Old(Vintage) vs. New Tools?

[Steve Mathews]

Simple question ... are there new hand tools better than tools of yesterday? And in reverse are there old tools better than what's being made today? For example, it's my understanding that Lie Nielsen's hand planes, which apparently were patterned after the Stanley Bedrock planes are better in quality. On the other hand it's my new found understanding that vintage hand saws, i.e Disston, Simmonds, etc. are better in quality than what is currently available by the limited number of makers today.

[Jim Koepke]

Many of the tools today are made using better methods and better machinery.

The Lie Nielsen planes have what people refer to as a "better fit and finish." Examples of this are noticed in the blade's depth adjuster not having the backlash that is notorious with the Stanley planes. Also on almost all of my Stanley/Bailey planes the lateral adjuster lever is free to move on its own if the plane is tilted side to side. It will not change the adjustment, but to some it is annoying.

If a Lie Nielsen plane accidentally falls to the floor it will not break. If a Stanley falls to the floor, you should consider yourself lucky if it doesn't break.

As far as old tools being better than what is available today, how many modern makers of braces are offering a brace with 6, 8, 12 or 14 inch swing? To my knowledge it is none.

Try finding a good quality egg beater drill like this:

499430

This is a two speed Goodell Pratt that is now my go to eggbeater style drill.

Another one, a Millers Falls #2A is also often used:

499431

It is seen here on the left.

Right next to it is a corner brace, not many of those made today if any.

When it comes to saws, there is a wide field to consider.

If the conversation turns to dovetail saws or other joinery saws my opinion is some of those made today may have characteristics making them better than what was available 100 years ago. Though many of the old tools can still take care of business.

The difference in larger handsaws is the older saws may have been taper ground which is something many find advantageous. This is handy for me since a lot of my work is done in firs and pine that tend to be not as dry as hardwoods. The softer woods often swell when being cut and can stop a non-tapper ground saw in its tracks.

For some, it is a matter of opinion as to which, old or new, is better for some things there is no comparison since the market may not be big enough to introduce a quality item such as a brace with a 6" swing.

jtk

[steven c newman]

One other thing to think about...the only difference between a BedRock and a Bailey....in in the way one adjusts the frog...and once the frog is set...no real differences between the two lines from Stanley......Millers Falls plane are on par with the rest of the makers, as long as they have that 2 piece lever cap (Have never had "chatter" from these planes)

Back in the "day", IF a plane maker was putting out better planes than Stanley was ( Ohio, Union,etc) Stanley would soon buy them out....make those planes until the already parts ran out, then close the doors.

North Brothers? Before or after Stanley bought them out....

Goodell Pratt Co.? Before or after Millers Falls bought them...(1931 or so)

Once you have picked up an older Disston saw by the handle, you will find you just can't let go....handle will almost feel like it was made to fit YOUR hand. Disston also made their own steel, and Patented it. Atkins was another to watch for....Simonds....And, IF you can find them, Richardson.

[Steve Mathews]

.... Once you have picked up an older Disston saw by the handle, you will find you just can't let go....handle will almost feel like it was made to fit YOUR hand. Disston also made their own steel, and Patented it. Atkins was another to watch for....Simonds....And, IF you can find them, Richardson.

And would I be equally served and pleased with a new Bad Axe hand saw aside from the increased cost?

[Jim Koepke]

And would I be equally served and pleased with a new Bad Axe hand saw aside from the increased cost?

Can't answer that since a Bad Axe saw has never been in my hands. Though I can say one of my most pleasing saws to use is a dovetail saw made from a kit purchased from Ron Bontz:

499438

The handle was made by me from a piece of scrap rosewood.

Next to that a Veritas 14ppi dovetail saw bought for my grandson was so impressive a 20ppi version was bought for myself.

jtk

[Chuck Hill]

I can only speak to Veritas planes. I have several and several more old Stanley planes. While I like the aesthetics of the Stanley more, I lie using the Veritas more. And you don't have to fiddle around trying to fettle an old plane when you don't even know how. The geometry made my head hurt.

I'd expect that most / all of the boutique saw makers (Bad Axe is just one of several) are as good as vintage saws, if not better.

[Steve Mathews]

...
I'd expect that most / all of the boutique saw makers (Bad Axe is just one of several) are as good as vintage saws, if not better.

What are some of the others? I've only heard of Bad Axe.

[Tom M King]

For backsaws yes. I didn't know the boutique saw makers were making handsaws, but I haven't really looked. I haven't bought a new backsaw in over 35 years. I'm not saying the old backsaws are better, but I've just had all I need for a long time that are plenty good enough.

[Stephen Rosenthal]

Have to agree about the quality of Disston handsaws from the 1870s-1928. In my opinion none better, although one of my favorites is a Simonds 20” 10ppi panel saw. I own 2 Bad Axe backsaws - Sash and Tenon. Excellent saws, but so are a couple of old Disstons and an Adria dovetail. My favorite backsaw is an Independence dovetail prior to Lie-Nielsen’s acquisition. What with the price increases since I bought mine, if I were to purchase a Bad Axe today I’d wait for one of their sales. Even then, I’d have to be financially comfortable and give it a lot of thought before pulling the trigger.

As for handplanes, opinions will differ. I have many LN planes that I think are superior to any older Stanleys, mostly because they come work ready (as opposed to potentially hours of fettling) and the irons and chip breakers are of much better quality. That is not to infer that a properly tuned Stanley won’t be a great user. I just prefer to work with my planes, not on them.

However, when it comes to spokeshaves, there is no comparison. Modern LN Boggs, Veritas and wooden makers (Caleb James, Dave’s Shaves, and the no longer produced Woodjoy) leave their ancestors in the dust. I have improved the performance of some old Stanleys by adding a Hock iron, but still reach for my Boggs shaves unless they’re not appropriate for the job.

[Jonathan Pace]

Many tools today are created with improved technologies and machines. Meaning you have to put less work into creating something. Spending a fair amount of money on proper tools is more essential than settling for cheaper options that let you down, break, or degrade faster.

[steven c newman]

Hmmm...AVERAGE time in my shop...from when an old Stanley arrives in my shop..to when it is "work ready"......90 minutes.

I find that the ones who complain about all the "hours of drudgery" actually have no clue as how to actually do the tasks needed to get a vintage plane ready to work. ( and I either just sit and roll my eyes, or LMAO...)
From this..
499454
Stanley No. 65 ..to..
499456
Next to a Stanley No. 60-1/2...took a grand total of....45 minutes. $15 Low angle block plane.

Backsaw that is currently in use at the moment as a Dovetail saw....is a Jackson 12" 14ppi backsaw....that was a secondary line, compared to my Disston No.4, 14", 9ppi

All depends on how much wants to spend on a tool to work...wood....I generally by mine to put them to work....and not as a "Well my (Brand X) tool can..." Do you want to work, or just brag how much the tools cost you?

"A very poor worker blames his tools.." Is it the tool, or....the skill (or lack of) the one using a tool?

For all those who do not like the Chinese imports....bear in mind that 99% of the vintage tools out there, were made right here in the USA. Others you MIGHT find were made in England.

All the Vintage tools were indeed made with the best machinery of the times...otherwise, they would not still be around today. Because nobody bought the "Bad" stuff, more than once(looking at you, steel frog plane..)As they soon went out of business. Or started to make Toasters instead...

BTW..the No.65 was made around 1906.....

[Scott Winners]

At the end of the day, time is money and climate is rust.

I live near 65 degrees north latitude. I have (minimum) 90 days annually where the daytime temps are above freezing, the night time temps are below freezing and tools stored in a not climate controlled environment get condensation on themselves, twice daily, for how ever many years.

My bench planes are all Baileys (careful shopping) as I can buy them cheap enough and rehab them quickly enough to feel like I am ahead. All of my joinery planes are all LV or LN. My chisels are a mixed bag of vintage, LV and LN. All of my in use back saws are LV. I took my vintage backsaws to my blacksmith a few years ago and he laughed at me. My handsaws are all vintage because we simply don't make them that well anymore.

Where you land on this spectrum depends very much on how much free time you got, how much money you got, and how you feel about doing metal work when your hobby is woodworking. The only wrong answer here is hoping to get something in tool quality without having paid for it with either time or $ invested.

[David Carroll]

I have a smattering of new, fine tools, but mostly old vintage ones. I appreciate that the LN planes were essentially ready to go with just a final honing. The old Stanleys needed a fair bit of work to get into fine fettle. But you only have to do it once. Then the difference is negligible, at least I don't notice much difference. In my opinion, folks spend too much time flattening soles. If the toe, the mouth, and the heel are coplanar, the plane will work fine. What does make a real difference is the frog being seated well and the blade being dead flat against it from where the lever clamps down to the cutting edge, and that the cap iron is well fitted.

I once bought an old No. 5 from an antique dealer. No matter how sharp the blade was, the plane chattered and skipped. It was basically unusable. This likely accounts for the great condition of the plane. It just never had worked well enough to bother with. I had it for years before I sat down to figure out what was wrong with it. The sole was reasonably flat, the cap iron took some adjustment, but not much and it didn't improve performance much. The frog casting was rough and the plane did work better when I dressed it a bit, but again, not much.

What I discovered was the iron was warped! Not much, but it was concave as it sat in the plane, end-to-end. The clamping action of the lever cap lifted the cutting edge off of the frog by about a couple of thous. Switching to an aftermarket iron fixed it. Just for Ss and Gs I reground the blade on the other side. This now made the iron convex as it sat and the lever cap clamp forced the iron against the frog. It worked fine. I use the aftermarket blade (Hock as I recall) in it now, and the old, now ground upside-down iron sits in a drawer. One day some future owner will wonder what idiot ground it upside-down. It was me.

But if I didn't by chance notice this, I'd have spent an awful lot of time trying to fix a plane that was, except for the iron, just fine. So the moral is that any plane can be made to work well if you invest the time, but sometimes the fix is a relatively simple issue.

[steven c newman]

A lot of the "chatter would usually mean the frog was too far forward...leaving no support behind the iron where it comes out through the sole....there IS a small ramp at the back of the mouth opening....that is where the iron is supposed to rest on...and..the face of the frog needs to align with that ramp....as these planes were designed to be set up.

Too many move the frog as far forward as they can ( to get that Narrow Mouth Myth) and then blame the iron for the "chatter"....

Also..the main culprit behind those curved irons? Frog is too far back...edge of the iron is clamped down to that ramp....but this leaves a gap before the iron can rest on the frog...clamped down like this for a few decades, I would get a curve, too...

All I need to do, is use a straightedge ( or a fingertip) to make sure the ramp and the frog are coplanar....end of chatter.
499510
A Stanley No. 4-1/2c, type 11..with original iron and chipbreaker...jointing Ash...and later on..
499511
As a smoother...nice when the wood gets a shine to it...and is flat and smooth...and NO chatter marks to be found..

That plane could produce those "see-through" shavings,,,but...I want the task done in less than an hour....

[Rafael Herrera]

Since you flipped the iron the point may be mute, but the length of the iron along the slot is not hardened, it can be bent.

Also, if your iron is of the laminated steel kind, the other side is not tool steel. It won't take nor keep an edge.

[steven c newman]

Not every old plane iron is laminated....

Bent irons can be easily straightened in a machinist's vise...DO NOT use a hammer to try to flatten the old irons...they WILL shatter...

What caused that bend..was having the frog too far back...simple as that.

Have seen this on a few of the planes I have rehabbed....frog was sitting all the way back....along with the chipbreaker being on the wrong face of an iron....are 2 of the things I tend to find. Leave an iron clamped down hard for a few years like this, before someone comes along and buys that plane....then complains that the plane is "junk"?....no, just the owner before you wasn't "up to speed " on how a plane is supposed to be set up. First thing I look at, is the mouth. If I don't see the bevel down...will take it apart, and see why, BEFORE any cash gets used.

