# cost of quality planes and the best cheaper alternative ?



## big soft moose (26 Jun 2009)

this isnt a dig at those who have lots of them, its a genuine question - what is it about the LN and clifton planes that make them so expensive, i mean yes they are very nicely engineered and shiny and polished etc but at the end of the day its only metal working , theres no electronics or owt.

I was in axminster high wycombe today and got to looking at the shiny tool porn that they very unsportingly have next to the checkout - an almost overwhelming temptation to say wait a minuite i'll have one of those too...

but jesus even a little one of those costs more than the morticer i just bought (even including the two sash cramps, ruler, bandsaw blade, glue, wax polish , and other things that I erm "needed" )

I have nasty feeling i'm going to wind up with one (or two, or three) eventually , but what is that i'll be paying so much for - are they personally forged at the foot of ygdradsil by Thor , then fettled by norse pixies or something


----------



## George_N (26 Jun 2009)

I think it is due to the quality of Materials that Mighty Thor uses and the pixies then do a lot of fettling.


----------



## joiner_sim (26 Jun 2009)

Could be to do with the quality of the steel?


----------



## Karl (26 Jun 2009)

BSM

You answer you're own question - the cost is in the materials and engineering/production and a somewhat limited market (although there are some on here who seem to be doing all they can to keep that market going :lol: ).

If you can, i'd get your hands on one of the quality planes out there and try it out - not sure that Axminster will allow you to do this at the checkout though :lol: Or maybe you have a forum member local to you who can show you?

Seriously - you can fettle old planes until you're blue in the face, but until you know how a decent plane works, how do you know whether you're doing a good job???

I have owned (and sold) quite a few of these decent planes, primarily bought second hand. If I hadn't, I wouldn't know which planes work for me, and whether a plane which I am fettling is working right. I recently acquired a Stanley Bedrock #6 and am in the process of giving it a good clean up. I am sure that when it is done it will perform just as well as the LN#6 which I owned and sold.

One final thought - one of my first purchases (and I bought this one from new) was a Clifton #7. I took the advice of a few forum members and bit the bullet, although the cost seemed excessive at the time. It is one purchase I have never regretted.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## big soft moose (26 Jun 2009)

Karl":dtvmg72w said:


> BSM
> 
> You answer you're own question - the cost is in the materials and engineering/production and a somewhat limited market (although there are some on here who seem to be doing all they can to keep that market going :lol: ).
> 
> ...



I had a feeling that was going to be the answer , but man they are expensive - the number 5 i was admiring was £252 - Ive had cheaper cars !

I know they are very very nice , but i guess what i'm really asking is whether they are that much better than the cheaper models - I mean to take cars as an example ferarris are very very nice too , but if i want to go fast i can quite hapily do it in a MX5 for a fraction of the cost.

I totally get the buy cheap buy twice thing and i'm not considering some b and poo own brand tat, but what is it that makes a LN no 5 nearly two hundred quid more than a new stanley 5, and is it something that i will actually notice in use ?

if there is a real advantage then i'll readilly part with my hard earned , but if its just the cachet of having the "best" when the stanley would do as good a job , then i'll take the cheaper option and spend the difference on other tool porn or wood.


----------



## Paul Chapman (26 Jun 2009)

As others have said, better design, better materials and better engineering, which all lead to better performance. There really are significant differences between the high-end planes and the cheaper stuff.

And I don't accept that they are expensive - with reasonable care, they will last you a lifetime and you'll be able to leave them to your kids to use. I bet your morticer won't last that long :wink: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## big soft moose (26 Jun 2009)

Paul Chapman":2cke3ga3 said:


> As others have said, better design, better materials and better engineering, which all lead to better performance. There really are significant differences between the high-end planes and the cheaper stuff.
> 
> And I don't accept that they are expensive - with reasonable care, they will last you a lifetime and you'll be able to leave them to your kids to use. I bet your morticer won't last that long :wink:
> 
> ...



fair point - but as a newly wed i have to watch the pennies (says the man who just spent a 160 quid on a morticer  ), the thing is tho swimbo accepts that i need the morticer to build furniture ( yeah i know i could do it with chisels and a mallet but dont get me started on the cost of decent chisels - the morticer may well be cheaper) , but is less likely to accept the purchase of a LN 5 as essential.

If we take it as read that I dont have the money to buy a LN or clifton , whats the best budget make (using the term budget losely as i dont want some total rubbish, say no more than 100 notes)


----------



## Paul Chapman (26 Jun 2009)

big soft moose":7f0busfr said:


> If we take it as read that I dont have the money to buy a LN or clifton , whats the best budget make (using the term budget losely as i dont want some total rubbish, say no more than 100 notes)



I would go for second-hand Record. I picked up an excellent Record #05 Stay-set from a second-hand shop for about £25. It was an ex-school plane (it has LCC - London County Council - engraved on the side) and apart from some horrible green paint that had been slapped on it, was in first class condition. I use it regularly and it planes really well - didn't even have to flatten the sole.

