What Makes Post WWII Stanleys so Bad?

[Erich Weidner]

My google-fu is failing me today. But trying to scratch a curiosity itch.

What is it (specifically) that makes the post WWII Stanleys garbage compared to previous years?

Long before I read more than a smidgen about planes, I acquired the sharpening book by Lenard Lee, having bought a few spoke shaves from Record and Kunz, I got my first block plane (I have previously stated the Veritas was my first, but I guess technically no).
This was a Buck Bros. plane I bought at Home Depot. I proceeded to get abrasive and a glass plate and went to work to flatten the sole. Chunks actually came out of the plane. (I had previously tuned up my spokeshaves, so knew this shouldn't be happening). It was definitely garbage.
That "tool" went to the trash. I went to Woodcraft and purchased a #4 Stanley. This I again followed the advice of Mr. Lee's book and though it took a lot of hours to flatten the sole to flat, the plane cuts just fine and I used it to flatten and thickness a whole project and it took good shavings. (Yes, you read that right, I didn't yet know about jack planes or taking heavy shavings... Doh!)

Subsequently I got a new Stanley #5 (2004 vintage), it didn't see much use, but recently when I got back into wood working, the threaded rod for the front handle snapped off after several heavy hours of use.

Now, when I got the Stanley's I noted they were made in Sheffield England. Which I equated to "English steel, and the tool capital of the word back in the day), so I actually took that to be a sign of quality. However, I despised the included plastic handles, and the blisters I'd get after planing for a while. I bought some 3rd party handle/knobs to replace them and that fixed the blistering problem. (Though the handle for the #5 never worked right, I tried shimming it/ drilling out the hole a bit deeper, etc. But it was just horrible to use as a result. But since I'd tossed the plastic handles... just had to live with it.

So the plastic handles are an obvious undesirable quality of the modern Stanley. The rod in the #5 front knob breaking is a very bad thing. But the #4 still works fine. So if this is the worst of the quality in the Stanley line (made in the first decade of the 21st century), what makes all the others after WWII so bad.

PS. Long path to get to the question, but I am feeling "chatty".

[Blake M Williams]

Before ww2 companies were a lot more competitive with each other. Better quality was a selling point. As the years went by more and more things were mass made and made cheaper. Casting quality dropped cheaper metal started to be used.

Personally I have found up to the 60s to be pretty good once tuned in. Off brands can be good. A lot of them were made by stanley and the other big companies. Frog screw adjustment isnt a must. Look for planes that have a ring around front knob. Ringless is ok but the knobs tend to crack more often.

[Aaron Rosenthal]

I’m not sure it was only Stanleys.
I had some post WWII Records, probably made in the ‘60s, that seemed impossible to adjust laterally. Never happens with the Baileys. In fact, my last Record is a #7; takes wonderful shavings, is flat on the bottom, but the “blessed” thing just won’t adjust the blade to the left. I’ve reworked it for hours, and just given up.

[Andrew Seemann]

Post WWII is used as a convenient break in the Stanley timeline, but the entire lineup didn't magically go bad in August of 1945. Many are good into the 1950s and even 1960/1970s; it depends on the model. A lot of the features that pre war people value like fully machined frogs were already gone by WWII, whether those features make a difference in the use of the plane is up for debate. A couple of my favorite user planes are from the late 1940s, I think.

The big problem is that the demand for planes started falling after the war, and slowly the quality decreased and features were cheapened or dropped to keep prices competitive. The first casualty was the variety of planes; during the war, the less popular ones were dropped, for example specialty planes that had become more or less obsolete, and quite notably the Bedrock series. The Bedrocks are far more popular with modern woodworkers than they ever were with people who used hand tools for a living (a thought provoking thing to ponder). More planes got dropped after the war, and when that wasn't enough, manufacturing was streamlined as much as possible and things like frog adjustment screws and cast yokes dropped. For a lot of models, it's that death by a thousand cuts thing. For a model like a #4 they went from perfectly usable to quite poor, but it can be hard to pinpoint when exactly they went from usable to awful, each new version was a little poorer than the last.

