# What constitutes a "modern" Stanley plane?



## Unlucky Alf (6 Mar 2006)

I have seen many threads bemoaning the lack of quality in modern Stanley and Record planes but can anyone tell me when the beginning of the end was?

I have inherited, by neglect, a Stanley no4 from my father, I'm not sure when it was manufactured, certainly post-decimalisation as the price (£8.12) is still on the box. I would imagine it dates from some time between 1976 and 1982. Patrick Leach lists the dates of manufacture for this plane as 1869-1984 but as it is still being made today am I to assume that a significant change occurred in 1984 making the later planes inferior? I could really do with some advice before I spend any money on a new blade, which seems to be the recommended upgrade, am I likely to be wasting my money?

I hope that it's considered to be a "keeper" as it is in pretty good condition and I'd be surprised if it has been out of the box more than three or four time before it came into my possesion.

If it is worth holding on to can anyone recommend a suitable replacement blade? Would a LN blade be suitable or a Victor from APTC?

thanks,

Simon


----------



## MikeW (7 Mar 2006)

Unlucky Alf":2upqf0fe said:


> I have seen many threads bemoaning the lack of quality in modern Stanley and Record planes but can anyone tell me when the beginning of the end was?
> ...
> I hope that it's considered to be a "keeper" as it is in pretty good condition and I'd be surprised if it has been out of the box more than three or four time before it came into my possesion.
> 
> ...


Hi Simon,

My opinion may be a little/lot different than some. Nearly any vintage plane can be made to perform well, if not excellent. By "vintage," I simply mean age of.

I suppose one can argue that after the 1960s--if simply not after WWII--modern plane manufacture began a decline. Record probably held on longer to higher quality controls than did Stanley.

Just the addition of a quality blade will make a difference. Fettling--making sure the sole is flat and or making it so, and ensuring the frog seats properly to the sole--are further steps to make the plane perform better as well.

It certainly is worthwhile keeping and using. Whether it can be made into a top performing smoother is another issue that can only be addressed by the fettling process and perhaps the new blade and chip breaker. However, even if it cannot be made to take sub .002" shavings, it can be valuable in the overall planing process, for which a thicker shaving is a necessity.

In this country [USA], I would recommend a Hock iron and chip breaker. I believe BB has used another with good results but I cannot remember which, as well the Clifton are very good. As are the LN. I personally would purchase the best for the least amount as any of those will do a remarkable job.

Hopefully someone will be along and can mention which it was BB recommended.

Take care, Mike
for whom old age is creeping in...

Take care, Mike


----------



## Jasper Homminga (7 Mar 2006)

MikeW":2sth2l8l said:


> I believe BB has used another with good results but I cannot remember which


I think BugBear often promotes the Samurai blade by Axminster. More on plane fettling on bugbear's website, which is a good read regardless. 

Good luck, 
Jasper


----------



## Unlucky Alf (7 Mar 2006)

Thanks Mike and Jasper

I have decided to keep the plane as it will at the very least provide me with something of reasonable quality to learn on. As Mike says it might never be a top performing plane but, at the moment, you could give me the best plane in the world and I'd still make a pigs ear of the job.

Yesterday was the first time I've really used a hand-plane in anger and I may not have ended up with the desired result as quickly as I'd have liked, but I realised after a couple of minutes how nice it was to be able to hear yourself think. I'll still be buying a planer-thicknesser but I'm not sure that I'll bother replacing my power-planer now.

I may try ordering some new parts from the states as I want to find a US supplier and get some experience of the French customs procedures.

regards,

Simon


----------



## Alf (7 Mar 2006)

Unlucky Alf":2lfwimtm said:


> Patrick Leach lists the dates of manufacture for this plane as 1869-1984 but as it is still being made today am I to assume that a significant change occurred in 1984 making the later planes inferior?


Yeah, they stopped being made in the USA and thus were suddenly "no good". :roll: Of course they weren't so good much earlier than that in both the US and UK, timing having rather more to do with things than location. Sorry, just a small rant that's been building up recently - I can only take so many "it's British ergo no good" threads elsewhere before my blood boils. Take no notice - I feel better already. 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## bugbear (7 Mar 2006)

Alf":2gop7fdz said:


> I can only take so many "it's British ergo no good" threads elsewhere before my blood boils.



Agreed. That's why I mention the #043, #044, Preston, Norris and Spiers as often as possible...