It has the older style frog, which is good, pictured on the right in this shot







The Stay-set models have SS on the lever cap






And they use the two-piece cap irons like the ones fitted to Clifton planes. Some people don't like them but I reckon they are excellent.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## big soft moose (26 Jun 2009)

If we were talking second hand ive got a stanley no4 and a record no 5 that were my grandads (circa 1950s i think) but they are in rag order , and mixed up in pieces and it may beyond my ken to put them together and fettle them into working order - ive also got a block plane that was his which is missing its blade and the wedge thing.

This is also my concern with buying other planes second hand as i dont know enough about them to fettle them, or for that matter to tell a good one from a bad one.

Therefore i want to just buy a decent but not excessively expensive one to use and learn with so that i can improve my skills and hopefully one day be able to return the three of my grandas to working order too.

so to refine the question what would you guys buy new , with a max budget of £100 notes.


----------



## joiner_sim (26 Jun 2009)

Hand planes wise, I've got a Stanley Bailey no.4, review can be found on my website. It's pretty good once it has been fine tuned, but it did take a while to get there!
I've also got a 1950's Record No.6 foreplane I was given, rusted up. Cleaned it all up and it works beautifully, if you search the handtools forum, you might find the topic i made about it on here.


----------



## Paul Chapman (26 Jun 2009)

big soft moose":66eyut3m said:


> so to refine the question what would you guys buy new , with a max budget of £100 notes.



Knowing what I know now (having been buying planes since 1970), if you want new I'd save up for a bit longer until I could afford a Clifton. You might strike lucky and buy a cheap new plane that works well but the chances are it will have been made in China and won't be very good. However, others may have a different view.

Have a look at this site - they seem to have some good, old Record and Stanley stuff at reasonable prices http://www.oldtools.co.uk/ If you bought something from them and it was no good, you could always send it back.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Mikey R (26 Jun 2009)

I would always buy second hand planes from Ray Iles, with one of his O1 steel blades, which he would fit for you. All his bench planes have been reground, and work straight out of the box.

A Stanley no 5 / Record 05 would cost you £30 plus about £25 for the new blade, plus VAT and postage. Way under £100


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (27 Jun 2009)

They serve a very much needed purpose: namely to give the better half and your kids something to buy for you on all those holidays when they feel compelled to do so!

I got along perfectly fine with the vintage Stanleys I have, but it is nice to have the Clifton and the multiple LNs & Veritas planes that fill my shop. Much nicer than the shirts and jackets I used to get!

T.Z.


----------



## Vann (27 Jun 2009)

big soft moose":3pz96j5q said:


> - I mean to take cars as an example ferarris are very very nice too , but if i want to go fast i can quite hapily do it in a MX5 for a fraction of the cost.


Trouble is, your Ferarris is more like a Hotley/Norris. The Clifton is like a good Toyota. The less than 100 quid cheapy is a Skoda or Lada.

If your skills aren't up to fettling an old Stanley/Record then they won't be up to fettling a new Stanley/Irwin Record/Anant/Axminster special. The newer planes will most likely require more (not less) fettling than an old Record/Stanley.

You're caught between a rock and a hard place. I'd suggest you save for a decent Clifton/Veritas/Lie-Nielsen (okay not the latter - they're even more expensive), then do up some old Stanleys/Records (such as your grandad's) using you new Clifton/Veritas performance as a benchmark.

You might be able to purchase a good pre-fettled oldie off someone on this forum, or someone like Ray Isles.

I think a large part of the reason these brands are so expensive is that Clico, Lee Valley and TLN pay their employees real money (like we expect to get in our pay packets) not a bowl of rice a day. Hopefully, in turn, those employees have pride in their workmanship and this is reflected in the quality of the plane you buy.

I'll shut up and go away now...  :roll: 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## newt (27 Jun 2009)

All the right things have been said about why they are expensive. If you only ever plane shed pine don't bother, but if you are into some hard woods with a bit tricky grain, then try using a really cheap B&Q plane  , then a really good one


----------



## beech1948 (27 Jun 2009)

I have come to believe that LN/LV and Clifton are now very overpriced. There is little of real value in them.

Remember that older craftsmen used Stanley and Record to produce some excellent and very outstanding furniture. Its not the tool its the man maybe.

I have Stanley planes, some Records and a few LN/LV specialty planes. I have used the LN bench planes and they are excellent but they do not produce a better final finish than a Stanley.

