086-Ok-I-need-a-real-plane-hammer-Any-tips

[Jim Koepke]

Erich, There are good planes through all the years. Some years have some real clunkers.

For my own planes my preference is type 13 (1925-1928) or earlier. The reason for this is my preference is also for the short knob. In 1929, type 14, a raised ring was added to the base to help to keep the tall knobs from chipping at the base. This doesn't work for a short knob.

Part of the problem with the later planes was what some call, "The Race to the Bottom." This was manufacturers working diligently to cut production costs of their products. In ~1933 to cut the cost of machining the frogs on Stanley planes were redesigned to what is known as the ogee frog. These can be decent planes. However, many of them are not done so well.

As time when on the castings became rougher and rosewood gave way to painted hardwood.

At the same time the purchasing market changed. Less people were doing manual labor around the home.

The date and type information used above came from > http://www.rexmill.com/planes101/typing/typing.htm

jtk

[Ben Ellenberger]

I’m pretty sure both of my number 5’s are type 19’s (48-61). They both work fine for me. I’ve never used an older one, so maybe I just don’t know what I’m missing...

[Tony Zaffuto]

Over the past 40 to 50 years, I've used them all. There were a few I no longer have, but these were not isolated to any particular era or make. All blades need sharpened and most need the frog & chipbreaker adjusted a bit. Some need some sole flattening, but not all.

Here's the thing, use the planes more than you spend time listening to what you should buy.

[Doug Dawson]

Here's the thing, use the planes more than you spend time listening to what you should buy.

Yeah. Sharpen the blade and put the plane to use. People make it out to be harder than it is. Just use the plane, ask questions later.

[Chris Hachet]

I’m pretty sure both of my number 5’s are type 19’s (48-61). They both work fine for me. I’ve never used an older one, so maybe I just don’t know what I’m missing...

Lots of post WW2 Stanleys work just fine.

[Chris Hachet]

Over the past 40 to 50 years, I've used them all. There were a few I no longer have, but these were not isolated to any particular era or make. All blades need sharpened and most need the frog & chipbreaker adjusted a bit. Some need some sole flattening, but not all.

Here's the thing, use the planes more than you spend time listening to what you should buy.MMM Hmmm....agree completely.

[Tom M King]

I have no idea what Type any of my Stanley planes are. As long as I have a sharp one, I'm good.

[steven c newman]

Wasn't just Stanleys, either....post-Korean War Millers Falls were going downhill fast...after about 1955

[Erich Weidner]

Wasn't just Stanleys, either....post-Korean War Millers Falls were going downhill fast...after about 1955


I'm still curious as to what is actually different? Jim pointed out knobs and frogs. So is it just that (as in the case of the frog) the end user needs to do more tuning (filing the frog)? Or are the tolerances on everything "looser"... less square, less flat?

[steven c newman]

IF there was a corner they could cut, to cut production costs...they did....even Disston. Power tools were the force driving things down. Carpenters were buying power tools, instead of the "old school" Tools.


Cost too much to install a frog adjust bolt...drill and tap two holes, make a clip, machine the bolt....


No longer the exotic lumber...plastics was the thing....cheaper, didn't break like a wooden handle...


Things like not milling a sole flat ( sanded, instead)....less metal used....thinner parts....if they didn't feel the need to mill a part, when a few swipes on a beltsander line would work...

Have a iron and chipbreaker from a type 21 Number 3....I can bend either with just my hands.....

Cut-off point seems to be about when the blue paint appeared....after the type 20.

[Jim Koepke]

I'm still curious as to what is actually different? Jim pointed out knobs and frogs. So is it just that (as in the case of the frog) the end user needs to do more tuning (filing the frog)? Or are the tolerances on everything "looser"... less square, less flat?

With some it seems the tolerances went out the window. Some of the later planes that have come through my shop didn't have the base of the frog machined square. The frog could be seen to be out of square to the base.

If there was something the makers of planes could be do to cut the cost, it was done.

There are not many complaints about pre-WWII planes being of poor quality, being difficult or impossible to get working properly. There are many good planes in the post WWII years. There are also a higher percentage of dogs from after WWII.

jtk

[Mel Fulks]

I've always thought that the war took a lot of young guys out of their parents houses. With the war over the search for
babes was full on. That takes a job. And a lot of houses were going to be needed. That took planes.

[Robert Engel]

Erich,

If you check Patrick's Blood and Gore site (http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan0a.html), he has a lot of excellent history on Stanleys, as well as how to identify and details of lots of less common planes.

