Steve and others who are dissatisfied with their LN tools can mail them to me and I will rightly dispose of them...... into my shop.
Member
Steve and others who are dissatisfied with their LN tools can mail them to me and I will rightly dispose of them...... into my shop.
I've got lots of practice at making firewood!
Member
Posted a link to this discussion on the audio forum I regularly visit, Audio Asylum, under the headline "I really get a kick out of the similarities between all hobby equipment forums".
One reply there,"My Stanley Planes sound better after 30 minutes".
Contributor
If the edges were chamfered, it is likely others might complain about the edges having too much chamfer.Sharp and unchamfered edges.
[different plane] However, the unchamfered edges still apply.
This is how we as individuals can "customize or personalize" our tools.
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
[OP]
Contributor
Originally Posted by Jake Hillestad
No criticism taken Jake. I used an Interapid .0005" indicator with the appropriate indicator stand and a Class A granite surface plate to determine flatness on the sides of the plane. A precision cylinder square and feeler gauges were used on the surface plate to determine the square of the sides relative to the sole of the plane. I'm not an experienced metrology expert or machinist but feel confident of my findings. I didn't know about Lie Nielsen's stated .0015" tolerance until you mentioned it. I just may send the 5 1/2 back to them for adjustment.
PS While writing this I recalled some of Rob Cosman's videos where he uses the sides of his 5 1/2 (WoodRiver?) to determine flatness of a board. The 1/3 wiggle on mine wouldn't work.
More later in response to Derek Cohen's superb posts.
Contributor
This is probably as good as it gets
http://www.holteyplanes.com
Please explore the website to see the range of planes
This is my favorite A13 smoother
http://www.holteyplanes.com/infill-planes-A13.html (Click on images to enlarge)
Contributor
Those are serious bench candy. Damn! I love the vibe of infill planes. While Holtey and Marcou both make stunning planes, I would be afraid to use one as a “daily driver”. I get a glassy surface with my LN 4 1/2 and don’t see one of those gems being that much better for the 8X price premium. If I needed a massive smoother on my budget I might try a LN #5 1/2 with a high angle frog.
Sharp solves all manner of problems.
Contributor
My Stanley/Bailey planes are also capable of glassy smooth surfaces:I get a glassy surface with my LN 4 1/2 and don’t see one of those gems being that much better for the 8X price premium.
Reflections.jpg
Seeing reflections is easier than photographing them.
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Contributor
Stanley No. 3, Type 11...making them curlies..
Plane Til Drawers, planed edge.JPG
Member
Hi Steve
Sorry to hear your expectations have fallen short. The 51/2 sounds like a seconds, especially the cosmetic issue. I would expect a replacement item. I'm sure you'll be sent one along with a replacement knob for the block plane.
On the sharp edges you feel, I'm guessing it could be inherent in the copy they made of the Record shoulder plane. The veritas shoulder planes are ugly as sin in my book, but they work brilliantly. If you don't like the edges being so sharp, ease them with some abrasive or a file.
I judge a tool on how it works, not by measuring it. Edge join a panel, break edges, trim a shoulder or smooth a board. If the tools can do that they are fit for purpose. The LN planes are solid as they copied old designs with their own twist. My pet hate with them is the thin smooth edged cap iron screw. There are other things that are not my preference but they can be made to work as well as anything else.
LN are priced very fairly for domesticly made products. They seem expensive for people outside the US as the get hit with taxes.
The makers listed by other here are beautiful works of functional art. I would be proud to own one and respect all the skill that goes into making them. However, they don't work any better than a well set up Stanley. Many are less effective as they have single irons and no adjusters. Leonard Bailey pioneered quite the concept!
Good luck with your customer services and woodworking.
Last edited by Graham Haydon; 04-13-2020 at 3:46 AM.
Contributor
I have seen it mentioned previously that the bedrock planes were never as popular as the Bailey pattern: this seems clear based on availability today. I've seen differing opinions on why that is, ranging from things like weight (indisputablly heavier) to performance (however one chooses to define it) to simply price--the argument there being that even today, less-expensive "good enough" tools tend to be more popular/common.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the reasons why the bedrock planes weren't as popular.
Thanks in advance.
Member
I am not sure I can do justice to this question. Stanley was engaged in research and development and constantly making improvements, trying to have patents indefinitely. They wanted to claim superiority over the competition. Apparently they were not confident enough of the design to replace the old line with the improvement.
Stanley marketed to hardware dealers, who might have been skeptical about offering another line and buying more inventory. It could be that some woodworkers were not even aware of the Bedrock planes. They were not included in the 1922 Sears catalog, which had a page packed full of Stanley and Fulton planes. The prices for bedrock planes seemed to be about 15% higher than the Bailey models, which seems like a small amount if there was a perception of improvement.
Forty years ago there were a lot of guys collecting Stanley planes, so something that was more scarce got bid up. The perception was that the expensive Bedrocks were more desirable as planes. So Lie Nielsen might have had his eye on the collecting market when deciding which plane to copy. At that time a regular Bailey #7 used was higher priced than a new Record #7. There was definitely a market for a well made line of iron bench planes.
Contributor
My understanding is the Bedrock style was less popular because of the higher price. One of the large scale buyers at the time was public and vocational schools. The cost difference, when buying in quantity, was an important factor.
Now the modern buyer prefers the 'flat top' Bedrock over the 'round side' model. It is easier to change the frog position on the 'flat top' model.
How often does anyone actually adjust the mouths on their bench planes?
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Contributor
I agree with Jim on this. I've always wondered what the real advantage of the Bedrock is. Sure you can change the position of the frog without removing the iron, but as Jim says, how often do you do that. And even if you do, changing the position of the frog means that you moved the iron up or down (because the frog is on a ramped mount). So even if you did change the position of the frog, you'd then have to adjust the depth of the blade.
I think it was just a marketing thing to charge a higher price. While I like the "flat top" look of the later Bedrocks I haven't found that they perform any better than a Bailey.
Mike
Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.
Contributor
I can’t speak for others, but I’ve never had the need to adjust the mouth after initially setting up the plane. I prefer to adjust the cap iron to control tearout, and my Bailey #5 handed down from my grandfather’s grandfather has always done well planing figured hard maple having the “ramp” at the back of the mouth coplanar with the face of the frog. Sharp blade, closed up (tuned) chipbreaker, set for a light cut, and so far all is well. Maybe something more challenging would tempt me to close up the mouth. . .
Contributor
I just looked on the very early 20th Century wholesale supplier's "catalog" (multi-hundred page hardbound book) for my Grandfather's General Store, that was closed in 1935. There is not a single Bedrock plane listed. You have your choice of smooth bottom, or corrugated with all the regular planes, but no existence of a Bedrock. I expect most stores that sold them used a similar supplier.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote