New Premium Handplanes From Stanley Works

[Randy Klein]

For those who don't read Chris Schwarz's blog. Here's a link (http://www.woodworking-magazine.com/blog/PermaLink,guid,6039ab77-8d6d-4a90-b5d4-600bf144424a.aspx) about new Stanley planes.

[James Schulist]

"the frog and base are cast as one piece. This reduces the opportunity for blade chatter to occur."

I am new to planes, are there, indeed, not any other designs like this? It, somehow, just sounds cheap to me...

-James Schulist

[David Bodkin]

Interesting. I'll be curious to see them in stores. I think the one piece base and frog could be nice if they do it right. They have the opportunity to greatly increase the contact area between the blade and the frog which should lead to less chatter. On the flip side any errors in the casting will be there for the duration.

[Jim Nardi]

Looks very bright for the future of handtool user's out there. You know there's money in it when a big company is coming to play. Very interesting that there seems to be some more new idea's in how to build a good plane out there. Who know's maybe LN will copy these designs also.

[Peter Quadarella]

I'm happy about this. I was almost set on the LV medium shoulder plane, but when I tried it out at the IWF show it didn't fit my hand very well at all. The Stanley shoulder plane might fit me better.

[Johnny Kleso]

About time they wake up......

[Tristan Raymond]

Hey, more competition is always welcome! I wouldn't guess that they'd be quite up to the quality of LV and LN right away, but who knows what they might come up with along the way.

[Joel Goodman]

Just noticed the fine print "made in Mexico". That's where the production moved after it left the UK. As far as I can see Stanley USA was good, UK sort of iffy (if you go by the crappy UK #4 that's someplace in my shop unused) and the newest Mexican stuff is even worse. Usually when production is moved for cost reasons, other cost cutting is done and the product suffers. I don't think that Tom LN or Rob Lee have much to worry about.

[Kevin Blunt]

About time they wake up......

I agree 100%.

Stanley has pumped enough junk into th emarketplace for wayyyyyy too long.

[Shannon Vincent]

Dang it!....more planes I will have to buy....this slope is getting expensive!..:D

[Dave Lehnert]

I always wondered why Stanley did not get back into making a better made hand plane. They are the brand name or once were in hand planes.

[Frank Drew]

I'm with the skeptics; with the exception of their Powerlock tape measures and some sturdy tool boxes, Stanley hasn't made any hand tools I'd consider owning in decades. They so degraded their tool line that I'd be reluctant to buy anything from them, just on principle.

[David Weaver]

Just noticed the fine print "made in Mexico". That's where the production moved after it left the UK. As far as I can see Stanley USA was good, UK sort of iffy (if you go by the crappy UK #4 that's someplace in my shop unused) and the newest Mexican stuff is even worse. Usually when production is moved for cost reasons, other cost cutting is done and the product suffers. I don't think that Tom LN or Rob Lee have much to worry about.

I agree with this. They are attempting to inject a high-margin product into a small established and very discriminating market. I doubt they'll be successful - especially when their products are still more expensive than a rehabbed version of their old ones.

Not going to pay 2/3rds LV and LN cost for something made in mexico.

[Greg Cole]

They so degraded their tool line that I'd be reluctant to buy anything from them, just on principle.

I bought a circa 2000 Stanley block plane (bonafied piece of excrement) from the Orange Borg that is a perfect example for why I am reluctant to buy anything Stanley for a ww'ing tool. I did buy a "Fubar" made by Stanley, but a combo hammer and demo tool isn't exactly cast & machined plane body.:rolleyes:
The idea is nice, or maybe just novel, that Stanley is trying to get back into the game, but it they are going to pick up where they left off with the last ones made here in the US, they're not going to gain a foothold in the "finer ww'ing" market here.

Greg

[John Schreiber]

Looks to me like it has possibilities. Some of those designs look like they were copied from Veritas, but then most modern plane designs were copied from Stanley in the first place.

It's quality that will make the difference. I'm sure a product made in Mexico can be made with quality. The question is whether or not Stanley will demand it.

We live in the 2nd great age of hand tools.

[Tristan Raymond]

I'm sure a product made in Mexico can be made with quality. The question is whether or not Stanley will demand it.

