# new stanley premium planes



## johnnyb (9 Nov 2008)

is it me or does everyone else find the story of stanley introducing LN/veritas style planes fascinating? have their plane sales dropped and premium makers increased so very much. i can only think lie nielsen must be operating quite a large set up now. i suppose its obvious that people that use planes want ones that work properly. possibly there is a middle ground that stanley could fill price wise between there normal planes and better quality ones, somewhat like clico planes. but instead they have gone for the sexy boutique style planes made by LN/veritas obviously feeling that there is a market big enoughh to exploit. these planes are also being partly made in england despite being mostly i imagine for the american market.
i for one am waiting with baited breath and cant wait to see how they work. 
ps has anybody got any news on the release date.


----------



## Philly (9 Nov 2008)

Johnny
For me, it shows how much the hand tool phenom has grown. Stanley (and Record) had pretty much given up pruducing quality tools - their quality has declined steadily since WWII to such a low that the tools were basically trash. Obviously this has been due to many reasons (cost-cutting, the move to power tools, etc..) but with the recent re-birth of quality tools someone at Stanley has obviously said "Damn! There are companies out there making updated, high quality versions of OUR planes, and making a profit. Why aren't we doing this??" 
And in a way, we should be glad that someone at Stanley has realised this. Let's just hope he isn't an accountant, though......... :lol: :wink: 
Cheers
Philly


----------



## wizer (9 Nov 2008)

Yes I think it's quite clear that Stanley want a piece of the pie. I hope it's not a half hearted attempts. I do think we need more than 2 quality mass producers.


----------



## Benchwayze (10 Nov 2008)

The last time I recall Stanley UK making a special plane, was a limited, boxed edition of the No. 4.

The casting was covered in varnish. 
When some well-meaning soul wrote to 'The Woodworker', complaining about the 'gunge' and the need to get out the 'Nitromoors', one of the team at Stanley got huffy. Said the plane was made to exacting standards, the varnish was necessary to ensure rustproofing and shouldn't be removed. 

Obviously he was talking about varnish that has 'no thickness' and therefore would not interfere with the flatness of the sole. It probably wouldn't have much effect, but it would wear away eventually anyway. In fact the varnish surface resembled a ploughed field and I found it caused friction when planing. 

My plane has never been used it for a proper job of work to be honest. It's no better than most standard No 4's and worse than quite a lot more! IMHO. I hope Stanley learned lessons from this debacle. 8) 

Regards John


----------



## bugbear (10 Nov 2008)

wizer":19pjq2wr said:


> Yes I think it's quite clear that Stanley want a piece of the pie.



I suspect it's more of a "flagship" to improve the image of their entire line.

BugBear


----------



## matthewwh (27 Nov 2008)

They do still make some very nice tools but by trying to cater to the sheds as well they seem to have watered down their brand image massively. 

Judging from the reaction so far to a few rendered images there certainly seems to be a lot of interest. The US release date has been pushed back to the new year now, but as far as I know we will be getting them over here in the spring. 

It will be interesting to see what people think of them over there.

Cheers,


Matthew


----------



## bugbear (28 Nov 2008)

wizer":3l0e5k7h said:


> Yes I think it's quite clear that Stanley want a piece of the pie. I hope it's not a half hearted attempts. I do think we need more than 2 quality mass producers.



LN, LV Clifton == 3 !

BugBear


----------



## wizer (28 Nov 2008)

Point taken, tho is Clifton a mass producer? Let's not get into _that _debate again.


----------



## bugbear (28 Nov 2008)

wizer":2nmvtspy said:


> Point taken, tho is Clifton a mass producer?



I think they'd welcome the chance !

BugBear


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (28 Nov 2008)

I'd love to see Clifton produce as many as LN & LV! Point is, other than the green (which is quite attractive to me) the Clifton is has a look closer to the originals (OK, it has a bit of shiny polish on it too). Stanley never made a bronze plane, now did they?

For the dollar spent (I am a 'merican, afterall), it represents a real bargain in that I feel the Clifton forged iron better than both LN & LV. Some feel the Stay-Set can be problematic, but with a minor bit of fettling, mine does it's job and as I free hand sharpen, the two works nicely. 

Not sure how the dollar relates to the pound, but several years ago, Cliftons were a real bargain here in the states, but today, I suspect not so much anymore. But dollar for dollar, they are they equal and regarding the iron, to me, maybe more equal.

T.Z.


----------



## tnimble (28 Nov 2008)

Tony Zaffuto":3eiiqxnw said:


> Stanley never made a bronze plane, now did they?


They have made some bronze block planes and used bronze for knobs on some of the pre 1900s speciality planes, like a petal pattern compas plane.


----------



## Vann (22 Apr 2009)

matthewwh":2bncfgsf said:


> The US release date has been pushed back to the new year now, but as far as I know we will be getting them over here in the spring.


Well it's nearly 8 months since the new Stanley planes were first mentioned on this forum. They're still not on the shelves. 

I wonder if they're for real, or were those computer renditions just released to gather reaction. Certainly it's been mostly negative. 

I also find it hard to believe that Stanley would launch a range of tools and not have them available at regular outlets (only at specialty stores). Surely they would expose them to the mass market, where the name Stanley is well known and still respected (albeit mistakenly). 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Boz62 (22 Apr 2009)

I've just received the 2009 Tilgear catalogue and that shows piccies of real planes (I think). No.4, No.9-1/2, No.60-1/2, No.92. Tilgear prices seem to be 50% more than their standard Stanley range for the blocks, the No.4 is double the price, but the No.92 is 32% less than the standard one!

Boz


----------



## AndyT (22 Apr 2009)

Ok so what about Rutlands?

I received a new catalogue in the post today - there on the cover are their new range of midprice premium planes - bedrock frog, £89.95 for a no 4 £99.95 for a no 5 etc - anyone seen any reviews? Anyone want to send me one to review?

Andy


----------



## bugbear (23 Apr 2009)

AndyT":32yumts6 said:


> Ok so what about Rutlands?
> 
> I received a new catalogue in the post today - there on the cover are their new range of midprice premium planes - bedrock frog, £89.95 for a no 4 £99.95 for a no 5 etc - anyone seen any reviews? Anyone want to send me one to review?
> 
> Andy



Try searching the web for "WoodRiver", or this forum for "Grant". Wear an asbestos suit.

(edit) At the risk of sounding like a teenager - OMG!

http://www.rutlands.co.uk/cgi-bin/psPro ... ::1,0,0,1::

The new Rutland's own brand planes (in their Dakota brand) appear NOT to be the Chinese knockoffs causing so much heat and light in their Tilgear and Woodcraft incarnations - they claim to be American made.

BugBear


----------



## Jake (23 Apr 2009)

bugbear":1jtcqi8e said:


> (edit) At the risk of sounding like a teenager - OMG!
> 
> http://www.rutlands.co.uk/cgi-bin/psPro ... ::1,0,0,1::
> 
> The new Rutland's own brand planes (in their Dakota brand) appear NOT to be the Chinese knockoffs causing so much heat and light in their Tilgear and Woodcraft incarnations - they claim to be American made.



Not quite. They claim to be American A1 Grade Steel ... Planes

Not (necessarily) American made or cast planes. Possibly American steel, but it could be as devious as the fact that A1 steel is a grade specified by the American Iron and Steel Institute. 

Very opaque - even down to where and in what quantities the A1 is used.


----------



## wizer (23 Apr 2009)

OMG:

http://www.rutlands.co.uk/cgi-bin/psProdDet.cgi/DK1185






That's a direct Boggs knock off!! :shock:


----------



## beech1948 (23 Apr 2009)

It seems that the Stanley resurgence has a some competition in the US because of the Wood River planes introduced from a Chinese supplier. The FWW Knots forum has a long running and boring discussion of rights and wrongs.

These planes seem to be a mid range, sound copy of the original designs.

Wonder if we will see them here in the UK.

regards
Alan


----------



## beech1948 (23 Apr 2009)

Wizer,

Looks like a Bloggs knock off but there were several shaves of that design from an earlier age so who knocked off whom.

regards
Alan


----------



## bugbear (23 Apr 2009)

Jake":2evcsweb said:


> bugbear":2evcsweb said:
> 
> 
> > (edit) At the risk of sounding like a teenager - OMG!
> ...



Yes - the language does seem to imply more than it states.

BugBear


----------



## Mikey R (23 Apr 2009)

bugbear":uu73i2bw said:


> Yes - the language does seem to imply more than it states.
> 
> BugBear



I reread the description, and found that its a bit self contradicting and possibly just wrong. Im still learning about tools but this seems a bit strange:



> Cast from steel, the plane body is fully stress relieved to ensure this plane remains true and warp free throughout its entire working life.



Claims the plane body is cast from steel, not iron. 



> The mouth of the plane is easily adjusted using the knurled brass adjusment knob.



I thought bedrocks are adjusted with a slotted screw, so this is a bit odd.



> ade from high carbon steel, the blade is tempered and hardened to Rc 60-64 making it capable of taking and holding a fine, razor like edge.



High carbon or A2? Which one?


----------



## dunbarhamlin (23 Apr 2009)

Surely "A1" is a colloquial usage of the old Lloyd's classification of a ship's hull and equipment, rather than an indication of material composition?


----------



## woodbloke (23 Apr 2009)

dunbarhamlin":2jtg75wz said:


> Surely "A1" is a colloquial usage of the old Lloyd's classification of a ship's hull and equipment, rather than an indication of material composition?


Steve - could be the name of a road, or even this 8) - Rob


----------



## Jake (23 Apr 2009)

It's probably something to do with this, but the water's a way over my head

http://luyenkim.net/index.php?option=co ... view&id=42


----------



## Mikey R (23 Apr 2009)

Ive got to say Im quite intrigued by these planes. I may be tempted to get the #6.

Ive sent Rutlands an email to clarify some points, waiting for their response. If it looks good then it may be on the months tool list


----------



## Neil (23 Apr 2009)

That link brings back bad memories from my degree course, Jake - in fact I'm sure I had to reproduce the Iron-cementite equilibrium diagram in an exam #-o 

Don't ask me to explain it, though. It was one of those courses where you commit the stuff to memory for just long enough to get through the exam!

Cheers,
Neil


----------



## Aled Dafis (23 Apr 2009)

Neil":2gluy8r5 said:


> That link brings back bad memories from my degree course, Jake - in fact I'm sure I had to reproduce the Iron-cementite equilibrium diagram in an exam #-o
> 
> Don't ask me to explain it, though. It was one of those courses where you commit the stuff to memory for just long enough to get through the exam!
> 
> ...



Same here Neil.

Having said that, with the problems I've had lately with heat treating, I wish I'd have taken more notice in my metallurgy lectures.

We live and learn.

Aled


----------



## TrimTheKing (23 Apr 2009)

Aled Dafis":1em3q4l1 said:


> We live and learn.
> 
> Aled


Well, we live...


----------



## Mikey R (27 Apr 2009)

Mikey R":1ckrf2rj said:


> Ive got to say Im quite intrigued by these planes. I may be tempted to get the #6.
> 
> Ive sent Rutlands an email to clarify some points, waiting for their response. If it looks good then it may be on the months tool list



Im quite impressed that I got a quick response. Heres a shortened version of my questions:



I":1ckrf2rj said:


> 1) Is the body steel or iron? I ask as Stanley, Record and Clifton all use grey iron whilst Lie-Nielsen and Veritas use ductile iron, steel seems unusual.
> 2) How is the mouth adjusted? Is it modelled after the Stanley Bedrock frog, which uses a slotted screw?
> 3) Is the blade A2 or High Carbon steel?
> 4) Is the frog cast of bronze like a Lie-Nielsen, iron like a Stanley or something else?
> 5) Where is the product manufactured?



And Rutlands replied:



Rutlands":1ckrf2rj said:


> Dear Sir
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Racers (27 Apr 2009)

Hi, Mikey

So no answer to No5, that would be the one we all want to know.


Pete


----------



## Mikey R (27 Apr 2009)

Racers":g5099wwl said:


> Hi, Mikey
> 
> So no answer to No5, that would be the one we all want to know.
> 
> ...



Fraid not... as that question was avoided entirely I think that may be all the info Im going to get.

We also dont know what the A1 in the title means.

If we get enough forum users to email Rutlands about these planes, then the interest may cause more information to be put onto the site. What do the regulars think?

Also, would anyone be able to tell me what casting the body from (mild?) steel would mean? Would it be more or less brittle that iron?


----------



## Jake (27 Apr 2009)

I think a reasonable supposition from no answer is 'China'.


----------



## AndyT (27 Apr 2009)

The plot thickens - I've just found another option for a reasonably priced plane - this time a copy of the old Record/Clifton 311 / 3110 for £50:

http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Bills-Tool-Store

Maybe from Anant, or Groz or Kunz? Anyone know?

Andy


----------



## bugbear (28 Apr 2009)

Jake":3eonbrfr said:


> I think a reasonable supposition from no answer is 'China'.



Assuming it's from the same factory as the other "own brand Bedrocks", we know it's China.

BugBear


----------



## Mikey R (28 Apr 2009)

bugbear":1o2bliyq said:


> Jake":1o2bliyq said:
> 
> 
> > I think a reasonable supposition from no answer is 'China'.
> ...



Didnt the Tilgear ones have bronze frogs and lever cap? Are there any other own brand bedrocks for sale in the UK?


----------



## bugbear (28 Apr 2009)

Mikey R":1dgk8tdl said:


> bugbear":1dgk8tdl said:
> 
> 
> > Jake":1dgk8tdl said:
> ...



I was thinking of the VERY similar own brand Bedrocks that are on offer in the USA.

The variations seem minor, and are probably at the OEM's whim/marketing preference. The woodriver ones even have engraved lever caps.

BugBear


----------



## dunbarhamlin (28 Apr 2009)

Given the range, presume Tilgear's Brook range are Anant


----------



## matthewwh (28 Apr 2009)

T10 is almost identical to AISI W1 which is the water hardening cousin of the more familiar AISI O1, (different countries have their own designation systems) It's a very very good tool steel but also a real test of the toolmakers skill. It is prone to warping on heat treatment and performs completely differently depending on the hardness of the water it is quenched in. RC62-64 is the optimal range for it - i.e. as hard as you can go before it switches to brittle failure, so they've got that bit right.

Annealed cast steel will be much more difficult to machine than grey iron. Clico reckon on about quarter of an hour per pass on grey to keep the temperature below that which would adversely effect the annealing. Ductile you can wallop through at full tilt because heat won't affect it, although the end result will be less rigid than grey or steel. If steel is going to be done right it would have to be taken much much slower than grey and probably in several passes, if the internal forces that cause warping over time are to be avoided. The benefit of using steel is that grades with a high percentage of chromium can be used - resulting in better corrosion resistance, it also has better wear resistance (ask anyone who has tried to lap a Norris!) 

If they have been made right by someone who knows their stuff they have the potential to be awesome. If they have been 'banged out' quickly to a price they will be a waste of some very nice materials.


----------



## Calpol (28 Apr 2009)

I've not really read this thread so this has probably already been mentioned but got the new Tilgear catalogue through this morning and they are in there. Quite well priced actually, I'm interested in the shoulder jobby...


----------



## ivan (28 Apr 2009)

My Tilgear cat. came today - no more CD, Hurrah!

I thought it was interesting that Tilgear do not list the 'Grant' brand planes in the new 2009 catalogue. Presumably either (a) they're so good world demand is so high they can't secure a regular supply, or (b) they had so many returns after their last flyer they said "never again".

Does anyon know if the Dakota planes will accept LN frogs? Could be a cheaper way of getting a middle pitch plane especially at present dollar exchange rate.


----------



## Vann (28 Apr 2009)

ivan":34419ng2 said:


> I thought it was interesting that Tilgear do not list the 'Grant' brand planes in the new 2009 catalogue. Presumably either (a) they're so good world demand is so high they can't secure a regular supply, or (b) they had so many returns after their last flyer they said "never again".


Or (c) they accepted that such obvious direct copies of LN and Veritas planes was unethical and decided to no longer offer them. 



ivan":34419ng2 said:


> Does anyon know if the Dakota planes will accept LN frogs?


I must admit to wondering if the LN high angle frogs would fit a Clifton. :shock: 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## beech1948 (29 Apr 2009)

Or (c) they accepted that such obvious direct copies of LN and Veritas planes was unethical and decided to no longer offer them.

Vann,
There is no ethical issue involved at all. Anyone is commercially able to replicate Stanleys designs as LN and LV have done with whatever additional baubles thery want to add. Its that simple.

Anything else is merely the imagination of the commenter.

regards

Alan


----------



## TrimTheKing (29 Apr 2009)

beech1948":3i6m64sb said:


> Vann, There is no ethical issue involved at all. Anyone is commercially able to replicate Stanleys designs as LN and LV have done with whatever additional baubles thery want to add. Its that simple.
> 
> Anything else is merely the imagination of the commenter.
> 
> ...