The "Stanley downgrade", as many call it, started in the 50's when the post WWII market of amateur carpenter/homeowners & hobbyist woodworkers began to rise. I think most of it has to do with castings and the quality of metal in the irons. This is why everyone says buy a pre-WWII plane.

The homeowner market drove it all. Radial arm saws became the rage. One machine in someones garage that was advertised to everything. If you've ever seen some of the commercials for radial arm saws they are really a hoot. Same thing with ShopSmith.

The same phenomenon has occurs with other brands. Having owned a Craftsman table saw many years ago, I can't begin to tell you how poorly the 60's models were made. Same with Black and Decker and Porter Cable, but that was from corporate buyouts by huge umbrella congomerates.

I have a Black and Decker circular saw that I bought in the early 80's. I remember I paid about $120 for it. The base is almost 1/4" thick and the height adjustment goes straight up and down rather than hinged. I is extremely accurate and obviously very durable.

That said, I also had a B&D router probably an 80's model that was a total POJ. That's what happens with a company decides to specialize in toasters, griddles, and kitchen beaters?

You can't go wrong with the WoodRiver planes, made in China or not......

[Jim Koepke]

I've always thought that the war took a lot of young guys out of their parents houses. With the war over the search for
babes was full on. That takes a job. And a lot of houses were going to be needed. That took planes.

My previous residence was in a large tract of homes built in 1942 & 1943. There were thousands of homes built in the San Francisco bay area at the time to house workers in the new ship yards that sprung up for the war effort. This happened in many areas of America for production of many different things needed during the war.

At the end of the war there was surplus housing in some of these areas.

Kind of a funny turn around in my area. One tract of 'war housing' apartments was demolished to make a shopping area in the late 1950s - early 1960s. Latter a mall was built that drained some of the retailers from the shopping center. In the 1980s much of the shopping center was demolished to build condos.

jtk

[Nicholas Lawrence]

I'm still curious as to what is actually different? Jim pointed out knobs and frogs. So is it just that (as in the case of the frog) the end user needs to do more tuning (filing the frog)? Or are the tolerances on everything "looser"... less square, less flat?

Some postwar planes are fine. As a general rule of thumb though, it is true that your odds are better with something before the war (except on eBay, where you never know who did what to it when).

You have to remember, that a lot of the "buy this, not that" pieces were written decades ago. When people were buying truckloads of tools for scrap value, they could afford to be choosy. Why buy my war economy No. 3, with a plastic adjusting knob (bought by my grandfather when he came home from the war), when you could buy a pre-war plane just as easy? The truth is that the prewar plane is a lot prettier, and if you could have both just as easily, why not pick the one that looks better as long as they both work just as well. Supply and demand has changed since then, and there just are not as many unclaimed old tools floating around.

It is easier to see if you look at saws. Look at a 1930s Disston, or the "Victory" saws they put out right after the war. Then compare them to what was being sold with the Disston name in 1950 or 1960. As Steve Newman mentioned, every corner has been cut and every effort has been made to make a beautiful tool ugly. The handles were once hardwood, and carefully shaped to fit the hand. By the 60s the handles from the major makers are plastic or plywood and the sharp edges are barely even relieved. The wonderful logos that were etched on the blade are gone, and you have what looks like the product of a child's stencil set.

[Jerry Olexa]

The war had a major impact on this... Shortages of key ingredients happened and then later, the evil mass production...Basically, the older ones were better: more attention to detail and quality.. The current ones are OK but the older ones, better IMHO...

[Stew Denton]

Hi All,

There was another factor as well. After WWII was over, there was tremendous destruction all over the world. In this country, in 3 or 4 years the baby boom underway full steam ahead. Thus there was a big demand for new housing. At the same time, a big portion of industry all over the world had been destroyed, so most of the American companies hand tool competition from the rest of the world was gone.

Thus the demand for hand tools which were needed to rebuild the housing, public buildings, and industry became tremendous. My understanding was that companies like Stanley and Disston, etc. could sell almost everything that they could make. I am sure that at first the companies kept the same standards that they had pre-war, but within a small number of years they realized that it did not matter because almost all of their competitions had been wiped out by the war and it became "whoa Nelly bar the door," and to increase production to meet the demand they began to cut corners to increase the production rate. This trend became a flood. Since quality was not the driving force it had been management also started cutting costs any way they could, and of course that was another factor explaining why quality suffered after WWII.

That said, with the hand tools I have seen, and other manufactured products as well, the quality started to dive more after about 1950, but my perception could be wrong. Finally about 1960, or very shortly after that, quality went into free fall. The times had changed, but the approach of upper management had not...they kept using the same approach that had worked for the first 10 or 15 years right after WWII, only in spades.

Regards,

Stew