Stanley and Record used planes may take some fettling but that is how you will learn what makes up a plane, how they work and what works best for you.

regards
Alan


----------



## wizer (27 Jun 2009)

Pete, my first Plane was a re-con No.4 that MarkW kindly gave me. Until then I'd never considered hand planes seriously, taking the same view as you. Once I started using that No.4 I realised what a plane should be like but also realised it's inherent faults. So when selecting my next plane (A Veritas BUS) I knew what I wanted. My point being, get yourself a low end plane to start with, maybe one of the new Stanley SH planes and learn what it is you need from a HP. I've not progressed further than the smoother as this is all I want to use a hand plane for. Nothing wrong with using machinery.


----------



## Mikey R (27 Jun 2009)

Just thinkiing out loud...

If I were thinking of getting a lot of planes in the near future, I might also considder going on the David Charlesworth hand tool fettling course.

The course is £600 for the week, so if I were to be buying three planes at £200 I could save that money, pay for the course, then tune up some flea market bargains when I get home


----------



## matt (27 Jun 2009)

big soft moose":3gk3kde2 said:


> I was in axminster high wycombe today and got to looking at the shiny tool porn that they very unsportingly have next to the checkout - an almost overwhelming temptation to say wait a minuite i'll have one of those too...



That was me 2 days earlier...

They look great and I've no doubt they are better engineered than the like of Record and Stanley but what does that engineering mean to the job of planing?

I rescued and Stanley 5.5 from eBay and messed around getting it fit for purpose. I'm still fettling but it seems to be doing a reasonable job. That said, I don't do a lot of planing. I mostly use a block plane to fit doors and smooth the cut from the bandsaw if necessary.


----------



## big soft moose (27 Jun 2009)

matt":1od5sr14 said:


> but what does that engineering mean to the job of planing?



thats what i was getting at , i have no doubt that the expensive planes are better made and from higher quality materials (tho to an extent we may also be paying for the name) but although loads of people have said that they are better , i still dont know what practical difference it makes to the job at hand.

I guess better quality steel in the blade will mean that it holds its edge longer , but whether thats a noticeably longer may be another question.


----------



## big soft moose (27 Jun 2009)

Mikey R":10jav7zc said:


> I would always buy second hand planes from Ray Iles, with one of his O1 steel blades, which he would fit for you. All his bench planes have been reground, and work straight out of the box.
> 
> A Stanley no 5 / Record 05 would cost you £30 plus about £25 for the new blade, plus VAT and postage. Way under £100



that sounds like a plan - do you have contact details etc ? edit : doh i hand realised that ray iles and oldtools were one and the same - problem solved.

its not a great website tho - i think i'll leave it till monday and phone em


----------



## big soft moose (27 Jun 2009)

wizer":ig2jgyvl said:


> Nothing wrong with using machinery.



too true , but i need something to clean up the finish from the bandsaw and as i dont have a PT (tho i could borrow the dewalt 733 thicknesser from work for a big job), i am currently reduced to using my belt sander which is effective but noisy and messy. ( I also have a performance power handheld power planer but that rubbish, and only sees action flatening chainsawed faces on turning blanks)

Ive just bought a couple of the mujingfang planes, but i'm thinking that i want something like a number 5 for the bigger jobs also - I'll speak to ray iles on monday.


----------



## Mikey R (27 Jun 2009)

Ray Iles is at http://www.oldtools.free-online.co.uk/

its a different shop to http://www.oldtools.co.uk - that site is run by someone else, but I got a good saw from them.


----------



## Karl (27 Jun 2009)

big soft moose":11z2cftt said:


> but although loads of people have said that they are better , i still dont know what practical difference it makes to the job at hand.



To me it is like comparing a Perform planer thicknesser with a Jet. Both do a job - but the Jet does it better than the Perform.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## OPJ (27 Jun 2009)

Hi Pete,

I'd be inclined to buy some older second-hand planes and 'do them up' if necessary. Actually, the Ray Isles offer sounds very good. I think he has the right idea though - fitting a thicker blade to an older plane will improve the performance. I've just done this by treating my Stanley no.4 to a Clifton blade; edge retention is excellent, although I had to spend some time opening the mouth up with a file and there is an issue with the Yoke/Y-lever not being long enough... (That one will be resolved shortly! :wink Even upgrading only the cap iron will make some difference when working with hardwoods; mainly less chatter.

I admit to owning a couple of 'specialist' planes (Veritas/Lee Valley Bevel-Up Smoother and Scraping Plane... ) but, as far as the standard 'bench planes' go (no.4, no.5, no.6), I don't believe it's necessary to shell out over £100 for each in the beginning. My only except may be the Clifton no.7 - even the old ones tend to fetch well over £100 at auction... If I was looking for a plane that length, I'd probably save a bit more and go for a Clifton.

As far as fettling goes; sharpen the blade [oh, yes - you haven't considered how much you'll need to spend on sharpening gear yet!!! :twisted:] and try to cut a piece of hardwood - if it works well, leave it alone. If not then, you may need to start looking at flattening the sole (which isn't too tasking on shorter planes).