Absolutely correct. Stanleys patents expired long ago so anyone has the right to copy them (as LN and to a lesser degree LV have both done) absolutely identically to the last dimension if they so desire, without any legal recourse (so I'm led to believe  )


----------



## Vann (29 Apr 2009)

beech1948":1e7aculz said:


> Vann, There is no ethical issue involved at all. Anyone is commercially able to replicate Stanleys designs as LN and LV have done with whatever additional baubles thery want to add. Its that simple.





TrimTheKing":1e7aculz said:


> Absolutely correct. Stanleys patents expired long ago so anyone has the right to copy them (as LN and to a lesser degree LV have both done) absolutely identically to the last dimension if they so desire, without any legal recourse (so I'm led to believe  )


Hmmm, well I'm on thin ice here, having purchased the Grant edge plane :shock: (and subsequently the Veritas LH edge plane) :shock: . 

I'd agree that there's nothing unethical or illegal in copying Stanley's designs - the patents on these expired years ago (about the time Record launched their range in the 1930s I believe). 

However the Grant is not an direct copy of the Stanley, it's a exact copy of the Veritas, including a few Veritas inovations. I don't know if that's illegal (that depends on whether LV patented those innovations) but it's not ethical. No way, IMHO.

This has all been discussed before on this forum, and even Rob Lee has expressed an opinion on exact copies of his company's work.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## bugbear (30 Apr 2009)

TrimTheKing":1q47qon7 said:


> beech1948":1q47qon7 said:
> 
> 
> > Vann, There is no ethical issue involved at all. Anyone is commercially able to replicate Stanleys designs as LN and LV have done with whatever additional baubles thery want to add. Its that simple.
> ...



Copying the Stanley designs is fine. It's copying the cosmetic details of LN in an attempt to imply similar build quality which is dodgy, and close to "passing off".

BugBear


----------



## ivan (3 May 2009)

LN frogs don't fit Cliftons, unfortunately.


----------



## Vann (3 May 2009)

ivan":30wae61l said:


> LN frogs don't fit Cliftons, unfortunately.


I thought it was a long shot . With which size plane did you try it (if any)?

Vann.

So now I'm wondering if a HA L-N frog would fit a Stanley bedrock - not that I have a Stanley bedrock - just wondering that's all  . (I hope there's a cure for this obsession.... :lol: :lol: )


----------



## mpooley (5 May 2009)

Has anyone actually tried one of these planes?

I would be very interested if they were decently made.

Mike


----------



## ivan (7 May 2009)

Rutlands have replied that LN frogs will not fit their planes. So as a matter of interest, someone *didn't* pass the Chinese a LN sample with a request to make this for $5. 

Vann, neither the 2" nor 2 3/8" LN frogs will fit Cliftons. Clifton said they didn't think the market big enough for their own when their range first came out, so I have LN 4, 41/2 and 51/2 with high angle frogs. Would rather have given my money to Clifton, but there you are.


----------



## Mikey R (7 May 2009)

ivan":1k0avnlb said:


> Vann, neither the 2" nor 2 3/8" LN frogs will fit Cliftons. Clifton said they didn't think the market big enough for their own when their range first came out, so I have LN 4, 41/2 and 51/2 with high angle frogs. Would rather have given my money to Clifton, but there you are.



So we have two options:

1) Get enough people to enquire to Cliffton about high angle frogs that they put them into production;
2) Get someone to machine us a high angle frog to fit a Cliffton.


----------



## matthewwh (7 May 2009)

I use a second blade with a slight back bevel in my smoother, which has exactly the same effect on the geometry as a high angle frog but is much less expensive, easier to swap over and gives you the freedom to alter the pitch to anything you like. 

You can even try it out on the supplied blade first. If you're happy, keep that as your back bevelled blade and keep the new one flat, if not, just grind it back past the back bevel and everything is back to normal.

I tried mine at 5 degrees (york) but ended up going much steeper - up around 10-15. It takes a little more effort to push for the same thickness of shaving, but produces a beautiful finish on burred timber and some of the really hard tropicals. In fact, I liked it so much I sold my Norris.


----------

