Why Lie-Nielsen planes cost so much...

[Mike Brady]

This video appeared on my YouTube feed tonight: Making a Lie-Nielsen Plane From Start to Finish - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHaXAFh83VE) This is an impressive video of the complete manufacturing process. Check it out.

[Rob Luter]

This video appeared on my YouTube feed tonight: Making a Lie-Nielsen Plane From Start to Finish - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHaXAFh83VE) This is an impressive video of the complete manufacturing process. Check it out.

I've been in manufacturing my whole career. Knowing what goes into these makes me wonder how they can sell them so cheap. They are a bargain.

[mike stenson]

I've been in manufacturing my whole career. Knowing what goes into these makes me wonder how they can sell them so cheap. They are a bargain.

Indeed. No one is getting rich at LN!

[fritz eng]

Indeed. No one is getting rich at LN!

May they stay in business for a very long time!

[Charles Edward]

Seems to me to be more of an advertisement for the wonders of Stanley, Record, et al. from bygone days.

[Eric Brown]

Indeed. No one is getting rich at LN!

Many people today don't realize what all it takes to make something. I'll use my nickel plating as an example. First, the tool has to be good to begin with, then it needs cleaned, polished and put back together. It then may require tuning. There are several steps to the plating itself. Degreasing is the first and most important. Then maybe an activator if old plating present. Then the plating happens. This alone can take up to two hours. Then it needs a final polish and re-assembly.
But people really don't appreciate it being a more durable finish than paint. They definitely don't want to pay much for it. So basically, I might break even on the cost of purchasing the rusty tool and all the supplies used. I make nothing on the labor.
So why do I do it? Because I like to. I'm happy knowing a tool might last a lot longer because it looks like a valuable tool. Might not get thrown into the recycle bin.

Now look at a premium company making these tools today. (Lie-Nielsen, Veritas, etc.) They must produce tools without any visible flaws in addition to working well. Top of the line materials. Their quality control must be relentless and constantly strive for even better quality or lower cost without sacrificing anything. For them, word of mouth is the best advertising. It must be good, or they will need to make things right. No company or person is perfect though and so problems sometimes arise. These companies are known for taking care of any issues, large, small, or even the customer's mistake.

New manufacturing also has other hurdles. Walke-Moore could not get good bronze castings for their routers and ended up going with steel. Union Manufacture is trying to make castings, and everything was going well until they found out their software for the castings was making the main bodies too long. So, they have to redo and try again before committing to a major run. That will directly cost them in time and material.

I think the prices they are charging for new tools is very reasonable.

The cost of used tools may also be going up. The tools I sell on E-Bay are typically charged a 13.5% rate as a listing fee. Then the Federal Government wants you to pay income tax on top of that. So basically, I need to add about 25% to a tool I just bought to just break even. Luckily most the tools I am selling were bought years ago at lower prices. So I am doing alright. But not getting rich. :)

[Jim Koepke]

Seems to me to be more of an advertisement for the wonders of Stanley, Record, et al. from bygone days.

Any of those sell for more today with rust for more than the sold new.

When Stanley was making Bailey style planes, what was the minimum wage?

From Wikipedia:


The federal minimum wage was introduced in 1938 at the rate of 25¢ per hour (equivalent to $5.19 in 2022). By 1950 the minimum wage had risen to 75¢ per hour. The purchasing power of the federal minimum wage has fluctuated; it was highest in February 1968, when it was $1.60 per hour.

What are Stanley, Record, et al offering today?

Home Depot has the modern #4 listed at $43.44 and out of stock. It has plastic handles. If it works as well as some of my older Stanley/Bailey planes it would be a bargain.

A well tuned early Stanley/Bailey #4 will cost more than that. Heck, even a not so well tuned old Stanley/Bailey #4 might run higher than that on ebay.

jtk

[Charles Edward]

Any of those sell for more today with rust for more than the sold new.

When Stanley was making Bailey style planes, what was the minimum wage?

From Wikipedia:



What are Stanley, Record, et al offering today?

Home Depot has the modern #4 listed at $43.44 and out of stock. It has plastic handles. If it works as well as some of my older Stanley/Bailey planes it would be a bargain.

A well tuned early Stanley/Bailey #4 will cost more than that. Heck, even a not so well tuned old Stanley/Bailey #4 might run higher than that on ebay.

jtk

In its heyday, Stanley probably made more better-than-decent quality planes in a few months than L-N has made in the entire history of the company to date.

And that is a marvel.

They were affordable, and they worked well, but not so cheap that somebody who actually earned a living with tools would have a tool chest full of duplicates.