Next time we meet, I'd be happy to go through that mixed box of 'plane parts' and help you to see what's what.  [I'm buying timber for the chest of drawers next week ~ finally!!  :wink:]


----------



## matt (27 Jun 2009)

Karl":304x448x said:


> big soft moose":304x448x said:
> 
> 
> > but although loads of people have said that they are better , i still dont know what practical difference it makes to the job at hand.
> ...



I found myself trying to rationalise in a similar way but I'm not convinced. I get the impression that a mediocre plane can be fettled in to something far more competent, potentially negating the need to buy a ready-fettled expensive option. By contrast, you're pretty much stuck with the fundamentals of a power tool/machine - the important bits in any case.


----------



## moz (27 Jun 2009)

big soft moose":3t9rblk0 said:


> matt":3t9rblk0 said:
> 
> 
> > but what does that engineering mean to the job of planing?
> ...



Apart from higher quality materials, flatness is a very expensive quality in engineering work; the closer to perfectly flat, the more something will cost. Check out any of the 'premium' planes on a surface plate or with an engineer's straight edge and you ought to find the soles finished to much higher tolerances than the bog standard and are, therefore, capable of more accurate and finer work straight out of the box. Of course, hours of mind-numbing tedium can produce the same results on a cheaper plane if you like metalwork.

John


----------



## newt (27 Jun 2009)

Of course you can make the Stanleys work for some jobs, one of DC's favorite planes is a Stanley although heavily modified. But consider this, I have a Veritas LA jack, It can joint, shoot, flatten and smooth and take one thou cuts in most woods when necessary. I can open or close the mouth in a few seconds, put in a steeper ground iron for really difficult woods. I know my Stanley no 4 is not as versatile or as accurate (sole to side not a right angle would require the removal of a lot of material). This is what you get for the money, it works first time straight out of the box. I have only ever sharpened the A2 blade. You never have to ask yourself is it me or the plane.


----------



## Mikey R (27 Jun 2009)

I started with a brand new Record 04. The frog wasnt machined straight, so that the blade didnt sit straight. In order to get it to work, I had to grind the blade into a slight skew. I spent many evening filing and fettling, trying to get the plane just to work. Really frustrating.

Ive also got two modern Record spoke shaves, and they are also rubbish. On the flat shave, the machining is all over the place, the blades are noticably twisted from the heat treament process, the threaded rods for the adjustments nuts are almost a mm out from where they should be and so that the blade doesnt sit on the bed, it perches on the edge of the mouth and ONE of the adjustment nuts. I gave up looking at the round one.

By Comparison, I got my Stanley no 4 from a guy on here, and added a Ron Hock blade. I got my no 7 from Ray Iles, and added one of his blades. When they dont work, I know that its me thats the problem, not the tool. They just dont misbehave for no reason.

So, yes, there is a world of a difference between a good plane and a Record boat anchor, probably more so than between two brands of machine tool.

Working with the new Records is no fun. Working with my vintage, fettled-by-pros Stanley no 4 and no7, and my Veritas shave, is.


----------



## big soft moose (27 Jun 2009)

OPJ":f4oei96f said:


> Hi Pete,
> 
> I'd be inclined to buy some older second-hand planes and 'do them up' if necessary. Actually, the Ray Isles offer sounds very good. I think he has the right idea though - fitting a thicker blade to an older plane will improve the performance. I've just done this by treating my Stanley no.4 to a Clifton blade; edge retention is excellent, although I had to spend some time opening the mouth up with a file and there is an issue with the Yoke/Y-lever not being long enough... (That one will be resolved shortly! :wink Even upgrading only the cap iron will make some difference when working with hardwoods; mainly less chatter.
> 
> ...



cheers olly , i'll take you up on that ( btw on another subject we do have a spare engineers vice at work so i'll grab that for you to pick upat the same time)

re the sharpening i'd assumed i would use the same wide stone grinder, and/or chinese water stones / dmt diamond hone that i use on my turning gear - or am i going to need something else ?

Ive just spent circa two hours cleaning up some laminated oak strips ( i'm building a cd/hi fi cabinet entirely out of offcut and stuff found in skips) with first my performance power power planer then the ryobi belt sander and 40G belts - it worked okay but it was very noisy, extremly messy and very dusty - hand planing would have been a much more fun experience.


----------



## MikeH (27 Jun 2009)

I started out with the usual stanley (recent) models. When I progressed to a LN 5 1/2 I noticed a huge difference. It was even more noticeable with the block planes. 

I would agree with Mikey R. Now, if I get problems planing I know it is me and not the tool. True, it may be the way I have adjusted/sharpened the tool but again that is me. I don't blame the tool and say nothing can be done about it, I work out what I am doing wrong and fix it. With the cheaper tools I don't think you can necessariy do that unless you have spent a huge amount of time fettling and have that confidence.


