Stanley 4 vs 4 1/2

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Have you made any pieces with curves? Admittedly, compass planes are specialty planes, but like other special function planes, when the need arises, they are sure nice to have and use. I don't pull out my 113 on every project, but it's been good to me when I had curved stretchers and panels and so forth. I mean every moldinmg plane is a specialty, but when you want to make a bead it is nice to have a beader or when you want to make a tongue and groove, it's great to have a 48, and so forth.

I have a preference for the federal period aesthetics, so not really many curves that aren't dealt with some other way. Pretty tight radius stuff, bandsaw and spokeshave type of work. I completely get the reason to have specialty planes, and wouldn't get rid of any of the compass planes, because I may dive into some other style at some point, and I'd just have to buy one then. Thats also the "logic" behind the plane collection pushing 300 strong...

A specialty plane can be often useful for one guy, and not for another because of the work they do. That being said, I use power tools too, but only if they make something easier. It boggles my mind the time someone will spend trying to get a router set up for a goofy cut, when a specialty plane could have done the job so much more efficiently. On the compass plane thought, ever seen how much work a power tool only guy makes a curved clamping caul? It's a good illustration of specialty planes ability to save labor.

[Terry Beadle]

I have a Stanley 4 1/2 set up with the PM3v11 blade and breaker. It does a super job. I give it a pretty good crown when sharpening so even though it has a wider blade it's easy to push due to the sharpening technique and the quality steel.

I don't own a #4 but I do own a #3 Clifton and it is also super. So like the guys said above, either will do the job and it's a matter of getting it set up, sharp, and practice, practice etc.

Also consider a coffin woodie smoother. They give you a great bank for you buck. I bought one on the Oregon coast a decade ago for $15. I was going to just use the blade out of it but .... Well... I put a new lignum sole on it and repaired the sole before it was applied. Then I sharpened the blade to my specs and I've used it often. I've long gotten my $15 out of it and as said above, because it's kept sharp and ready, it may be the one I reach for even though not the best smoother in my lot.

So U pik 'em !

Enjoy the shavings.

PS I also have an infill which is heavy and set for 1 ~ 2 thou shavings and a bed angle of 47 1//2 degrees. I will tackle very tough twitchy woods no problem.
Just sayin' it's a lot of fun and a good thing to have more than one arrow in your quiver.

[Don Dorn]

I'm fortunate enough to have a very nice Record 4 1/2 and a #4 Stanley in great shape. Of the two, I have found myself reaching for the #4 at least three times as much as the 4 1/2.

[Scott Stewart]

My current project list (subject to SWMBO's whims)

Panel Gauge
Built ins for both sides of fireplace
Roubo Bench
Anarchist Tool Chest
Small Jewelry Boxes x2
Cribbage Board/set
Band saw from Woodgears plans

It looks like more when I write it down. Hmmm.

Thanks for all your insight.

Scott

[Michael Ray Smith]

As others have pointed out, it turns out to be largely a matter of personal preference. . .which makes it hard to get an answer when you haven't had the change to figure out what your own preferences are. . .and also leads to the truism that others have pointed out, that you'll eventually have both. That said, here are two perspectives.

1. I use a No. 4 1/2 much more often than a No. 4. So much more often that I don't even have a No. 4 at this point. For the width and the extra heft, I like the No. 4 1/2 better. (Actually, I have the Millers Falls equivalent of a Stanley No. 4.) And if a No. 4 is too large, I'll use a plane that's both narrower and shorter. I spent the money for a No. 2 a few years ago and have never regretted it, but they do fetch a premium, and a No. 3 will is fine for smaller smoothing work. Or even a Veritas low angle block plane, fitted with the optional tote and knob.

2. I have a friend who recommends that new Neanderthals get a 4 1/2, a 5 1/2, and a 6 or 7. His rationale is that you also need to get modern replacement blades and cap irons for them, which are expensive, and those planes all use the same blade. So you can start out with a single blade and cap iron to use in all of them. I get his point, but that means that you don't have anything narrower than than the second widest standard bench plane. But even though I disagree with my friend on this one, I've done very well following his advice on other issues, so I thought I'd toss this perspective into the soup. If nothing else, it's a good example of why things come down to personal preference -- because different people weigh the advantages and disadvantages differently.

[bridger berdel]

about swapping blades to save money- blades for #4 and #5 are cheap and easy to come by. plain carbon steel blades are probably a better fit for a beginner, from an ease of sharpening standpoint. for those reasons, I think I'd lean toward recommending the #4/ #5 combination for someone just starting out.