[Rafael Herrera]

Those planes are expensive. If it's worth it to you to get a plane ready to go, then that's what you're paying, in addition to the extra details, like wooden handles, the guaranteed tolerances, customer support, etc.

Stanley is still making Bailey planes. If the point is to have smoother that can smooth a surface, the $45 Stanley no. 4 sold at home depot works as well as any vintage smoother. It's a heavy plane, so it shares that w the premium ones. Other details are less refined, but smoothing is smoothing.

[Jim Koepke]

In its heyday, Stanley probably made more better-than-decent quality planes in a few months than L-N has made in the entire history of the company to date.

And that is a marvel.

They were affordable, and they worked well, but not so cheap that somebody who actually earned a living with tools would have a tool chest full of duplicates.

From memory of reading about "back in the day" a Stanley bench plane sold for about a day's wages. I've read many comments about back then you weren't buying a plane so much as you were buying a kit. The plane might work acceptably to someone wanting to take a shaving or two off of a sticking door, but someone making a living with the tool would need to do some fettling.

I recall the Stanley #45 as being sold for about $8 dollars in the late 1800s and that was supposedly about a weeks wages.

Back then people didn't have an electric jointer in their garage nor a random orbital sander.

My guess if anyone was cranking out planes at the rate Stanley and others were over a century ago, they would likely have a lot of unsold inventory on their shelves, even if they were less than $50 each.

jtk

[Mark Gibney]

A couple of months back in Home Depot curiosity got the best of me so I picked up a #4 and pulled it out of it's box.
The blade was installed bevel up, with wood shavings jammed between the bevel and the chipbreaker.
The next person to buy it will return the tool because it was used, and then it will likely be chucked in a dumpster.

[Jim Koepke]

A couple of months back in Home Depot curiosity got the best of me so I picked up a #4 and pulled it out of it's box.
The blade was installed bevel up, with wood shavings jammed between the bevel and the chipbreaker.
The next person to buy it will return the tool because it was used, and then it will likely be chucked in a dumpster.

One of the problems with retail today is there are a lot of people who need an item for a single use and then want to return for full refund. Candy's ex is one of those people.

Someone might buy it to give as a gift. The recipient my not be able to return it.

Home Depot occasionally has a clearance table (at least they used to) of items that have been returned or even hardware from which people have opened and removed (shoplifted) items. I one time found a box marked down that had been opened, but it was filled with 1/4-20 wing nuts that had been put together from all the open boxes. It was marked down from a box of 5 or 10 wing nuts but was stuffed full with close to 100. Naturally I just had to buy it.

Other than being put together wrong, how was the rest of the plane? Did it seem like it would make a good user?

jtk

[Bruce Page]

Thank you Mike, I watched the LN video last night. Very interesting and well done. I toured a casting & forging house in Houston once that was doing some work for me. Hard, hard work. I wouldn’t have lasted one day.

[Haitham Jaber]

I own some Veritas. A Clifton 5 1/2 and some Lie-Nielsen.
When I buy Veritas, sometimes I don't even worry about opening the product right away. They have a rock solid quality control.
When I bought my Clifton, it wasn't all smooth like Lie-Nielsen but as a Jack Plane it works like a charm. Love its extra weight and tank-like construction.
Recently I tried to buy a Clifton no.6 but I returned two of them. The casting was useless on both. On the first one the thread of the frog advancing mechanism
was at a wrong angle. On the second they didn't thread it all the way through. Clifton is going down the hill.
So I went with Lie-Nielsen for the Fore-Plane. I like the fact that LN makes limited batches and doesn't lose sight of quality.
Clifton continues to produce and produce but quality control is completely ineffective. Sorry about that

[Tony Zaffuto]

Does LN do their own casting or are they subcontracted out?

[Mark Gibney]

Other than being put together wrong, how was the rest of the plane? Did it seem like it would make a good user?

Jim, no I would not buy this plane, it looked very chintzy and I don't think it would make a good user at all.
A couple of years back I bought a #4 in Lowes, again out of curiosity. Good heft to the plane, but the fatal flaw is that if I positioned the chip breaker close to the cutting edge the iron cannot be advanced enough to touch the wood.
I'll have to get my metalworker buddy to cut the chipbreaker and add a pieces in. Not sure how successful this will be.
Lowes now carry some Jorgensen planes, and their #4 looks pretty good on the shelf - very heavy and a 1/8" thick iron. But they are orange, a strange color for a handplane, to me.
Haven't tried them.

[Jim Koepke]

Jim, no I would not buy this plane, it looked very chintzy and I don't think it would make a good user at all.

Thanks for the reply & review Mark.