Rant over.....

[David Carroll]

Since you flipped the iron the point may be mute, but the length of the iron along the slot is not hardened, it can be bent.

Also, if your iron is of the laminated steel kind, the other side is not tool steel. It won't take nor keep an edge.

Yeah, this was a later type. I've never bothered to remember the types, but it was post WW2 so I believe it was not laminated.

DC

[David Carroll]

What caused that bend..was having the frog too far back...simple as that.

Have seen this on a few of the planes I have rehabbed....frog was sitting all the way back....along with the chipbreaker being on the wrong face of an iron....are 2 of the things I tend to find.

I think that's why this particular iron was bent. So when I adjusted the frog properly, the iron stayed where it was accustomed to being. This left the last bit of the iron unsupported and it chattered. The new iron fixed it and it's now one of my favorite users. As for the old iron, If I find a plane that needs one, I'll bend it back straight. But at this point I have enough planes, well unless I see something really pretty...

DC

[Rafael Herrera]

Yeah, this was a later type. I've never bothered to remember the types, but it was post WW2 so I believe it was not laminated.

I've been quite lucky, I suppose, none of the vintage planes I have refurbished chatters. Finding one that does it consistently would be pretty interesting. One of the first things that gets repeated when advocating for Bedrocks or thicker irons is that they don't or prevent chattering.

Can anybody make a plane chatter? can you post the instructions on how to do so on a Bailey pattern plane?

[Warren Mickley]

Chatter is a harmonic motion that occurs when the plane iron is not well supported. The end of the iron hangs out and when it encounters resistance it bends back a bit, then releases periodically and repeats the cycle. It shows up as a regular series of ridges on the timber being planed. We often see it on old moulding planes where the iron is a little bent so it does not sit firmly on the bed.

If you want to make a Bailey plane chatter, put a narrow shaving crosswise on the bed, maybe an inch above the mouth. The iron will then sit on this shaving and not be supported by the bed at the mouth, so it will wag.

Years ago many confused chatter with tearout. They thought that the purpose of the cap iron was to stiffen the blade so it wouldn't chatter. Quite a few people made thick irons, like 1/4 inch and more, thinking that this would solve the tearout problem. There are still manufacturers who brag about the thickness of their irons or even the thickness of their cap irons, as if this were a major consideration.

[steven c newman]

Very easy to do...simply move the frog forward ( the old "Closed Mouth Myth")....doesn't take much...all you have to do is move the iron off of that ramp at the back of the mouth, so that the end of the iron is just hanging in midair...

[Rafael Herrera]

I've moved the frog forward on a Bailey no.4. The plane would not chatter, granted there wasn't a lot of length to move.

I put a strip of shavings across the bed as suggested by Warren. On my Oak test piece, mainly the plane started to dig in and stop on its tracks. Retracting the blade to take finer shavings allowed me to take some shavings. It was still difficult and in one of the passes the plane chattered.

Oak
499538

Pine. It was not as hard to push the plane and get some shavings. It also chattered.
499539

It's got to be pretty extreme, the lack of firm contact of the bottom of the iron to the toe of the frog, for the plane to malfunction. Yes, thicker irons and chipbreakers at first seem like a good thing, but only because there is a lack of understanding about how the plane works not only from the users but also from the manufacturers.

Rafael

[Rob Luter]

Simple question ... are there new hand tools better than tools of yesterday? And in reverse are there old tools better than what's being made today? For example, it's my understanding that Lie Nielsen's hand planes, which apparently were patterned after the Stanley Bedrock planes are better in quality. On the other hand it's my new found understanding that vintage hand saws, i.e Disston, Simmonds, etc. are better in quality than what is currently available by the limited number of makers today.

I wish there was a simple answer. I guess much depends on the tool and what "better" really means to you.