Of course they can, it all depends upon the corporate policy. They could try for the same quality as LV and LN but a little cheaper as they have lower capital costs, or this could just be a cash grab. Time will tell. I have old Stanley's and a couple of LNs and a LV. I remain skeptical, my next planned purchase is a LV.

[Brent Smith]

It seems to me that Stanley is trying to get on a moving train. At one time Stanley was the bench mark, but, for so many years they have let quality slide to the point where their planes are looked on as junk . Only now, after years of watching the market change to a more upscale product are they willing to risk producing a better line of planes. For myself, I'll stay with LN and LV who put the money out there for R&D taking a chance on people buying a better product. Maybe, if Stanley keeps up with quality products, in 10 years or so they will be looked on as a player in the quality hand tool market. I doubt though, that they will hurt either LN or LVs bottom line in the near future.

[Frank Drew]

Nothing against Chris Schwarz since I'm unfamiliar with him or his work, but writing a fairly long puff piece about tools he hasn't yet used isn't particularly helpful; to be honest, it reads like slightly edited promotional literature from Stanley.

And the cheesy pictures don't do the tools any favors -- if those are "highly polished rosewood" handles then I'm Thomas Chippendale.

[John Sanford]

Those of you who are dismissing the impact of Stanley's re-entry into the quality handtool market are missing the boat. As long as they don't produce excrement a la their current planes, they stand a really good shot at hammering LV and LN.

Why?

Brand recognition. Those of us who know current Stanley products know better, but the newbie walking into Woodcraft and seeing a Lie-Nielsen for $150, and a Stanley Sweetheart premium plane (because it will be obviously nicer than the block plane at the BORG) for $100, is likely to go with the Stanley.

The success of Veritas and Lie-Nielsen almost requires that Stanley does this, because LV and LN have shown that the emperor has no clothes. Stanley's core market is based in large part on their heritage of quality (note that Stanley products are still generally as good or better than their competitors at the BORG, which isn't necessarily saying much...). Unfortunately, word is getting into the general public that Stanley just ain't what it used to be...

IF the brand savvy folks at Stanley have their heads screwed on straight, it won't be important for neo-Sweetheart to turn a profit. It will be important for it to compete head to head with the other premium planes, at a lower price. The "quality shine" halo for the rest of their line is what's important, because that's where Stanley makes its money. Can this work? It can, if Stanley is serious about it.

Should be interesting...

[Richard Magbanua]

I agree that the pics from Stanley are pretty cheesy. Not quite the first impression they want to make especially when competing against the work of Lie-Nielsen and Veritas (have you seen their new skew rabbet plane?!?).

with regards to "The Schwarz", he is IMO a significant element of the current hand tools movement. I think he chose to blog about the new Stanley line of planes because it really is a significant moment. As others have suggested, by creating a new line of fine planes Stanley is acknowledging that there is a growing market and a future for these tools. And this isn't a fly-by-night company either. It's Stanley. Whether these planes turnout to be fantastic or not, it's a big deal and Chris announced it first (as far as I know).

What I find interesting is that they chose to come up with different designs. Especially when the highly regarded LN planes used the original Stanleys as the basis for their designs and are now considered among the best-made planes today. I would think that a company rich in history would take what worked and build on that. Or would that just be copying Lie-Nielsen? :rolleyes:

I can't wait to see the reviews!

[Rob Luter]

And the cheesy pictures don't do the tools any favors -- if those are "highly polished rosewood" handles then I'm Thomas Chippendale.

The "pictures" are computer renderings.

[Joel Goodman]

The handles do look laminated.

[Tim Sgrazzutti]

What I find interesting about this, is that the designs aren't a copy of anybody else, and they do have some new ideas. The integration of the frog with the body on the bench plane reduces complexity and machining, and has to be more robust than a two piece assembly. I also like the adjustable toe for setting the mouth opening without affecting the set of the iron -- never before seen on a BD bench plane. I think these have the potential to be solid performers if the manufacturing is executed well.

Note that there are no actual pictures in the article, just drawings -- hence the lack of character on the knobs and totes.

I'll be interested to see what people have to say when they can get there hands on these.

