Union x plane thoughts?

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

Hi all,

Ive been following the development and relaunch of the xplane from union. It is based off of an old design with a 2" blade and a 9" sole. The union planes have an interesting design where they have an adjustable mouth (this run with have a fine adjuster screw), a latera adjustment lever that pivots the blade in the same direction as the adjustment (should take some getting used to) which is placed much lower then the stanley based models. This means you need to creat a lot more travel to move the blade lateraly . Again, a finer tuning then the Stanley's. Lastly the blade advancmwnt screw is a vert8cal mechanism that claims to give much finer control of blade advancment the equivalent Stanley planes. It seems to me that this plane might be an ideal smoother. I was wondering if anyone has any experience with the company (as a relaunched brand) and can give any informal into QC, fit, finish and machine performance. It se3ms on paper like a really good plane.

[Eric Brown]

They also are using a thick blade to reduce chatter. They just announced that Isaac Smith of Blackburn Tools is the new vice president. He will remain with Blackburn and work for both.

https://www.unionmfgco.com/

They only sell through distributors and are working on stock.

[Rafael Herrera]

Their planes haven't been released yet.

These planes are not common to find, even here in the US. If you are curious about them, you could try to find a vintage one and test it.

That mechanism for closing the mouth was patented by the Metallic Plane Co. In the 1860s, I think. I've a couple of their planes, talk about a complicated frog.

It's cool to see a plane with a precisely manufactured tight mouth. In reality, that and other features still being touted today were superseded a very very long time ago by the double iron.

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

I'm hoping this wont devolve into a double iron vs mouth argument. Isaac has an outstanding reputation which I'm hoping will translate to a well designed hand plane. Really curious to try this one out.

[Jim Koepke]

Im hoping this wont devolve into a double iron vs mouth argument.

Okay, this has me confused.

I vaguely recall seeing a #7 sized X plane in an antique shop years ago and it was a double iron plane. At one time I owned a Union #4 sized plane. It had the lateral adjuster with the pivot below the disk like on the Union X plane.

It was a fine plane and a family heirloom. I gave it to my older brother who is keeping a bunch of the family heirlooms. I have a few items my father gave me that still get uses in my shop. I like to limit my planes to mostly the same Stanley/Bailey series for interchangeable parts. It was only recently that all my type 6 planes have been retired so all my depth adjusters move the same way.

Found this on the Union X planes > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeRUcj0_nZ4

jtk

[Eric Brown]

The X planes are in fact a double iron in that they have a blade and a chipbreaker, just like the common Stanley. The main differences are the way the adjuster works and the movable mouth. The earlier X planes did not have a movable mouth and the frog is not movable. The later types and the new one coming out do have a movable mouth. My understanding is that the blade adjustment is tighter, meaning less slop in the adjustment and the double nuts ensure it doesn't change by itself.

[Rafael Herrera]

Shoot, I said I wasn't going to comment, oh well.

Yes, the X plane is a double iron plane. My comment related to the incompatibility of the double iron with a tight mouth. If you set the CB close to the edge and then close the mouth, the shavings will choke at the mouth. You can retract the CB to allow the shavngs to pass, but that negates the effect of the CB. This is easily demonstrated on a Baily pattern plane if you advance the frog or try to fit an after market thick iron.

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

Im hoping this wont devolve into a double iron vs mouth argument.

maybe "devolve" is not the right word here, I learned a ton from these debates on the creek and now the double iron is my go to method.
I was hoping to get keep the subject on the plane itself

[Eric Brown]

Looking at the design it looks like the adjuster lever is long, which provides tow advantages over the Bailey design. First because of where the pivot is, there is a mechanical advantage making adjustment finer and easier. Second is how the adjustment nuts work the lever pivots a little at the nuts, which is why their surfaces are rounded. Dissimilar metals help but this area should be lubricated. Because the frog is pinned to the frame and is not adjustable it probably raises the necessity of keeping the edge of the blade square. Not sure how hard removing the frog might be.

[steven c newman]

Lets see...Stanley thought so much about Union planes....they bought out the company....and...as soon as all the parts were used up, Stanley closed the place down......