----------



## OPJ (27 Jun 2009)

big soft moose":1g5tt9p4 said:


> re the sharpening i'd assumed i would use the same wide stone grinder, and/or chinese water stones / dmt diamond hone that i use on my turning gear - or am i going to need something else ?
> 
> Ive just spent circa two hours cleaning up some laminated oak strips ( i'm building a cd/hi fi cabinet entirely out of offcut and stuff found in skips) with first my performance power power planer then the ryobi belt sander and 40G belts - it worked okay but it was very noisy, extremly messy and very dusty - hand planing would have been a much more fun experience.



Yes, you could still use your bench grinder for primary bevels and re-grinding. As for honing the secondary bevel, again yes, either of those (diamond or water) would be fine... Well, all depending on what grades/grit you have? Oil, ceramic and Arkansas stones would be the other possibilities I can think of. Just remember: 25° for the primary bevel, 30° secondary. They don't need to be spot on but these are what you should be aiming for. :wink:

40g sounds _very_ coarse, unless you're going for a rustic finish... :? I assume you'll be sanding up to 180g or240g though? Power planers can work well in some situations but, unlike a stationary machine, they won't easily straighten an edge but will generally follow any curve.

You will need some kind of workbench if you want get in to hand-planing hardwood boards... I don't recall seeing one buried beneath that big pile of oak...?


----------



## DaveL (28 Jun 2009)

OPJ":3mdhmf86 said:


> You will need some kind of workbench if you want get in to hand-planing hardwood boards... I don't recall seeing one buried beneath that big pile of oak...?



But of course there *could* be one _lurking _in the pile of oak. :roll:


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (28 Jun 2009)

A good quality handplane by LN or LV or Clifton (and a couple of others in this price range) should essentially work pretty well out of the box. You should be able to tune them further, but this is the icing. 

By contrast, the vintage Stanleys can be made to work well, but a LOT of time and effort is needed for most, but if you are lucky you might get away with just a little tuning. Still, the original blades will not last as long, and they lack the bling.

All this has been stated in one way or the other in this thread. But what has not been asked is what type of wood you work. This is pertinent since some of the new planes perform well because of aspects such as high cutting angles ... unless the wood you work is testing enough, you may never realise the potential performance that lies in your handplane.

If you work with straight grained soft- or medium hard woods, then all you may need in performance is a Stanley. Of course, the LN etc still have better adjustments, etc.

If you work "exotic" woods, then you will know the difference between planes. Yes, I recognise that our grandads did not have LNs and LVs ... but believe me they would have wanted them!  

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## big soft moose (28 Jun 2009)

DaveL":g3cvqfg2 said:


> OPJ":g3cvqfg2 said:
> 
> 
> > You will need some kind of workbench if you want get in to hand-planing hardwood boards... I don't recall seeing one buried beneath that big pile of oak...?
> ...



there could have been more or less anything lurking under that pile of oak - but you are both right there wasnt one when olly last visited , but i now have one - nothing fancy, I just knocked up an end frame from some of the seriously cupped bits of oak (which werent good for anything else) and screwed it to the wall - and i have a bit of 18mm MDF fixed with one end on that and one end on an old chest of drawers , but it servers my simple purposes.


----------



## big soft moose (28 Jun 2009)

OPJ":2k3uezdq said:


> 40g sounds _very_ coarse, unless you're going for a rustic finish... :? I assume you'll be sanding up to 180g or240g though? Power planers can work well in some situations but, unlike a stationary machine, they won't easily straighten an edge but will generally follow any curve.



40G is very coarse , but the intention was to flatten the boards ( that i have made up out of 1.5 ins strips cut on the bandsaw from the various off cut bits in that big pile. ) with the belt sander rather than finish them. 

once ive got everything sized and the motices cut I'll be finishing them with the ROS sanding through the grades up to 240G


----------



## big soft moose (28 Jun 2009)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> All this has been stated in one way or the other in this thread. But what has not been asked is what type of wood you work. This is pertinent since some of the new planes perform well because of aspects such as high cutting angles ... unless the wood you work is testing enough, you may never realise the potential performance that lies in your handplane.
> 
> If you work with straight grained soft- or medium hard woods, then all you may need in performance is a Stanley. Of course, the LN etc still have better adjustments, etc.



At the moment I am predominantly working in oak (actually thats not true, i'm predominantly working in mdf - but when i do use hardwoods it tends to be oak), principally because a nice man (malcom aka opener) gave me a load of offcuts

but that said as i tend to work with other peoples offcuts, and stuff from wood recycling projects, disasembled furniture from charity warehouses, and stuff i find in skips , I can wind up working with more or less anything.