[Chris Griggs]

His rationale is that you also need to get modern replacement blades and cap irons for them, which are expensive, and those planes all use the same blade.

Not meaning to be critical of you Michael, but your friend's rationale is, to me, faulty on multiple levels. The advice seems to be for newbs on a budget, yet the logic basically encourages one to unnecessarily spend money in a couple ways.

Replacement blades are in no way a need. They can be nice to have, but they are in no way shape of form a requirement. Not only does this advice encourage someone to spend money on aftermarket blades that are not required, but it then encourages them to buy more expensive planes to accommodate that expenditure. On top of that they'll have to change the blade around every time they want to use another plane.

Again, not intending to be critical of you or your friend, but personally, I would strongly discourage anyone to follow that advice based on that logic. If one just likes those sizes better, more power to them, and if someone likes and wants to use new blade/chipbreakers...well I'm all for that (they can certainly shorten the learning curve for someone learning to get an old plane working), but that logic seems to stem from a fundamental lack of understanding/experience using vintage Bailey planes.

Sorry that sounds harsh...its really not meant too...but I, personally, just really think that is bad advice, and, respectfully, I really would discourage anyone from adhering to that logic. YMMV.

[Tom M King]

I keep a 4 tuned for a fine shaving, and a 4-1/2 tuned for a really fine shaving which includes chip breaker mods. Also a couple of threes with different camber irons to match old plane mark profiles. it's nice not to have to fiddle with tuning for a particular need, and just grab the right one for the job.

[Scott Stewart]

Either way, I have money allocated for a hock blade. If I went to a 4 rather than a 4 1/2 I could do a hock chipbreaker as well. Is it a bad idea to use a hock blade with the stock chipbreaker?

[Chris Griggs]

Either way, I have money allocated for a hock blade. If I went to a 4 rather than a 4 1/2 I could do a hock chipbreaker as well. Is it a bad idea to use a hock blade with the stock chipbreaker?

Not at all a bad idea. Totally fine. When I do use an hock or other aftermarket blade I still prefer the stock chipbreaker.

[Derek Cohen]

My first Stanley plane was a #3, which I inherited from my FIL. The first Stanley I purchased was a #5 1/2, which I used for everything from roughing out, jointing edges to smoothing large panels.

The #3 lay on the shelf unused for years because I stuffed it up, and eventually the #5 1/2 joined it as it was too much the jack of all trades. By this stage I had begun to experience what other planes could do, and found that they were preferred. This included a stage when the #4 1/2 was the go-to smoother - largely on the advice of others. Large and heavy was "in". David Charlesworth's "super smoother" was a #5 1/2. I gravitated away from this to smaller smoothers. As the cutting angle increased, so a narrower plane became easier to use. This extends to the longer planes as well.

Today I prefer a #3 smoother. I have a Veritas Small BUS, LN #3, Brese infill (from a kit), HNT Gordon, and recently I restored my FIL's Stanley #3. There are also a couple of woodies I made.

The idea is flawed that a smoother should be chosen to have the same blade as its larger siblings. This is really only good in theory, and for those starting out since they will likely hone the blade the same way for all planes. However, as one becomes more proficient so the shape of the blade changes - blades become cambered, and the camber changes to suit the task the plane is intended to perform. As a result the blades are no longer interchangeable.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[James Taglienti]

The only time I go for my 4 1/2 is for 1 3/4 and 2" face frame stock. It's nice to hit it in one pass. The idea that the extra 3/8 in width is going to do you any good on a large surface seems more academic than anything. I'm a bit irked by its excessive length though. I'd love to see a 4 1/2 that was about 8" long.

[Gordon Eyre]

I have a Stanley #4 and a LN 4 1/2 and the one of choice for me is the LN just because it is so dang pretty.

[Doug Bowman]

Just to settle this discussion I have purchased a Millers Falls #10 from tablesawtom. Given the important nature of this comparison my wife saw the necessity of the purchase and was fully supportive (I only got 1 "what the h@ll did you spend $xxx on NOW"). 😁😄

[Jim Koepke]

Is it a bad idea to use a hock blade with the stock chipbreaker?

Not at all.

I think it is my #8 that uses the stock chip breaker with a Hock blade.

As long as the chip breaker can be tuned to mate up properly to the blade it is fine.

jtk