[Eric Brown]

Lots of companies had better ideas than Stanley. It was somewhat political in buying up competitors and then closing them down, selling the assets. Stanley could not keep ideas such as the X-Plane around as then people would question the superiority of the Bedrock design.

[Rafael Herrera]

Buying a company to later shut it down is an obvious anti-competitive move. I doubt they were stupid enough to buy the company, realize the plane was crap, and then decide to shut down production.

[Rafael Herrera]

Because the frog is pinned to the frame and is not adjustable it probably raises the necessity of keeping the edge of the blade square. Not sure how hard removing the frog might be.

I don't have one of these planes in front of me, but from the patent drawings and pictures it seems the frog is part of the plane body, similar to how block planes are designed.

[Ray Newman]

"They only sell through distributors and are working on stock."
--Eric Brown

What does "working on stock" mean? If I recall correctly, the "new" Union had some problems with the pattern an/or foundry for the making the X plane?

[Reed Gray]

Apparently, I still do not have enough planes in my arsenal! Blessed or cursed to be one who has to 'experiment'....

robo hippy

[Eric Brown]

"They only sell through distributors and are working on stock."
--Eric Brown

What does "working on stock" mean? If I recall correctly, the "new" Union had some problems with the pattern an/or foundry for the making the X plane?

If you go to some of the dealers you will see they are out of stock on almost everything Union makes. Like bevel squares, Elixir, etc. I think right now they are concentrating on the X-Plane. As for the foundry, a lot of companies are having trouble with them. Lie-Niesen, Lee Valley, Walke-Moore. The frog is a complicated casting I know I wouldn't want that job.

[Eric Brown]

The frog is cast as a separate piece and then tapered pins lock it into the body.

[kenneth hatch]

Eric,

First, the Bedrock is not a superior design. Back in the day folks could separate the steak from the sizzle and sales of Bailey v. Bedrock showed the superior design. Good marketing but not a better plane. As with most things in life it's balance that works, and the Bailey has proven over the years its balance. Lightweight and a chip breaker that works with a light cutter. I think of thick aftermarket irons, cap irons and Bedrock planes as kinda like "jacked up trucks" lots of hoot factor but they do not work as well as my stock Silverado. Same with Bailey planes. BTW, if your Bailey style plane is set up correctly and you have a clue the type 11 and on(IIRC) Bailey is easier to adjust the frog than the Bedrock which I think is one of the sales points of the Bedrock, ease of adjusting the frog. A lot of sizzle in a Bedrock.

As always YMMV,

ken


Lots of companies had better ideas than Stanley. It was somewhat political in buying up competitors and then closing them down, selling the assets. Stanley could not keep ideas such as the X-Plane around as then people would question the superiority of the Bedrock design.

[Eric Brown]

Eric,

First, the Bedrock is not a superior design. Back in the day folks could separate the steak from the sizzle and sales of Bailey v. Bedrock showed the superior design. Good marketing but not a better plane. As with most things in life it's balance that works, and the Bailey has proven over the years its balance. Lightweight and a chip breaker that works with a light cutter. I think of thick aftermarket irons, cap irons and Bedrock planes as kinda like "jacked up trucks" lots of hoot factor but they do not work as well as my stock Silverado. Same with Bailey planes. BTW, if your Bailey style plane is set up correctly and you have a clue the type 11 and on(IIRC) Bailey is easier to adjust the frog than the Bedrock which I think is one of the sales points of the Bedrock, ease of adjusting the frog. A lot of sizzle in a Bedrock.

As always YMMV,

ken

Yes, but Stanley was "all in" on the propaganda that Bedrocks were the best. Consider recently when Stanley re-entered the market. They could have brought out the X-Plane but instead brought out the Bedrock again. I agree it's hyped up. Considering the manufacturing, it's probably easier to make the Bedrock design over the X-Plane. I bet even the Lie-Nielsen Bedrock version is harder to make than the Stanley version because of detail.

[kenneth hatch]

Eric,

Or even better came out with a new Type 13 Bailey made with care. Wouldn't have sold as well because there ain't no sizzle but there would be a few really happy old fart woodworkers.

ken


Yes, but Stanley was "all in" on the propaganda that Bedrocks were the best. Consider recently when Stanley re-entered the market. They could have brought out the X-Plane but instead brought out the Bedrock again. I agree it's hyped up. Considering the manufacturing, it's probably easier to make the Bedrock design over the X-Plane. I bet even the Lie-Nielsen Bedrock version is harder to make than the Stanley version because of detail.