I have concluded that i cant afford a LN, LV, or clifton at this stage , and that i'm going to buy a 3 and a 5 from either ray iles or old tools which will probably be second hand stanleys or records etc (plus the little mujingfangs from WH when they turn up) and see how i get on, plus i'm going to try and ressurect grandads two which turn out to both be 4s and block plane - i'll probably be back with stoopid questions about fettling in due course


----------



## bugbear (29 Jun 2009)

Vann":2ghamjls said:


> big soft moose":2ghamjls said:
> 
> 
> > - I mean to take cars as an example ferarris are very very nice too , but if i want to go fast i can quite hapily do it in a MX5 for a fraction of the cost.
> ...



Good analogy.

BugBear


----------



## Pekka Huhta (29 Jun 2009)

I just had 12 different smoothers on my bench for comparison: Anant, Anant Kamal, Clifton, HBS, Hira Kanna, Kunz, Lie-Nielsen, Mujinfang, Record, Stanley and Veritas, plus my own old SW-Stanley I use the most. 

I have been doing my woodwork with old antique planes and have not thought to need anything better than that. My best smoothers have been an old Spiers and a self-made smoother with adjustable mouth. And I have gotten very good results with them.

Before testing I thought that the bad ones were pretty crappy and the good ones pretty good, but practically the worst performer (Stanley) could not be used as a plane without pretty extensive tuning and the best ones left a glass smooth surface without any kind of fiddling, just right out of the box. So the variation was even bigger than I could have expected. 

I really do think that the extra cost can be justified, at least to a certain extent. OK, 300 € is a lot of money, but on the other hand the limitations of a standard Bailey are quite low. No matter how much you pimp it with replacement irons, float glass and sandpaper, there still is the limit. 

To get back to cars: you can buy a Lada and add up as many spoilers, tires and chromed exhaust pipes, but you can't make even a Toyota out of it. 

I can't believe saying this as my cabinets are full of old antique planes. I don't think that it would be possible to modify any of my old Stanley Bailey smoothers to be as good as the new Clifton, LN and LV. They are good, I have been able to do all of my work with them for years, but nevertheless they are not as good. 

Pekka


----------



## matt (29 Jun 2009)

I just can't get with the comparisons to more complex machinery. We're talking about a lump of metal, with handles, for holding a blade in a fixed position to slice wood.

I expect for there to be differences but not the type quantified by Lada v. Ferrari.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (29 Jun 2009)

Matt 

The analogy to a car will not work for anyone who simply_ looks _at the cars and compares them at this level.

It only works when you drive the cars, and compare them for road holding at speed. Drive them slowly and you may as well take a bus (go back to my previous post and the comment I made about using different woods).

You have to push the envelope to understand the differences.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## bugbear (29 Jun 2009)

matt":2b8h0r7b said:


> I just can't get with the comparisons to more complex machinery. We're talking about a lump of metal, with handles, for holding a blade in a fixed position to slice wood.
> 
> I expect for there to be differences but not the type quantified by Lada v. Ferrari.



Try doing a cost comparison on the cheapest 12" combo set against the most expensive; something like 5 quid versus 200 (factor of 40). The differences are in the materials and the accuracy of machining, not the gross shape.

In the world of cycling, the term "BSO" is used; it's a (very!) perjorative term used of the sort of bicycles advertised in the tabloid weekend supplements. It stands for Bicycle Shaped Object 

I think some Anants, Silverline, Am-Techs etc might be called PSO's.

BugBear


----------



## matt (29 Jun 2009)

I'm talking decent, straight, old Record or Stanley (i.e. where there was intention to produce a competent tool rather than a tool to a price) versus LN, Veritas, etc. I realise some of the really cheap stuff, made to a price, is rubbish.


----------



## bugbear (29 Jun 2009)

matt":114fevup said:


> I'm talking decent, straight, old Record or Stanley (i.e. where there was intention to produce a competent tool rather than a tool to a price) versus LN, Veritas, etc. I realise some of the really cheap stuff, made to a price, is rubbish.



O.K. We've established there's a spectrum from rubbish to perfect.

Is your question about the technical differences in build quality of (e.g.) LN versus 1950's Record, or the planing performance?

I suspect we have people who can give first-hand evidence on both counts.

BugBear


----------



## matt (29 Jun 2009)

matt":1c2cboc0 said:


> big soft moose":1c2cboc0 said:
> 
> 
> > I was in axminster high wycombe today and got to looking at the shiny tool porn that they very unsportingly have next to the checkout - an almost overwhelming temptation to say wait a minuite i'll have one of those too...
> ...



...is what I said earlier on in the thread.

To which the car/machine analogy doesn't convince me of the value of prioritising an expensive plane to replace what I've got. It just does not present a good argument in my case. That's more or less it for me.


----------



## bugbear (30 Jun 2009)

matt":a60hqkpk said:


> matt":a60hqkpk said:
> 
> 
> > big soft moose":a60hqkpk said:
> ...



