The Sacrilege!

[David Weaver]

Derek, if an LN would've been double the cost, which is probably what it would've been vs. the far more efficient manufacturing of stanley, I seriously doubt many would've paid the difference in the 19th century.

In terms of the rosewood, purchasing a quartered piece to make a knob (and then turning it) and purchasing a quartered or rift board big enough to make a handle is not trivial. LN's cocobolo handles and knobs were wonderful, but they eventually upcharged $50 for them (instead of the initial $25) and quit. The fact that a $300-$475 plane has cherry handles on it is a fairly big deal.

The spring in a stanley cap iron does not make the plane more difficult to set up, it in fact gives a wider working range of the screw that retains the lever cap and gives the lever cap cam a much better feel. LVs don't use that cam, but the threaded screw that is used instead is less elegant and kind of cheapish appearing (partially because it's something that's associated with low-cost planes from the 50s. It's also associated with infill, but the screw on infills is pretty substantial and usually decorative to some extent. Both types of cap irons work, but there is nothing tricky about the stanley cap iron.

Flex in an iron is no issue once one learns to use a cap iron properly. If it would have been an issue, stanley would've made their irons thicker. It *is* an issue in early single iron wooden planes, but steel was a substantial cost when they were made.

95% of the woodworking world is not hand planing abrasive woods, so wondersteel irons are a draw to amateurs more than they are a practical solution. That said, mujingfang's irons last as long as anything and they're about ten bucks. I'd rather keep a plane aside with one of their irons for the very few times (planing cocobolo, maybe) that someone in the US would need the edge holding and have a carbon steel iron for everything else. For the same reason, there's no great reason to have heavy planes here, and I wouldn't want them as my normal planes. I did keep one heavy infill and it's nice to use sometimes - it's fun to bull it through wood, but if I was only to have one plane, I'd rather have a stanley 6 or a wooden fore plane than the infill. The infill is, however, less heavy than LN 8 that I used to have, and is probably similar in weight to the LN 7. My LN 7 was an excellent plane, but in the end, I don't use it for anything I couldn't use a millers falls 7 for - I'd call it a tossup, though. I much favor the LN 7 vs. the 8 for heavier work (planing edges would be no big deal, you don't do that much planing) because the 7 is much lighter. Anyway, we really don't have a practical place over here for 5 1/2 or 6 pound smoothers. Even the bedrock 4 1/2s, which are about 5 pounds, have a clunky overly heavy feel to them once you get used to a #4, but when you use the bedrock for a while, you don't go back to the 4 and think it's whiffy, rather that it's nimble.

(all of this, as you say, is perpsectives - but I seriously doubt a professional using planes would so quickly decide to spend much more on an LN plane - based on the old catalog prices for union and stanley planes, I'd guess that a lie nielsen would be at least 2 to 3 times as expensive as a comparable stanley. A stanley would've been a day's wage for a skilled worker around 1900, but productivity in the economy has made even inflation adjusted wages hard to compare because that still assumes that the % of income individuals had that was disposable would be the same, and that's not the case).

[Daniel Rode]

I don't think this point can overstated. They were not intended to be collector's items or hobbyists toys. A Timex watch rather than a Rolex. A Chevy pickup rather than a Jaguar. Stanley made planes to be used daily by working craftsman. The design and manufacturing were intended to deliver a specific level of quality and functionality at a specific price point.

if an LN would've been double the cost, which is probably what it would've been vs. the far more efficient manufacturing of stanley, I
seriously doubt many would've paid the difference in the 19th century.

[Kees Heiden]

Few 19th Century woodworkers would have chosen a Stanley over the better-made LN.
.

Legions of 19th and early 20th century woodworkers choose to continue working and buying beech planes instead of Stanley. Price was a strong argument but many also believed the beech plane was better.

[Andrew Fleck]

I've been following this thread along without much to say until I read these last couple of posts. It got me thinking of how this compares to today. I'm not aware of many high end plane manufacturers in the 19th century. I think the choices were pretty much limited to Stanley or Stanley like planes.

When I used to to be a carpenter it was not uncommon to see a framer using a $150-$250 framing hammer. It always seemed like a status thing to me. I used a 20 oz Craftsman framing hammer that pounded nails just their Vaughns or whatever brand did that were triple or quadruple the cost of mine. Mine was cheap because I was just starting out and couldn't afford one of those nice hammers, but it worked just fine.

If LN was around in the 19th century I think people would have bought them if for nothing else but a status symbol.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi David,

My replies are imbedded ...

Derek, if an LN would've been double the cost, which is probably what it would've been vs. the far more efficient manufacturing of stanley, I seriously doubt many would've paid the difference in the 19th century.

David, everything is relative. You are assuming that a LN would have cost (relatively) twice a Stanley in the 19th century. Or that the Stanley would not cost (relatively) the same as the LN today. Anyway, this is not simply about cost (or relative cost); it is about quality. A good workman would have set his/her sights on the best tool available.