[Jim Matthews]

the “blessed” thing just won’t adjust the blade to the left. I’ve reworked it for hours, and just given up.

Try using a small hammer. There's likely enough play around the iron to shift laterally, even if the mechanism won't reach.

I like the Grace hammer, made in USA.

The classic Warrington hammer or hpholstery hammer have a narrow end, if clearance is tight.

https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread....ammer-Any-tips

[Jim Koepke]

Erich, There are good planes through all the years. Some years have some real clunkers.

For my own planes my preference is type 13 (1925-1928) or earlier. The reason for this is my preference is also for the short knob. In 1929, type 14, a raised ring was added to the base to help to keep the tall knobs from chipping at the base. This doesn't work for a short knob.

Part of the problem with the later planes was what some call, "The Race to the Bottom." This was manufacturers working diligently to cut production costs of their products. In ~1933 to cut the cost of machining the frogs on Stanley planes were redesigned to what is known as the ogee frog. These can be decent planes. However, many of them are not done so well.

As time when on the castings became rougher and rosewood gave way to painted hardwood.

At the same time the purchasing market changed. Less people were doing manual labor around the home.

The date and type information used above came from > http://www.rexmill.com/planes101/typing/typing.htm

jtk

[Ben Ellenberger]

I’m pretty sure both of my number 5’s are type 19’s (48-61). They both work fine for me. I’ve never used an older one, so maybe I just don’t know what I’m missing...

[Tony Zaffuto]

Over the past 40 to 50 years, I've used them all. There were a few I no longer have, but these were not isolated to any particular era or make. All blades need sharpened and most need the frog & chipbreaker adjusted a bit. Some need some sole flattening, but not all.

Here's the thing, use the planes more than you spend time listening to what you should buy.

[Doug Dawson]

Here's the thing, use the planes more than you spend time listening to what you should buy.

Yeah. Sharpen the blade and put the plane to use. People make it out to be harder than it is. Just use the plane, ask questions later.

[Chris Hachet]

I’m pretty sure both of my number 5’s are type 19’s (48-61). They both work fine for me. I’ve never used an older one, so maybe I just don’t know what I’m missing...

Lots of post WW2 Stanleys work just fine.

[Chris Hachet]

Over the past 40 to 50 years, I've used them all. There were a few I no longer have, but these were not isolated to any particular era or make. All blades need sharpened and most need the frog & chipbreaker adjusted a bit. Some need some sole flattening, but not all.

Here's the thing, use the planes more than you spend time listening to what you should buy.

MMM Hmmm....agree completely.

[Tom M King]

I have no idea what Type any of my Stanley planes are. As long as I have a sharp one, I'm good.

[steven c newman]

Wasn't just Stanleys, either....post-Korean War Millers Falls were going downhill fast...after about 1955

[Erich Weidner]

Wasn't just Stanleys, either....post-Korean War Millers Falls were going downhill fast...after about 1955

I'm still curious as to what is actually different? Jim pointed out knobs and frogs. So is it just that (as in the case of the frog) the end user needs to do more tuning (filing the frog)? Or are the tolerances on everything "looser"... less square, less flat?

[steven c newman]

IF there was a corner they could cut, to cut production costs...they did....even Disston. Power tools were the force driving things down. Carpenters were buying power tools, instead of the "old school" Tools.


Cost too much to install a frog adjust bolt...drill and tap two holes, make a clip, machine the bolt....


No longer the exotic lumber...plastics was the thing....cheaper, didn't break like a wooden handle...


Things like not milling a sole flat ( sanded, instead)....less metal used....thinner parts....if they didn't feel the need to mill a part, when a few swipes on a beltsander line would work...

Have a iron and chipbreaker from a type 21 Number 3....I can bend either with just my hands.....

Cut-off point seems to be about when the blue paint appeared....after the type 20.