Ah - I understand. It doesn't alter the fact that some people do need (or want...) a premium plane, of course, but I understand prioritising expenditure.

BugBear


----------



## DarrenW (30 Jun 2009)

For what its worth here is my view. I class myself as a weekend amatuer.

I started out with a stanley N05 and a stanley low angle block, back then the No5 was £50. Sole was way out, so bought some glass to flatten it (£10) and a straight edge to check it (£40 starratt ). Spent a day flattening it (thats 50% of the time I had that weekend). 

Blade was pants so upgraded to a clifton iron and two piece cap iron (£40 a few years back).

So in total spent £100 tuning it up and £40 on a straight edge I will use for other stuff. 

3 months down the line re-checked the sole and it had warped again! :twisted: Covex aswell! So the plane was then worse than I started!

At that point, I bought a new Veritas it was about £160 at the time. No need for tuning, sole was 'flat enough' and much better than the stanley ever was. So no time wasted, no extra added costs needed. 

So in total an extra £60 at the time.... well worth it in my view.

Admittedly the prices have gone stupid since, so not quite as clear cut, but don't underestimate the time spent on fettling as apposed to the woodwork we all want to do. Especially for the weekend workers like me who have precious little time as it is without doing metal work.

Since that experience I have continued to pay for the time saved from fettling. It works for me, but probably not everyone.

But it is true that I now know what makes a poor plane and how to adjust it..... its just that my metalwork is worse than my woodwork  

Darren


----------



## JohnCee (30 Jun 2009)

I have a Ray Iles-ground Stanley USA No 6 (c. 1910, fitted with a Ray Iles iron), and a Lie Nielsen 5 1/2, both of which I use on a very regular basis. I can honestly say that I prefer the Stanley. The performance is the same (except for the adjuster backlash on the Stanley that doesn't bother me one bit), but the Stanley just feels nicer to use. 
I feel guilty about this. I want to prefer the L-N because my family clubbed together and bought if for me for a "significant" birthday. But I've stopped trying to convince myself now.


----------



## lurker (3 Jul 2009)

Darren,

Thats why most folks here recommend if you MUST buy new buy a top make.

The other way is to buy old ( good quality "settled" steel) & fettle.

I have decent users that have cost less than a tenner & a couple of hours work.


----------



## bugbear (3 Jul 2009)

JohnCee":pjhni28d said:


> ... but the Stanley just feels nicer to use.[ than a LN]



Do you mean "nicer" in the sense of nicer cutting action, result, quality of cut, or "nicer" in the sense of ergonomics and comfort (or, perhaps, some sense of "nicer" which hasn't occurred to me 

BugBear


----------



## JohnCee (3 Jul 2009)

bugbear":30g4q8e2 said:


> JohnCee":30g4q8e2 said:
> 
> 
> > ... but the Stanley just feels nicer to use.[ than a LN]
> ...



Cutting action and results are essentially the same. I think I find the stanley "nicer" because it achieves the same results as the L-N without carrying excessive weight. It also just feels more comfortable in my hands.


----------



## bugbear (3 Jul 2009)

JohnCee":3cqtt0de said:


> bugbear":3cqtt0de said:
> 
> 
> > JohnCee":3cqtt0de said:
> ...



How about "friendly" as a summary of the Stanley?

BugBear


----------



## Benchwayze (4 Jul 2009)

lurker":37gdm0uk said:


> Darren,
> 
> Thats why most folks here recommend if you MUST buy new buy a top make.
> 
> ...



Quite agree. Except I found the Lie Nielsen No 4 Bedrock style, a bit 'clumsy' Maybe it was the weight, it being heavier than I was used to. But I love my low angle Jack from LN! 

Pity I have to finish serious woodworking, just as I got used to all this new stuff! Does that make me a non-working member of UKW'shop?


----------



## big soft moose (4 Jul 2009)

looking at old planes ( not the ray iles site , the other one ) are "Woden" any good as a make ?


----------



## Benchwayze (4 Jul 2009)

big soft moose":2dvs9bqe said:


> looking at old planes ( not the ray iles site , the other one ) are "Woden" any good as a make ?



They aren't famous for planes, but most of their normal stuff was top quality otherwise, If you can fettle then you'd have a decent plane for a good price...


----------



## lurker (5 Jul 2009)

Benchwayze":35etzwqh said:


> Does that make me a non-working member of UKW'shop?



No it makes you a ........ :roll: collector

Sorry to hear you have to give up wookwork John

Am I being rude by asking why?


----------



## Benchwayze (5 Jul 2009)

Not at all lurker. 

My knees have completely gone, and I just cannot stand at the bench long enough to do any useful furniture-making. 