In terms of the rosewood, purchasing a quartered piece to make a knob (and then turning it) and purchasing a quartered or rift board big enough to make a handle is not trivial. LN's cocobolo handles and knobs were wonderful, but they eventually upcharged $50 for them (instead of the initial $25) and quit. The fact that a $300-$475 plane has cherry handles on it is a fairly big deal.

I don't understand what the issue is. Rosewood or Cocobolo or Cherry - the choice is yours ... at a price. It always costs. Either a manufacturer builds the cost in, or gives you the choice of an optional extra. Car manufacturers do this all the time.

The spring in a stanley cap iron does not make the plane more difficult to set up, it in fact gives a wider working range of the screw that retains the lever cap and gives the lever cap cam a much better feel. LVs don't use that cam, but the threaded screw that is used instead is less elegant and kind of cheapish appearing (partially because it's something that's associated with low-cost planes from the 50s. It's also associated with infill, but the screw on infills is pretty substantial and usually decorative to some extent. Both types of cap irons work, but there is nothing tricky about the stanley cap iron.

David, you have too many thoughts going at once. I'll try and answer each. Firstly, the Stanley chipbreaker's flex causes the leading edge to move when it is tightened/loosened. It has to be adjusted differently to the LN and LV, being solid. These are more predictable. Secondly, you introduce a cam, and thirdly you add a comment about appearance, and finally you comment about infills. I think that is more than the original issue.


Flex in an iron is no issue once one learns to use a cap iron properly. If it would have been an issue, stanley would've made their irons thicker. It *is* an issue in early single iron wooden planes, but steel was a substantial cost when they were made.

Flex is flex. Stanley irons flex. Flex causes chatter. LN and LV blades do not flex and (unless there is a loose screw or the blade is dull), they do not chatter. Not everyone knows how to use a chip breaker properly, nor wishes to do so - that is not a criticism of the chipbreaker, nor of those that use them, just a statement to ensure that the comparison is apples and apples ... plane and plane.

95% of the woodworking world is not hand planing abrasive woods, so wondersteel irons are a draw to amateurs more than they are a practical solution. If I were a pro, I would want to minimise down time. The "wondersteels" offer this advantage on all kinds of woods, not just the Australian abrasive variety. That said, mujingfang's irons last as long as anything and they're about ten bucks. You're off on a tangent again. I thought this was about supertuned Stanleys and LN/LV? I'd rather keep a plane aside with one of their irons for the very few times (planing cocobolo, maybe) that someone in the US would need the edge holding and have a carbon steel iron for everything else. For the same reason, there's no great reason to have heavy planes here, and I wouldn't want them as my normal planes. I did keep one heavy infill and it's nice to use sometimes - it's fun to bull it through wood, but if I was only to have one plane, I'd rather have a stanley 6 or a wooden fore plane than the infill. The infill is, however, less heavy than LN 8 that I used to have, and is probably similar in weight to the LN 7. My LN 7 was an excellent plane, but in the end, I don't use it for anything I couldn't use a millers falls 7 for - I'd call it a tossup, though. I much favor the LN 7 vs. the 8 for heavier work (planing edges would be no big deal, you don't do that much planing) because the 7 is much lighter. Anyway, we really don't have a practical place over here for 5 1/2 or 6 pound smoothers. Even the bedrock 4 1/2s, which are about 5 pounds, have a clunky overly heavy feel to them once you get used to a #4, but when you use the bedrock for a while, you don't go back to the 4 and think it's whiffy, rather that it's nimble. You sort of lost me a while back ...

(all of this, as you say, is perpsectives - but I seriously doubt a professional using planes would so quickly decide to spend much more on an LN plane - based on the old catalog prices for union and stanley planes, I'd guess that a lie nielsen would be at least 2 to 3 times as expensive as a comparable stanley. A stanley would've been a day's wage for a skilled worker around 1900, but productivity in the economy has made even inflation adjusted wages hard to compare because that still assumes that the % of income individuals had that was disposable would be the same, and that's not the case).

That is a value judgement, not a factual statement. I know plenty of pros that use LN and LV planes in their work today. Are they not doing the same work as their kin of yesteryear? They could choose cheaper tools? Some will, and some won't.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Sean Hughto]

I'm not a plane historian, but there were certainly super high end infills available in olden times.

As for framing hammers, if you are swinging one all day, the more expensive ones are lighter and more ergonomic which translates to avoiding arthritis and carpal tunnel etc. The 18 year old on the job site may not notice or care.

[David Weaver]

Certainly some would have. If the framers had to buy half a dozen hammers, and 50 other little things (like carving tools, etc) they might have been a bit more cautious about spending money on status tools. I have seen the same around here, though, too. There are guys on both ends. The contractor who lives across from me and still does a lot of his work himself (as opposed to subbing out everything) came to my house with his hammer to pull some things loose on a porch to do an estimate. It was the most used up looking hammer I ever saw, and I looked at my hammers and I thought "ghee, I've got 10 times the money in my hammers and he's got 10,000 times the use".

When he showed up on the first day to redo my porch, that same hammer was back again.

