Experiences with Taylor Tool Works Hand Planes?

[Andrew More]

Has anybody had experience with Taylor Toolworks hand planes? In particular I've been looking at the 5 1/2 Bench Plane. With Woodriver and Lie Nelson on backorder until who knows when, the Taylor Tool works handplane looks appealing, and the relatively low cost vs the Lie Nelson or Woodriver makes it doubly so.

However, I can't seem to find any reviews or experiences from people who have actually bought something from Taylor Toolworks, so it's hard to guage the quality. At the present time I've got an old #4 Stanley, and a $6 Stanley from the 7s with plastic handles, so I'm looking to upgrade. If people have had bad experiences, or the quality isn't there, I'd like to know.

[Aaron Liebling]

Any reason you're not considering the fabulous planes from Veritas?

[Paul F Franklin]

The only TTW plane I own is the 3 in one shoulder plane. I bought it because I needed one for a project and the Veritas plane I had on order was a few months out, even though this was pre-pandemic.

Out of the box, the blade was ground out of square by enough to be easily noticeable by eye. That was easily fixed. No other real issues. The sole was flat enough and the sides were ground square enough. The fit and finish isn't Veritas or LN level by any means, but it's not that bad either, especially for the price point. I only used it for that one project and it was perfectly serviceable after correcting the blade grind and, of course, getting it sharp. I have never used it in bullnose or chisel plane mode, other than fooling around when I first got it.

[Andrew More]

Any reason you're not considering the fabulous plants from Veritas?

Yes, from what I can tell the 5 1/2 from Veritas has much smaller sides. I might be off, but it appears that the more conventional designs have a broader side, which makes for a broader support area for using a shooting board. This is just speculation, since I can't test this, but that's my rationale anyway.

[Jim Koepke]

Andrew, you post mentions having a #6 from the 1970s. In my experience the #5-1/2 is not much different than the #6. (3")

If you live in the Portland, OR area you could give a test drive on my #5-1/2 against a #6 to see if you feel a great difference.

My opinion about Taylor Tools should not be an issue in your decision. None of their tools have been in my shop. Looking at the photo of their #5-1/2 reveals a few curious items. My preference is for a lever on a bench plane's lever cap as opposed to a threaded device. The handle doesn't have a toe screw. This can make for a shaky handle on a larger plane. Also the position of the depth adjuster gives me pause. The frog adjusting set up is also odd. It looks like their may be a slot in the bottom of the frog to engage a large flange on a screw.

There are often good planes for sale in the SMC Classifieds. There are also other respected sellers of second hand tools.

jtk

[Andrew More]

Andrew, you post mentions having a #6 from the 1970s. In my experience the #5-1/2 is not much different than the #6. (3")

Other than the quality. This is a hardware store level plane with plastic handles.

The handle doesn't have a toe screw. This can make for a shaky handle on a larger plane. Also the position of the depth adjuster gives me pause. The frog adjusting set up is also odd. It looks like their may be a slot in the bottom of the frog to engage a large flange on a screw.

I took another look, and there is and is not a toe screw. Don't know what's going on there, but some pics clearly show one, others do not. Your point about the frog caused me to take another look at the plane, and I did not realize it before but the Taylor Tools version appears to be much closer to the Stanley "Bailey" line, and not the Bedrock, which the LN and Woodriver versions are based on. This makes the large price difference make a lot more sense to me, so thank you for pointing it out.

[steven c newman]

Maybe go and check out the Busy Bee brand of planes?

[Stephen Rosenthal]

Taylor Tools was involved in a recent controversy when they tried to patent the name Moxon Vise, 1 2 3 Block and a few other names. They backed off and offered some lame excuses when they were evidently exposed on a Reddit thread.

I’ve never seen let alone used any of their tools, but a number of online reviews are, shall we say, less than glowing.

[Frederick Skelly]

I’ve never seen let alone used any of their tools, but a number of online reviews are, shall we say, less than glowing.

I've bought some small stuff from them. I cant say they were bad - the stuff I bought worked - but I'd rather buy from someone else if I can. Just a negative gut feeling from the experience. YMMV.

[Andrew More]

I’ve never seen let alone used any of their tools, but a number of online reviews are, shall we say, less than glowing.

Link? I have done a few google searches, here and the web in general, and there are no reviews on their page, and nothing on Amazon.

[Stephen Rosenthal]

https://www.amazon.com/product-revie...r&pageNumber=1

There are others, some good, some bad.

[Jim Koepke]

We may need a little clarity.

There are companies named Taytools And Taylor Tools and there is also Henry Taylor tools.

One reference says Taytools is Taylor Tools.

https://www.facebook.com/taylortoolw...5220700538167/

They claim the Kunz line of tools. They make good paper weights.

jtk

[Andrew More]

We may need a little clarity.

I think it's all the same company. I was looking at this #5 1/2 hand plane. I've never heard of Kunz, is there something specifically wrong with them?

[Jim Koepke]

I think it's all the same company. I was looking at this #5 1/2 hand plane. I've never heard of Kunz, is there something specifically wrong with them?

The few tools of theirs that passed by me were not the best castings. They may have gotten better over the years. It has been many years since my last encounter.

jtk

[Andrew More]

I just wanted to say thanks to everybody who chimed in on this one. I've decided to just wait and buy the Woodriver plane.