[James G. Jones]

I agree with Richard in that the important thing here is that by creating this new premium line, Stanley is acknowledging the impact of LN and LV on the premium hand tool market. If you look historically, Stanley has a pretty ruthless business model against their competition - see Bailey, Victor, Miller Falls et. al. They could be very content making truckloads of money selling garage doors and home repair tools at the borg. I think the philosophy is pretty simple. For 100 years, Stanley has been synonymous with hand tools, and they don't want to let anyone else be more than a fraction of the market, just to prevent a LN, LV, or the next new player from entering the common tool market with a premium name recognition and better reputation than the current Stanley line. That would really hit Stanley where they make their bread and butter.

James Jones

[Christopher Schwarz]

Nothing against Chris Schwarz since I'm unfamiliar with him or his work, but writing a fairly long puff piece about tools he hasn't yet used isn't particularly helpful; to be honest, it reads like slightly edited promotional literature from Stanley.

And the cheesy pictures don't do the tools any favors -- if those are "highly polished rosewood" handles then I'm Thomas Chippendale.

Ouch.

Chris

[Tim Sproul]

I also like the adjustable toe for setting the mouth opening without affecting the set of the iron -- never before seen on a BD bench plane.

Perhaps not seen before in a metal bodied plane but Steve Knight (and likely other planemakers) had the same but in a wooden plane body. Quite awhile ago too.

[Peter Quadarella]

Sometimes I think woodworkers are a curmudgeonly lot. :D

Stanley (STANLEY!) announces a brand new hand plane line, and Chris Schwarz (who else?) reports on it with pictures, and some of us pooh pooh the announcement and even go so far as to say that it shoudn't have bothered to have been written about.

Whether they are computer models or not, would we have preferred no pictures, and not to hear about it? LOL :)

[Richard Niemiec]

My view is that LN and LV do a pretty good job of making and innovating "premium" handplanes, and unless Stanley comes really close in quality and provides a compelling price advantage, my wallet will continued to be emptied by the likes of Rob Lee and Tom L-N.

[jerry nazard]

Ouch.

Chris

I'm S-L-O-W-L-Y recovering from a bout of intense laughter.

Chris, that was a good one!

[Kevin Blunt]

Nothing against Chris Schwarz since I'm unfamiliar with him or his work, but writing a fairly long puff piece about tools he hasn't yet used isn't particularly helpful; to be honest, it reads like slightly edited promotional literature from Stanley.

And the cheesy pictures don't do the tools any favors -- if those are "highly polished rosewood" handles then I'm Thomas Chippendale.

Don't want to start anything but I would like to throw my words of thanks to Chris "the Schwarz" for starting this whirlwind of curiosity on every forum I can find. I respect him and his appreciation of hand tools and I expect that Stanley are not allowing actual pics of these new products to be exposed yet. I hardly think it is appropriate to knock "the Schwarz" for just being the messenger. Thanks again Chris.

I have never seen any thread in the past create so much buzz so fast like this has.

Kevin

[Douglas Brummett]

Ouch.

Chris

Don't let the internet tough guys rough you up too much :D

A lot of us do appreciate the info. It is cool, but unfortunately another grab for the top dollar instead making quality layman tools. I am curious how this will pan out. If they are good quality then they will likely get some market just by those of us who are prone to saving a few bucks when we can.

[Randy Klein]

Ouch.

Chris, there you go again with your long puff writing... :D

[Christopher Schwarz]

FYI, the renderings shown on the blog posting are all that's available from Stanley at the moment. They are taken from a "sell sheet" provided to educate internal Stanley employees and vendors about the planes. The actual planes aren't available for photographs yet. When I get some photos of the real thing, I'll be sure to post them.

Chris

[Tim Sgrazzutti]

Thanks Tim. I knew the moment I posted this that somebody would come up with an example I hadn't thought of...........

[Rob Luter]

I'm looking forward to seeing the planes myself. Casting the frog and body in one piece is a good idea, as is the depth adjustment. After I got my LV LA Jack Plane, I asked myself "why not do the same thing in a high angle version"?

If the fit and finish is top notch and they work well, I think they could have a shot at success. Let's hope the machining is better than the current Mexican made stuff and they avoid the use of plastics.

[Greg Cole]

I have never seen any thread in the past create so much buzz so fast like this has. Kevin

Look at anything with Saw Stop in it or dig around for some of the older threads about "should I buy LN, LV or old Stanley"....:D Talk about pages n pages of "interesting" reading.