I shall probably potter about in the shop, but no more lugging planks over the planer and saw-table! Or jointing tops, or stooping over the vice cutting tails and doves! 

So it's time to call it a day, other than maybe knocking up 'hammer and nails' jobs. 

Cheers.. 

John


----------



## Racers (5 Jul 2009)

Hi, Benchwayze


I think you should just make smaller things, stuff you can do siting down at the bench. small boxes etc. It seems a shame to stop doing something you like.


Pete


----------



## CHJ (5 Jul 2009)

Sorry to here you are finding things difficult *John*, in all seriousness have you every had a leaning towards turning?

I know that might be sacrilege to some flat-workers but it certainly is a way of continuing to enjoy the beauty of wood.

Not a cheap option but one that is a godsend to many


----------



## Paul Chapman (5 Jul 2009)

Sorry to hear about your knees, John  Hope you are able to find some ways to carry on doing some woodwork - it would be a shame to have to totally give up something you love doing.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## newt (5 Jul 2009)

John, carving can be quite satisfying and you can do sat down.


----------



## DaveL (5 Jul 2009)

John,

Sorry to hear about the knees.
I have seen a number of turners who work from wheel chairs, the spinney side beckons. :roll:


----------



## lurker (6 Jul 2009)

AND/ OR sharing your workshop & skills with a beginner who could do the standing up stuff for you.

If I lived closer -I'd be around making a nuisance of myself all the time.


----------



## Benchwayze (6 Jul 2009)

Hi Pete, CHJ, Paul, Newt, DaveL and Lurker, 

It's great to have your well-wishes. Thanks a million for that. 

I don't intend to vegetate. As soon as the knees are done, I shall be pottering. Which to me is turning, and learning a bit more carving. 
I'm not a whiz at either, but I manage. 

I do want to make a Rocking horse, but there's big lumps of timber in those! So I bought a 9" barometer and thermometer and a nice oak centre-board.

I found a nice design for an Edwardian Style Barometer in an old copy of TradWood, so I am giving it a go. I can sit down to do that courtesy of Rich who made me a nice round stool seat! 

And you're welcome any time Lurker! Just give me notice so I can get Number One Son to clear the timber stocks out of the way! 

Regards 

John


----------



## woodbloke (6 Jul 2009)

John - very sorry to hear about the problem with the knees. I'm sure that you'll be able to do some sort of woodworking from a sitting position (as Pete has suggested with carving) Whatever you do, _don't_ loose touch with the forum as your contributions are valued - Rob


----------



## Benchwayze (6 Jul 2009)

Thanks Rob, 

No worries on me giving up altogether. It's just that I shan't be able to manhandle large planks and sheets. So serious furniture-making has to be put on the back-burner. 

As I said, I can turn and carve, a little, so I shan't miss the scent of wood. And of course the Forum is here always. (I'll get reacquainted with the turners' dance, before I go back indoors after a session at the lathe!) Maybe not! 
 

Regards and keep blogging.

John


----------



## ivan (6 Jul 2009)

My first plane (Stanley 41/2)was inherited from an apprentice trained craftsman, but the second was a long saved for No 6 which I could never get to work. _Very_ much later I discovered it was 25 thou concave, and so useless without hours of flattening.

Without significant work Record/Stanley are more carpenters tools; tuning up moves you into joinery and furniture, and very careful tuning towards trickier stuff and exotic timbers. Sole flattening really needs a Chinese granite surface plate (about 90 quid) and new blades and cap irons add 50 or more per plane assuming you know what you're doing.

The expensive stuff requires far less fiddling, and the castings will be fairly stable compared with chinese made (Record is made in China nowadays). However even LN plane castings will move in time and benefit from the surface plate now and again!


----------



## bugbear (7 Jul 2009)

ivan":2w4rfjcs said:


> Sole flattening really needs a Chinese granite surface plate (about 90 quid)



90 quid gets you a grade 'A' 12"x18" plate, which is OVERKILL accuracy (even with my metrology predilections) and big enough to manage a #7 on the diagonal:

You only need spend 35 quid to get a grade 'B' (check the spec before deciding you don't like the sound of grade 'B') 9"x12" plate, which will handle anything upto a #5 (on the diagonal).

These are APTC prices; Rutlands have increased the price of their 9x12 plate to 45 quid.

There's a couple of eBay shops that regularly have (new) granite surface plates at even better prices.

BugBear (who got his 9"x12" grade 'B' for a tenner


----------



## ivan (8 Jul 2009)

Agreed, Bugbear: 

*But* my granite plate (£86 from Axminster) is about 29" on the diagonal, _just_ big enough to get my No8 corner to corner.

Tilgear have 9x12 plates for under 30 quid, sometimes much less in their sales, but not quite a tenner!

I see in Ray Isles will grind your plane sole for £13 to 28 approx, No3 to No8. And sides square for shooting at £12.50.


----------

