New Stanley Planes

[Brian Tax]

I inherited a couple of old (~1910) Stanley bench planes from my grandfather and I love using them. This past Christmas my wife got me a new #4 from woodcraft I think. I have seen some things criticizing the new ones, it seems to be good quality to me, but I have not used it yet. What are your thoughts?

[steve swantee]

Hello Brian, I have not used a newer Stanley smoother, but I really enjoy using my small flock of 100+ year old Stanley bench planes. I think the fit and finish is much better on a vintage plane, although they usually require a small investment of time to tune them properly. I think the older style frogs offer a bit more support, and the machining is of a superior quality as well, and then there is the sense of connection with the past which many also enjoy about using a vintage tool, myself included. I really can't comment first hand about how the new planes work, but search around and I'm sure you'll find the answers you're looking for. This is an interesting read:http://blog.lostartpress.com/2008/03/23/Planing+In+Circles.aspx
Hope this helped some, if not, sharpen up that new No.4 and do a little comparison between it and your vintage Stanley. I'm sure lots of folks here would be interested in how the new one fares out against your oldie.

Steve

[Jim Nardi]

Picked one up at a flea market for 5 bucks. Tuned it up and gave it away.
I personally don't like the plastic handles on the new bench planes. The blade doesn't hold a edge long. Sole's not very flat either. So to sum it up if you replace the blade for 50 buy handles for 40 and spend 20 flattening the sole you'll have a second rate plane with a nasty blade advance8\. IMO a smoother is where you need to spend a few extra bucks and buy a quality new plane like a LV smoother.

[Brian Kent]

Brian, one of my first planes was an Anant, rated similarly as a new Stanley. I used it as a tool to learn how to make a plane work right. Because of its purpose, I'm glad I got it. Although I wouldn't buy that one with what I know now, with many many hours of work getting it right, it does work right now.

If I were in your shoes, I would work on (play with:rolleyes:) the new Stanley until it is the best it can be, and do the same with your old Stanley(s). When you have used both on your projects in your future you will become the real life expert who knows.

[Ron Dunn]

Brian (Tax), my first plane was a contemporary Stanley #4, exactly as you describe.

Aesthetically it is let down by plastic handles. From a work perspective that means they don't feel as nice, but they won't break, either.

Functionally it works as well as the older Stanleys. There *might* be more backlash in the adjuster (the period of doing nothing between advancing and reversing the blade), but no Stanley of this type has NO backlash, so I consider the point unimportant. The blade *might* require more frequent sharpening, but my workflow is to sharpen a tool before I use it, and I rarely have to re-sharpen in the middle of a job. (that is a method-of-work issue which will affect different people to different degrees)

These days I don't use it so often. I bought an ECE Primus which has been my preferred smoother for many years, and I only use the Stanley for stuff like adjusting sticking doors or attacking a piece of rough or weathered timber to see what it looks like clean.

Recently, though, I wondered if it was just my naive usage at the time. I grabbed it off the shelf, re-honed the blade, and planed a piece of hardwood. It worked just fine ... I held the timber (Victorian Ash ... a species of Australian Eucalyptus a bit like white oak) just so, and had a beautiful mirror reflection.

Now, I've got absolutely no doubt that there are much better planes out there ... both old and new ... but the contemporary Stanley #4 doesn't deserve the scorn it gets online.

Go ahead and use it ... make something nice for your wife :)

[John Guarino]

Brian,

I, too, had a new Stanley #4. It had a flat sole and took shavings right out of the box. Over time I learned how to fettle each component, but it never did anything wrong and it did an awful lot right.

Having used refurbed Stanleys, an old Fulton, refurbed woodies, a new LN, old Record, and a new high angle Knight infill, I agree with Ron. This plane does not deserve the scorn it gets online.

It performed well in comparison to all of the others except for multidirectional grain. The Knight gets first call on that stuff.

The worst thing that ever happened was when I broke a plastic handle. It fell apart in my hand as I picked it up, so I replaced it with wood. I think I cracked it earlier but I didn't notice the break.

Ultimately, I donated it to a fine furniture making school, which I considered to be a good cause. But I would have another any time. It was a perfectly serviceable tool.