[Warren Mickley]

I had the same thoughts as you, Ken. Was the bedrock a superior design? They cost 15% more than the Baileys, but most people did not buy them. Most craftsmen weren't fooled. The Bedrocks were so rare by the 1970s that collectors bid them up a lot higher than the much more popular Baileys, just to round out their collections. Later people thought they must be better because of the high price, but it was only because they were scarce. I think Lie Nielsen copied the design simply because they were higher priced.

Union made planes for decades along side of Stanley. There again people had a choice and they mostly bought the Bailey design.

[kenneth hatch]

Warren,

I often think if only LN had gone with a Bailey design, but again sizzle sells and LN is a lot better business man than I ever was. I guess "just like a Stanley but better" isn't much of a sales slogan.

ken


I had the same thoughts as you, Ken. Was the bedrock a superior design? They cost 15% more than the Baileys, but most people did not buy them. Most craftsmen weren't fooled. The Bedrocks were so rare by the 1970s that collectors bid them up a lot higher than the much more popular Baileys, just to round out their collections. Later people thought they must be better because of the high price, but it was only because they were scarce. I think Lie Nielsen copied the design simply because they were higher priced.

Union made planes for decades along side of Stanley. There again people had a choice and they mostly bought the Bailey design.

[Rafael Herrera]

They could have brought out the X-Plane but instead brought out the Bedrock again.

Are you referring to this plane? I'm trying to get a detailed description of the plane, it's described as having the frog and base as a single piece. It also has some of the features discussed here: adjustable mouth and a thick iron.

500342

https://www.stanleytools.co.uk/product/1-12-136/stanleyr-no-4-sweethearttm-smoothing-bench-plane

There is a demo there planing construction lumber.

[Eric Brown]

For some reason I was thinking the new Stanleys were like the old Bedrocks. Apparently, I am mistaken. Can't find the one I was thinking of. Maybe it was a different maker and not Stanley.

[Jim Koepke]

Buying a company to later shut it down is an obvious anti-competitive move. I doubt they were stupid enough to buy the company, realize the plane was crap, and then decide to shut down production.

Union Manufacturing spun off the plane making division as Union Plane Company. They were good planes. Stanley purchased Union Plane Co. in approximately 1920.

Stanley bought and absorbed many companies along the way.

It is an all too common business tactic for one company to buy and close another company to reduce competition.

jtk

[steven c newman]

Millers Falls made VERY GOOD bench planes....up until the mid-1950s....

Sargent was another very good brand name....look for the VBM Trademarks.....or..the 700 series of auto-adjust planes...

As for me...
500392
I'll just have to motor along with what I already have on hand.....
500393

[Rafael Herrera]

I tried to edit my post on my phone and got an error. The post disappeared.

The mobile interface is pretty buggy when it comes to do certain things.

Can a moderator restore it or someone send me a copy of it if they got it through an email notice?

[John Northowl]

Quangsheng / Luban makes bedrock style planes: https://www.workshopheaven.com/quangsheng-no-4-bedrock-pattern-smoothing-plane/

[Mark Rainey]

Hi all,

Ive been following the development and relaunch of the xplane from union. It is based off of an old design with a 2" blade and a 9" sole. The union planes have an interesting design where they have an adjustable mouth (this run with have a fine adjuster screw), a latera adjustment lever that pivots the blade in the same direction as the adjustment (should take some getting used to) which is placed much lower then the stanley based models. This means you need to creat a lot more travel to move the blade lateraly . Again, a finer tuning then the Stanley's. Lastly the blade advancmwnt screw is a vert8cal mechanism that claims to give much finer control of blade advancment the equivalent Stanley planes. It seems to me that this plane might be an ideal smoother. I was wondering if anyone has any experience with the company (as a relaunched brand) and can give any informal into QC, fit, finish and machine performance. It se3ms on paper like a really good plane.

I looked at their website a few years ago when they started out. So far they have not produced a working plane as far as I know. At one time they were selling defective planes as "collector planes". I would proceed with caution.