Now, as hobbyists, we don't really have to worry about it. Who are we going to impress with status tools? In general, I've found the less I talk about woodworking, the better - most of my friends and wife's friends are busy talking about where they're going to go out to eat, where they'll go on vacation, or what's on the next episode of the apprentice or something. No talk about woodworking registers, and if anything, it ends with "hey, I want to redo something in my living room, can I borrow your tools"?

The further I go along, the more I feel like I'd like to wear some tools out, but it's just another personal preference thing. I haven't grasped the concept yet on sharpening stones.

[Andrew Fleck]

Sean,
Thast makes sense. I'm not sure I even knew what carpal tunnel was when I was 18, but there wasn't many guys framing with us that were much older than 40. I can still remember people bragging about their hammers and making fun of mine. They didn't seem very concerned about long term health issues. It was more of a look at my shiny hammer kind of thing. I'm not saying everyone was like that, but people are people and they tend to do that with a lot of things.

[Andrew Fleck]

That's a good point. Framers certainly don't need nearly as many tools to get the job done. It may have been a bad example on my part. Oh well, just speculating anyway. That's why I post on here....I don't have anybody else to talk to about woodworking. I actually don't even tell a lot of people that I woodwork. That usually leads to people asking if I can build this or that.

[Sean Hughto]

No doubt you could drive a nail with a brick - it's all a continuum. The guys I worked with with the fancy Eastwings and so forth could show me the weight difference and how they could drive the nail cleanly in three swings where it took me six or whatever. No doubt they were also bragging about their fancy tool and like the sort of connotation of journeymen status, but there were real differences too.

[David Weaver]

It may have been a bad example on my part.

Well, not too bad. It's hard to compare a cabinetmaker to someone who wasn't a cabinetmaker, but your illustration does make the point that not every craftsman acts rationally in terms of dollars.

For some of us, it might be buying nice pens, etc (if anyone writes anymore).

[Daniel Rode]

Oh, the memories... The first nice tool I ever bought was an Eastwing hammer. I was about 17 and most of the profit from laying a tile floor went to buy that hammer. I still have and I still use it.

No doubt you could drive a nail with a brick - it's all a continuum. The guys I worked with with the fancy Eastwings and so forth could show me the weight difference and how they could drive the nail cleanly in three swings where it took me six or whatever. No doubt they were also bragging about their fancy tool and like the sort of connotation of journeymen status, but there were real differences too.

[David Weaver]

Derek, your points still don't hold water. There were still cabinetmakers alive when my grandparents bought furniture. Their name is on the inside of the furniture that was sold or inherited when my grandparents died. They did not use hand tools much, but must have some (none of the dovetails were machine made, etc). The mentality about money around here (or where I grew up) would not permit most individuals to spend money on things they didn't need. No estate sales have unearthed infill planes or anything else expensive from that time period.

A friend of mine's father was an english carpenter, by trade. His tools were all modest. he had one single infill, a bullnose that was in disrepair that I'd assume he got at a boot sale or from someone who didn't want it. a 4, a 5 and a spent record 5 1/2 were in his tool kit - he could've afforded more expensive tools but did not have them. He used those planes heavily, too, they were worn out as were his sharpening stones. Most would've thrown them all away

The notion that craftsmen go out and "buy the best tool they can" is false, at least here, they had an eye on the bottom line and most where I'm from (based on the tools) behaved a lot more like warren does now than someone planning to buy a tool that had specifications that didn't add practical value, but added a lot of price.

I cannot reiterate how inaccurate the statement is about the stanley cap iron, though. once the cap iron is lightly finger tightened and then moved into place, it may move a thousandth or two. I also cannot reiterate how inaccurate the implication is that the stanley iron is somehow flexing in use and there is something detrimental going on because of it. The benefit of the additional rigidity of the thicker irons when there is a cap iron in place is zero. If there is chatter, the plane is not set up correctly.

I used to believe all of that stuff about the thick irons. It only took working with thin irons in stanley planes for a while to eliminate those thoughts. They don't chatter. They do grind two to three times as fast and lend themselves favorably to more sharpening mediums, and respond better to a bare leather strop. The modern irons are excellent irons, but most of the attributes that are given to them don't really provide any time savings in the kinds of things we plane here, nor any visible difference in any results.

[Dave Anderson NH]

Egads, what does rational thinking have to do with owning or buying tools? We all have attitudes about tools, it's just that our attitudes run the gamut from pretending we make rational choices to those who just say, "I want...." or "because I can". The hard part is admitting that no choice ever made is totally rational. All choices originate with a prejudice no matter how subtle.

[David Weaver]

Dave, I think the fact that we're woodworking at all isn't rational! I often say to my wife (when she says the price of something is too high), "well, I couldn't make it for less than that by the time I bought proper materials".

It's fun to pretend that we have pockets of rationality needed within a hobby that doesn't really provide us with any economic utility, anyway (for those of us who are pure hobbyists). I guess the utility is in preventing an idle mind.