BugBear


----------



## MikeW (7 Mar 2006)

Alf":3goertve said:


> ...
> Yeah, they stopped being made in the USA and thus were suddenly "no good". :roll: Of course they weren't so good much earlier than that in both the US and UK, timing having rather more to do with things than location. Sorry, just a small rant that's been building up recently - I can only take so many "it's British ergo no good" threads elsewhere before my blood boils. Take no notice - I feel better already.
> 
> Cheers, Alf


Oh Obe Wan, take a breath. In, out. And repeat :lol: 

To reinforce what Alf says above, Stanley just got into a "make it cheaper" mode. Record, however, continued their quality control and tolerances well past Stanley's decline and switch of continents. The change of manufacturing from the US to England [and elsewhere] was also part of their process of making them for less--the cost of labor then was much less in England at the time.

But the early English-made Stanleys were good planes. As a user, some people actually look for the English made verses the American- and Mexico-made tools.

I don't know if they are still being made there, but up until recently one could buy two versions of a Stanley combination square. One made in Mexico and one from England. The last English-made one I purchased was maybe 2 years ago. It cost all of $3 more than the other, both still inexpensive. The English-made square had a satin finish blade, engraved marking, and was square. The other was a stamped blade and wasn't.

Only $3 dollars separated the two. Yet the proprietor of the tool store said they sell ten times as many of the lesser expensive one.

So I think we as consumers have been part of the problem. At the time of tool making's decline, there were better options available, but we as consumers have historically and en masse have chosen the less expensive tool.

Oops. What started out as just an elaboration and a show of support of English-made tools, has turned into a rant of its own. I'll get me coat...

Take care, Mike
proud owner of an 043 as of yesterday...


----------



## Unlucky Alf (8 Mar 2006)

Thanks for the input everyone. I have decided to get the Clifton blade and breaker from APTC, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the Clifton stuff is still made in Sheffield. I will leave my US purchases for some bandsaw accessories which I don’t seem to be able to find in the UK. As others have said it is preferable to mix patriotism with purchasing but unfortunately it’s becoming increasingly difficult these days. I just received my first sub of GWW and was appalled to see that of the six sanders on test, five of them were made in China.

One of the things I admire about the French is that the majority of them will choose a French product over any other, even if they know it’s inferior. I spoke with a neighbour afew months ago whilst he was kicking and cursing his air compressor and complaining that French manufactured products are “****”. When I asked him why he’d bought it, if he knew it wasn’t very good, he gave me a puzzled look and replied “Because it’s French”.

regards,

Simon


----------



## kygaloot (9 Mar 2006)

> The change of manufacturing from the US to England [and elsewhere] was also part of their process of making them for less--the cost of labor then was much less in England at the time.



It also had to do with US foundries closing by the dozens. I worked for a company that purchased both gray and ductile castings, and we were able to find good quality castings from England long after the reputable US foundries closed. 

Also, just to show how we Colonists don't really look down on English tools, take a quick perusal of ebay auctions in the U.S. It will show that even late Record planes (but pre brass knob cap) where the seller is located in the U.S. sell for more than similar planes where the seller is located in the UK. That might have something to do with how plenteous they are in the UK, but one must remember that for many years, Record was carried by Garrett Wade, which at that time was rather upscale. Up until the brass knob cap years, and prior to LN and LV, Record planes had a fairly good reputation in the States. And just try to name an American wood-vise manufacturer that sold a tiny fraction of what was sold by Record over here.

When I first became interested in hand tools (late-eighties) I purchased a Record No. 7 and while I did not care for the rattling lateral adjuster, or blinding chrome lever cap, the bed was flat* and sides square right out of the box. Second, the tungsten vanadium blade held an edge longer than any of my U.S. made Stanley blades. 

Having since become enamored with woodies, I can't say enough about those thick Sheffield blades. With Hock wood plane blade assemblies now pushing $50 (ouch!), someone like Tony Murland or Andrew Stephens should be stripping those older Sheffield blades and cap irons out of shot English woodies and peddle them here for wooden plane builders.

(* I did not use a granite surface plate with laser micrometer to measure the flatness, but the plane functioned quite well.)


----------



## bugbear (9 Mar 2006)

<i>someone like Tony Murland or Andrew Stephens should be stripping those older Sheffield blades and cap irons out of shot English woodies and peddle them here for wooden plane builders. </i>

I've considered this.

BugBear


----------



## OPJ (10 Mar 2006)

I think you can "feel" the difference in weight between a cheap, modern plane and a truly vintage one.

Courtesy of eBay (again!), I acquired a Stanley no.4 this week, of which the seller seems to believe could be 40-50 years old. Hold this up against the brand new Stanley no.5 I bought a year ago and it was a significant amount more! You can feel the long-lasting quality.


----------