A couple of years back I bought a #4 in Lowes, again out of curiosity. Good heft to the plane, but the fatal flaw is that if I positioned the chip breaker close to the cutting edge the iron cannot be advanced enough to touch the wood.
I'll have to get my metalworker buddy to cut the chipbreaker and add a pieces in. Not sure how successful this will be.

It may be easier to open the mouth a little.


Lowes now carry some Jorgensen planes, and their #4 looks pretty good on the shelf - very heavy and a 1/8" thick iron. But they are orange, a strange color for a handplane, to me.

Orange is kind of an odd color to see at the Blue Borg.


Haven't tried them.

I have, my experience with one of their block planes is here > https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?301757

jtk

[Rafael Herrera]

Here's my HomeDepot Stanley no. 4. It didn't take long to get ready. I removed the frog adjustment screw since it actually made the frog crooked, it's not really essential, so it went to the parts box. The only thing that bothers me is the size of the mouth.

In this test it's planing a block of oak and a block of poplar. I started by taking several passes going against the grain, it made the surface a bit rough, but no actual tear out. Going with the grain cleaned up the surface. On the poplar block, I planed in both directions, the surface was equally good in both cases. The plane is a bit sticky, so an oily rag was used to reduce the friction.

511916 511917

Before
511915511918

After, with a shot of the double iron.
511914 511922

Poplar shavings and surface.

511920 511921

There are just minor issues with the plane, like the plastic handles, the size of the mouth, and its weight. Other than that the plane is 100% functional.

Rafael

[mike stenson]

Interesting thread drift here.

[Mark Gibney]

It may be easier to open the mouth a little.

No - when the adjusting nut is spun all the way to the end of the thread the cutter is still 1/8" away from touching wood. The chipbreaker needs to be physically longer.
It's bizarre. I took the plane apart and compared it to an older Stanley #4. Nothing jumps out at me to say ah, this is causing the problem.

To get the thread back on track - the moral is: buy LN or LV and get to woodworking!

[Jim Koepke]

It may be easier to open the mouth a little.

No - when the adjusting nut is spun all the way to the end of the thread the cutter is still 1/8" away from touching wood. The chipbreaker needs to be physically longer.
It's bizarre. I took the plane apart and compared it to an older Stanley #4. Nothing jumps out at me to say ah, this is causing the problem.

To get the thread back on track - the moral is: buy LN or LV and get to woodworking!

Okay, now I understand the problem.

It sounds like the cutout for the adjuster needs to be farther away from the part that diverts the chips.

511926

In the above image it may be the distance at A is not enough. The sticking point is if the other dimensions are sufficient to accommodate the difference.

One of my planes (a #113) had an incorrect cap iron with a similar problem. Epoxying a piece of steel at the bottom of the adjuster rectangle did help until I eventually found the proper cap iron for the plane.

jtk

[Charles Taylor]

Okay, now I understand the problem.

It sounds like the cutout for the adjuster needs to be farther away from the part that diverts the chips.

511926

In the above image it may be the distance at A is not enough. The sticking point is if the other dimensions are sufficient to accommodate the difference.

One of my planes (a #113) had an incorrect cap iron with a similar problem. Epoxying a piece of steel at the bottom of the adjuster rectangle did help until I eventually found the proper cap iron for the plane.

jtk


I have such a Stanley #4, bought new from Woodcraft in the early 2000s. I figured out the problem was exactly as Jim describes. A Hock chipbreaker fixed it for me as the cutout is more correctly located.

[Rafael Herrera]

If the cutter can't descend below the plane sole, then the chipbreaker has been damaged or it's been switched for one from a different manufacturer, at worst it's a manufacturing error. There are some aspects of hand tool use that become obvious when one is involved in setting them up. A boutique plane may be ready to use, but when things don't work, the lack of understanding leaves one perplexed. Like the viewer that sent his LN plane to Rex Kruger (https://youtu.be/pnV27QVLmzA). There was nothing wrong w the plane, but the viewer couldn't get it to work.

The OP question was why these planes cost so much. Well, the answer is because a lot of time is spent manufacturing them. They're ready to go. Are they better than an old plane, or even one of these Home Depot planes? Not really if you know how to setup a plane.

[mike stenson]

I don't think there was a question in the original post, or?

[Rafael Herrera]

I suppose I should have just watched the video, bought a LN plane and done some real woodworking.

[mike stenson]

I only own one LN plane. Shocking, I know. But, given the posts here.. it'd seem that the average person here would love to see them close up shop.

This is why we have lost most manufacturing in the US though, and that is a shame.

[Bruce Page]

I only own one LN plane. Shocking, I know. But, given the posts here.. it'd seem that the average person here would love to see them close up shop.