Like many, my hand tool journey started with old tools I picked up at garage sales and antique malls. My budget was modest and I couldn't afford "the good stuff". Over a few years I amassed a pretty sizable collection of hand planes, saws, chisels, and other odds and ends that I had cleaned up, refurbished, sharpened, etc. It was all serviceable stuff and I considered myself fortunate.

With respect to hand planes, I had a pretty good selection of Sweetheart Era Stanley bench and block planes. I had refurbed them all. They worked well. That said, they were all a little fussy to set up. When my Daughter got married I was looking for a gift for the Father of the Groom. He was a woodworker. I chose a LN Bronze #4. When it arrived I was stunned how different it was from the vintage stuff I had. It prompted me to order myself an iron 4 1/2. Right out of the box it out performed the Stanley 4 1/2 I had spend hours fettling. That began a campaign of gradually selling off my vintage stuff and purchasing modern versions. They all worked more predictably, were easier to set, and had more heft. Let's face it, they looked cool too.

As far as hand saws go, The old Disstons I have can't be beat. New saws are shinier but they are crazy expensive and don't cut any better. I found the opposite for back saws. I had quite a stable of Disston, Jackson, and others sharpened both rip and cross. Again, they were all vintage that I'd refurbed. They worked OK but had pretty thick plates and didn't leave what I would call a refined cut. I was surprised what they were worth to collectors and wound up selling them off and fully funding the purchase of a LN Dovetail, Carcass, and Tenon saw. These were all improvements by any objective measure. They worked better. The three do anything I need.

I think I can go either way on chisels. I've had a hodgepodge of old stuff. Some were fine and some were meh. I settled on a set of Irwin Marples Blue Chip firmers from when they were still made in Sheffield and a set of LN Bevel Edge before the prices went up. The Blue Chips because they would take a bashing and the LN because I couldn't find anything else with sides ground fine enough to clear dovetails without bruising the wood. I like that within each set they all fit my hand the same. My vintage pieces were sold to woodworkers rounding out sets.

My old Braces and Eggbeaters can't be beat. My vintage hammers are the same.

[Eric Brown]

Perhaps you should look at it a different way. There were some very good tools made in the past and the makers may have had hundreds of different tools to offer. Todays makers have a fairly limited selection. So they limit their offerings to what is most profitable. Take auger bits as an example. New ones are relatively expensive and the quality is not as good as in the past. Of the vintage bits you will find opinions that say Russell Jenning is best, or that Irwins are best for rough work. The truth is that there are other designs that are even better (of course, that's my opinion). One such bit is the single twist bits made by Ford Auger Bit Company (later bought by Millers Falls). They don't jam up like the others. Joy to use, especially in deep holes more than a few inches deep. Forstner bits as originally patented, had a solid rim and are a joy to use with a hand brace. But, because they were being used in factories with "power" tools (line-shaft driven drill presses), they were burning up. So Forstner had a second patent that split the rim into two sections, in effect putting cooling slots into them. Later they changed them again. In the end, all the modern Forstners I'm aware of require a drill press. You can no longer use a hand drill except for ninety degree holes. If you try to bore at an angle the bit will jump out of the hole. So yes, some of the old tools are better than what is currently being made, but some of the new tools are also better than the old. Most of the tools made by Lie-Nielsen, Lee Valley, the custom makers are all better. However, with the new you must pay for that convenience of a tool ready to go with a little final sharpening. With an old tool you may have to spend time restoring. That requires more tools and other things.

So, if you want to build things now, buy new or maybe restored. If you decide to restore tools yourself, be prepared to spend time and money as well.

[Jim Koepke]

Perhaps you should look at it a different way. There were some very good tools made in the past and the makers may have had hundreds of different tools to offer. Todays makers have a fairly limited selection.

Another way of looking at things is that just because something is old doesn't mean it should be set aside. Some older tools do take more time to put back into service than others, many do not require a lot of work.