Chris, I'd like to say thanks for your writings. I can't think of anything I've read I'd call a "puff" from you. Matter of factly, much of my slide down the Neander slope is from reading FWW (and some Krenov & Charlesworth).... The Creek may have had a hand in the slide too.;)
If a highly published writer and accomplished woodworker came out of the gates blasting Stanley (with no hands on the tools yet) make more sense than him trying to spread the word that one of the biggest names in hand tools (well, biggest in the last 100+ years or so) is getting back in the game?:rolleyes:
I too am eager to see one with my hands, but trying not to pass judgement based off recent past experience.

Cheers.
Greg

[Zach Dillinger]

I for one am excited about the possibility of quality new Stanley tools. If that shoulder plane makes it to market at $99 as quoted, I will probably buy the first one I see. I just hope that the new can come close to the old.

Zach Dillinger

[John Powers]

I'm more of a flyfisherman and guitarist as well as a retired construcion manager and I know nothing about casting steel. But...seems like a seperate frog gives the capability to adjust for small variations in casting and if you cast the frog into the base you had better be dead on with tolorances. I find this an odd move. I need a shoulder plane and will continue the hunt for an old 92. The old 90 I picked up for the price of a short drive is a real little gem. I think the American cars have greatly improved but don't try to get my wife out of her Honda. Good luck to them.

[Brian Kent]

I have been wondering for the longest time why Stanley hasn't tried to restore its classic reputation. It is good to see an effort being made. I appreciate the preview of coming attractions from Christopher.

As I think about it, I am not even tempted to buy less from Lee Valley or Lie-Nielsen. But I would be quite happy to add a purchase from a returned-to-reality Stanley.

[Rob Lee]

(snip)
I think the one piece base and frog could be nice if they do it right. They have the opportunity to greatly increase the contact area between the blade and the frog which should lead to less chatter. On the flip side any errors in the casting will be there for the duration.


(Not really a reply to David, just a convenient quote...)


Hi -

[T-I-C]

Yes - we already do this on all our shoulder planes, the bullnose, flush, and chisel planes...and the entire bevel-up series. In fact - the frog is so well integrated - it's virtually invisible....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

C'mon guys ...it's a blade bed - not a frog. They've done away with it - not "integrated" it...That emperor has no clothes....

[\T-I-C]

The frog is only necessary for blade adjustment, and to some extent, machining convenience. Since they used a moveable toe - it isn't necessary for adjustment purposes, unless one has to take out bed skew, and doesn't want to fettle the plane mouth.

Blade chatter - a larger bed, in my opinion, is more likely to cause chatter than eliminate it. Think of the three legged stool - doesn't rock. Four legs - more likely.... likewise the best contact between two surfaces is still going to be three well defined/located points... our experience (and others) has been that blade restraint is most effectively done at the edge of the mouth, and at a single point farther up the blade... sort of a clamping line - and a point...

There's nothing at all wrong with the design though - it's just a set of different choices, and it really all comes down to execution.

Cheers -

Rob

[philip marcou]

I think someone should actually get hold of one or two of the planes in question before assassinating them or endowing/ depriving them of various features which they may or may not have :).
I post a pic of a "3 legged stool" as mentioned by Rob Lee.
And I also mention that I know of at least one plane that is bevel down, not wooden , and has an adjustable mouth....

[Joel Goodman]

At least they copied a great plane (a Marcou) !

[Terry Beadle]

I'm wondering how they are going to get the cast integrated frog/blade bed to be dead flat and square with the body. That's a bit of machining that is not so simple to my way of thinking.

I'm currently working on a bonze cast St. James Bay Tool smoother and that bronze is tough stuff. Cast may not be as tough but getting down into those close cornors where the bade meets the bed is tricky.

Maybe some on with more machinist skills can comment... Harry? I think you have a mill...

Regards,

Terry

[Will Blick]

Rob, is it safe to suggest..... that Stanley "caught on" to the incredible value and versatility of BU planes, i.e. a person buys a few plane bodies, and can buy different angle blades to handle just about any wood - and swap blades between the planes. It's this versatility is what caught their attention, and hence why they will be offering BU line up? Why continue to make what was made 50+ years ago when the market has better offerings?


Was the BU a LV innovation? Or was it patented years ago, and LV just refined the concept and popularized it?