Your Lie-Nielsen plane is not a collectable. They still make them. Please stop.

[Ivan Skof]

Warren: which plane (model/maker) is optimum (good quality plane iron, good cap iron) ?

The Lie Nielsen planes have lower quality plane irons, vestigial cap irons, and are quite a bit heavier than optimum. All that polishing is not helpful if the result is a plane that is subpar.

[George Yetka]

There are many more. I could never part with them. They all have a story and fond memories.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I dont think they do. But I dont know how it can get better than the DX. I love mine

[Edward Weber]

Any price beyond the MSRP is artificial. it's what people are willing to pay.
Factoring in things like quality, scarcity, collectability, endorsements and emotional attachments, tools can fetch some ludicrous prices. To each his own

[Warren Mickley]

Warren: which plane (model/maker) is optimum (good quality plane iron, good cap iron) ?

Ivan, I use old Stanley/Bailey smoothing planes and beech jack and trying planes. I have been to about a dozen Lie Nielsen tool events, and their planes just don't perform as well as the older planes. I have tried the Lee Valley planes as well, but they are not as nice as the vintage models. I am not up on most of the other planes being made today.

I have been to Slovenia once, but I have no idea what is available to you.

[Ivan Skof]

I have been to Slovenia once, but I have no idea what is available to you.

Warren, thank you for answering. Locally we have mostly some cheap crap available. But we do have available stuff from Europe online shops and Ebay, so basically everything is available, even more if I'm willing to pay expensive shipping and customs.
I don't have any experience with Stanley planes, only LN and LV. I'm looking to buy LN #3 but I'm curious to try(buy) Stanley/Bailey no3 to see the difference. I guess I should be looking for specific version/year when it was made as far as I understand they are not all of the same quality but I don't know which one.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Ivan

Warren has strong views about steel type and the shape of a chipbreaker. I am not about to get into a debate here since it really begins to focus on the last 10th of performance. Can the steel in LN and LV planes be improved? It really depends on what aspect of performance is important. For example, a thin, high carbon steel Stanley blade made in the early 1900s will sharpen up quickly to an excellent edge. That is a big positive. However, an A2 or, especially, a PM-V11 blade will last times longer. That is an important factor for those working with abrasive woods. Pick your priority.

Chipbreaker design? I have yet to read or view any research pitting one design of leading edge (rounded or flat) with each other. I have used (and use) both, and they perform equally. The more important features are the angle of the leading edge (mine are around 75 degrees) and how close you get to the edge (that depends on the depth of cut and the angle of the leading edge).

In turns of weight, Stanley is clearly lighter than LN or LV. Is this better? From a personal perspective, I get along with both. But - and I think that this is the deciding factor - I do not use a smoother all day long. Does a professional do so? I struggle to imagine this being the case, except for some like Warren, who only use hand planes. So it is not as big a deal for me as it is for Warren. There is a history of British workmen (to whom Warren often pays credit for tool design) using heavy planes, such as Spiers, Slater, Mathieson or Norris infills. They also used thick blades. But rounded chipbreakers. Personal preference is the deciding factor?

The LN #3 you plan to purchase is an excellent plane. I have two #3 planes, one is the LN and the other is a Stanley. The LN is used with a PM-V11 blade and modified LN chipbreaker, and the Stanley with a Clifton high carbon blade and modified Veritas chipbreaker. They both work very well, but the LN is a little more reliable and sweeter to adjust, with tighter tolerances.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Bassett]

... but I'm curious to try(buy) Stanley/Bailey no3 to see the difference....

Vintage Stanley planes are well regarded by most people it seems. However the quality seemed to start slipping around WW2 and took a terrible turn in the late 60's or 70's. Opinions vary about a cut off date when they became unacceptable, but I certainly haven't seen a new one I'd bother with. (I don't really pay attention to the type studies, but I'm told the ones I have are late 20's to early 30's and they work well.)

[Rafael Herrera]

The latest Stanley Bailey no. 4s are being made in Mexico. They cost abiut $40 in the USA. I got one, prepped it and it turned out to be a decent plane. The mouth is a little too big, but one just needs to be careful. It weighs 4lbs, vintage no. 4 weigh around 3.5lbs. It feels a bit heavy.

It smooths this oak test piece, no tear outs, smooth finish.
20230414_212531.jpg

They're an option if you want to try them. I believe there is a no. 3 model, but those may be harder to get.

[Jim Koepke]

Vintage Stanley planes are well regarded by most people it seems. However the quality seemed to start slipping around WW2 and took a terrible turn in the late 60's or 70's. Opinions vary about a cut off date when they became unacceptable, but I certainly haven't seen a new one I'd bother with. (I don't really pay attention to the type studies, but I'm told the ones I have are late 20's to early 30's and they work well.)

Many folks like the Stanley/Bailey planes made between ~1910 to 1932. After that was the ogee frog that some do not like.

My own personal tastes include the low front knob so that ended after 1928 with a raised ring around the base of the knob to keep them from breaking at the base.

jtk