Sure a new LN #3 would look and in some ways work better than either of my Stanley/Bailey #3s. The wood or the end product wouldn't show any difference. My two #3s were less than a third of the price of the new #3 and only required a little work to put into great working order (one actually came pretty much ready to go).

jtk

[David Carroll]

I have spent a lot of time over the years pondering this question, vintage tools vs. new premium tools. I've purchased both. My impression, at least with LN and LV are that the tools are essentially ready to use, with just a light honing. But I suspect that in the past this was not the case with the big manufacturers (Stanley, Sargent, Millers Falls) who were supplying a commodity, to a skilled market. While today, LN and LV are selling to high level pros who understand the value of quality tools, but also to hobbyists, with differing levels of experience, and of course collectors.

The reason that I say this is because over the years I have purchased more than a few New Old Stock tools from Stanley and others, including an unused No. 5, still in it's original sweetheart era box, a James Swan 1-1/2-inch chisel and a few others. most of these tools needed a lot of work to get working properly. The plane iron was roughly ground, the chip breaker fit was awful and needed a lot of work, the edges of the body casting needed deburring, and the whole thing wanted to be tightened and fettled. Same with the Swan chisel. Some of this could be because they were 50 - 80 years old when I got them, but much of it left the factory the way I got it.

I think that the manufacturers back in the day, both tools date from ~1920 - 1935 knew their customers were skilled workers who would be able to tune the tools to their liking. They were selling tools primarily to tradesmen, essentially in kit form.

Some years ago I bought a cache of brand new Snell Forstner bits, still in the original boxes and they needed a lot of work. They were soaked in cosmoline, dull as spoons and in rough shape generally. A half hours with some fine files and stones and they are now a joy to use. But if my expectation was that they would be ready to use straight from the box, I would have been sorely disappointed.

Of course, these old manufacturers would sell to anybody. Some of the tools were "used once and put away" as the fancy used tool merchants are fond of saying. In these cases, I bet the tool was purchased by somebody who didn't really know how to fine tune the tool, it was tried for its intended purpose and it didn't work very well. So they tossed it on a shelf, or used it until the rough ground iron got too dull and abandoned it.

So this is my longwinded way of saying that old tools will need some work to get singing, but they likely always did need this work, even right out of the box. But the modern makers (the quality ones) do the bulk of this work for you.

DC

[John Erickson]

I have both oldish Stanley's, LN and LV planes but tend to go for my LN planes first. Yes LN and LV has superior quality in all aspects but also very gratifying to know how lucky I am I can gift these tools to my grandson or granddaughter.
On another note, there are many other tools which are better crafted than in years past. The Blue Spruce coping and fret saws are the finest examples I have seen and used. Another is the Red Rose Reproductions dividers, I was so impressed by the 5" I bought the 7" as well.
These companies stand out to me for their quality, function and beauty. Knowing many other tool manufacturers have equally as nice tools, layout, chisels, sharpening and so on.
Let's share our thoughts on tool manufacturers that today make tools that are equally as nice to use and to have on display.

[Eric Brown]

Good idea about current manufacturers. I will start the topic.

https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?303253-Current-Tool-Manufacturers-with-comments&p=3253232#post3253232

[kenneth hatch]

Jim,

I have a few Bad Axe saws, they are good saws and really nice eye candy. More than half the time when reaching for a back saw I grab one of the Veritas. But then I'm a little weird, a full rack of LN planes plus most of the Veritas ones all gathering dust. Stanley Bailey type planes with original iron and chip breaker work as well or better and are more enjoyable to use so they get used and the LN's are good dust catchers. Same with chisels give me a square tang Marples and I'm a happy camper.

In answer to the OP's question, Nope, maybe better fit and finish but somewhere along the line many new tool manufacturers lost sight of what makes a tool work well.

ken

ken


Can't answer that since a Bad Axe saw has never been in my hands. Though I can say one of my most pleasing saws to use is a dovetail saw made from a kit purchased from Ron Bontz:

499438

The handle was made by me from a piece of scrap rosewood.