This is why we have lost most manufacturing in the US though, and that is a shame.

I don’t understand where that comment is coming from Mike. 90% of the comments I read are in praise of L&N.:confused:

[Jim Koepke]

I only own one LN plane. Shocking, I know. But, given the posts here.. it'd seem that the average person here would love to see them close up shop.

This is why we have lost most manufacturing in the US though, and that is a shame.

I'm with Bruce, I actually have a couple LN planes. They both came much more ready to use than almost all of the Stanley/Bailey or even Bedrock planes that have come my way. They were purchased because of their price being better than what the same Stanley planes would cost.

I am a firm believer in buying old planes and learning how to restore them. It is understandable that many others do not have the same background as mine of having worked with fixing up an old car or bicycle among other mechanical devices. For those folks, buying a plane that is set up at the factory is a good choice.

jtk

[Rafael Herrera]

If I needed a tool that I could only get from Lie Nielsen, I'd certainly buy it from them. So far I've gotten by with products from other brands, other independent American makers, or vintage tools. I certainly don't base my decisions on the idea that I need to save them from going out of business. It's their job to make competitive products and stay a viable company.

[Derek Cohen]

While it is no doubt valid that some purchase LN and Veritas planes with the expectation that better/more expensive tools make for better craftsmen, there is no question that the construction quality of these planes is far superior to that of Stanley and Record (and from their best period - new generation Stanley are very poor relations). Further to this, there is also no doubt that a new, out-of-the-box LN or Veritas plane is close to 90% of its potential while an old but untuned Stanley/Record is probably about 50% so. (These are my guestimates, so don't get your panties in a bunch).

These are quite different statements as to whether one prefers the modern over the vintage. There are arguments both ways. For example, Stanley's lighter heft may be preferred, or that the ignificantly higher cost of the modern counterpart may be less affordable. This latter point is the main argument for many with the observation that time taken to tune a vintage plane gets it to the same performance. After all, performance is all that counts, not so? Well, apparently not, otherwise why different prices and preference for the different makes if motor car manufacturers? Look at the materials that into a LN and those that go into a Porsche.

At the end of the day, I do not look at the tools used by a woodworker; I look at what they have built with their tools. I enjoy looking at the workshops and tools of others, but I am more impressed by their expertise in joinery and finishing.

I have both modern and vintage tools, along with a number of tools I have designed and built, and part of my joy of building comes from the pleasure in crafting with a well-crafted tool, regardless of the name on the tool.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Dan Kraakenes]

I MIGHT buy a used tool, after I have exausted all other options or bought all I need from established makers. (Like braces and handdrills, which I cant seem to find quality new ones)


I have some disposable income I can spend on a Hobby..
Just to give an example… a very good Birding binocular, and my favoritt, a Swarovski SLC 8x56 costs new here $2280.

I had no problem buying one, because I know how good it is for my use, even though I have others.
But for the same money, I could now buy LN #3, #4 1/2, #5 1/2, #7 and a #60 1/2. And I can.. But I struggle with that desicion, because I allready have much of this covered by Veritas tools.

And I should not buy more tools then I need right?
That is a common advice/reply on most handtool forums.
One should have just the exact number tools or prefrably less then one actually needs..
And try to find old ones, that you yourself Fixed up, to save yourself money. **)


And even though I have more expensive binoculars then the Swarovski 8x56 SLC, for nearly the same uses, I actually struggle to buy duplicate Planes and designs from a different makers, like the Line up of Lie Nielsen planes mentioned. Because its so ingrained in Handtools forums and articles, less is more, more pure, more focused on the art, the furniture… and not excess in tools.

But in birdwatching, people are not encoraged to buy used.
So birders upgrade when new tech or design arrives and most end up with several for same uses and backups.
Because watching birds are fleeting moments and you should have best possible optics to experince it.


So what am I saying… people are ofte encouraged to not buy new tools made in Western countries, but find used ones and fix them up. And that you dont really need new… It is sort of true. But then all production will be eventually be outsourced. We all want new tools to be cheaper, my currency has taken a huge hit last two years making LV & LN tools 20-30-40% more expensive. But, I still buy new, instead of 80 year old tools, when there are new products made. But its just s hobby for me.. and I like to use nice things, knowing people are well paid for the product I am using.



Now dog wants to go for a walk, so I have to stop this rant…
Dog is poking his nose into my knee.. and I try telling him its raining/snowing outside, but he wants none of that.
So not as well said as I like… and auto correct is killing me…

Oh…and not made in China… just to push all the buttons. :):):)


**)
Perfectly valid reasons if you dont have dissposable income or you need 3x #5 or 5x #4 for your actuall Jobs.