Next to that a Veritas 14ppi dovetail saw bought for my grandson was so impressive a 20ppi version was bought for myself.

jtk

[steven c newman]

7@ 1 x 6 x 10' Ash planks needed to be sawn to fit into my Equinox's trunk....now have 14 1 x 6 x 5' Ash planks sitting in the house....all cross cut with a Disston No.7 ( with nib) 7ppi


My "Cardio" for today.....film when I can get it processed...total cash amount...$30.00 plus the gas money (1 gallon..maybe) for the round trip...

handle of the 130+ yr old saw fit my hand like it was made just for my hand...

YMMV, of course....

[steven c newman]

Saws?
500112
Well..I thought I would use the Disston D8, 8ppi.....turned out VERY Dull
500114
Switched over to that Disston No. 7...7ppi..
500115
And made a LOT of progress...
500116
A few strokes later...
500117
Had to be careful with the last couple...
500118
Was a bit rough....
500119
Cardio Workout?
500120
Load up the Chevy..and head home....

Owner of the shop took most of the pictures....I was a bit...busy..

[Brandon Speaks]

I think it really depends on the tool and what you want to do with it. Most of my planes are old, I dont buy messed up rusk buckets and try to save them anymore but there is an antique dealer near me that sells planes that are cleaned up very nicely, they generally need to be fetted a bit and sharpened etc but they are generally functional and rust free for quite reasonable prices. Same with hand saws, its not hard to find pretty good condition old Distons with no missing teeth, straight plates, and minimal joining needed. Sharpen, maybe set, and use. Old backsaws worth my time are much harder to find and I have never purchased an old dovetail saw, I think I have one old carcas saw that actually gets used and a few I thought I might but didnt work out. When I wanted a plow plane I didnt know much about them and didnt want to screw around so I ordered the Veritas one, similar with a router plane, I also didnt want to sort through tons of crappy old chisels to build a set of users so I bought some. I need some auger bits and really want some old ones I can maintain, but do not want to screw around piecing together a set so if I dont find a full set in really good condition I might just buy wood owls.

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

2 feet away from me as I write this I have a Badaxe D8 with a thumbhole, and a Disson D8 circa 1870's. I also have a canadian Disston D8 thumbhole from the 1920's. the canadian one is nice, but the handle is way to big (and I have big hands - a surgeon's 8-1/2 glove if it gives you a reference point). The Badaxe is on par with the older Disson - not exactly the same but I couldn't tell you which one I like better.
Disston was sourced and tuned, thus expensive (around $150 with shipping). the Badaxe was new and very expensive (still dehydrated from that particular "cry once"). I think the Badaxe overall is a better saw, but definitely not three times better.

[John C Cox]

My experience is that new tools tend to be far more consistent. The good ones are consistently good. The bad ones are consistently bad. The mediocre ones are consistently mediocre. Within a brand, they also seem to have calibrated their product to the price point, meaning a cheap Stanley chisel or saw will usually underperform their "up market" offerings.

With old tools, I often find myself trying out multiples of some tool and one is just a lot better than the others. Chisels in particular seem to demonstrate this to the extreme, where say one I Sorby firmer is fantastic and the next is adequate.

Now I understand more about the transition from the older style octagon bolster chisels to drop forged round bolster, I learned there was significant overlap within the same company's offerings. For example, Marples/I Sorby and Ward offered both "newer" drop forged round bolster and "older" octagon bolster product lines at the same time from WWII to the early 1950's.

My tests on work indicate that during this period, they downgraded the "Old style" tools to boost the apparent performance of their new product lines. For example, my "early" Marples round bolster chisels typically work about 4x as much wood before resharpening as "same era" octagon bolster units.... But, those same "late era" octagon bolster chisels often only work half as much wood as a chisel made prior to drop forging.

Then as now, marketing was an important facet of the business.

[steven c newman]

Been using some of those "old" tools...
501025

Need 30 mortises, chopped TODAY ( with a Break for Lunch, of course..)
501026
10 are done...only 20 more to do....chisels? 1/4" Witherby Paring Chisel...and a 1/4" New Haven Edge Tool Co. Mortise chisel....chopping into Ash...2 passes, then a clean-up pass..
501027
Will head back after lunch has settled...