# Anant and the credit crunch



## PerranOak (11 Oct 2008)

OK, I'd like to buy a smoothing plane for 300 quid but ... it's not gonna happen.

I bought an Anant plane but sent it back.

I'm not sure if I am at fault or the plane.

What do people buy?


----------



## matthewwh (11 Oct 2008)

You pays your money, you takes your choice!

Clifton No.4's are £195 new and the least expensive of the three main high quality manufacturers. 

Mujingfang do some excellent woodies if you are into them, as does Philly - a very nice looking coffin smoother for £100.

Stanley are apparently about to launch a range of veritasesque high performance planes and the rumours are that they will be about half the price of Veritas and LN - I'll keep you posted on progress with getting them in the UK. 

The other option is to go for secondhand, there are som beauties that pop up on ebay from time to time. Be prepared to spend some money for quality and allow yourself some time/money for getting it working properly. Another secondhand option is to give Ray Iles a ring at the old tool shop and ask him for one that he has reground.

Hope this gives you a few more mid-range options.

Cheers,

Matthew


----------



## joiner_sim (11 Oct 2008)

Okay, now.... I have a No.4 stanley smoothing plane. Yes, these are usually available for £40 and are the "cheap" option. But i do not see anything wrong with my stanley no.4 smoothing plane. I have used it on timber for normal use, and also for planing up lippings to veneers. I will say it has taken me ages to get the plane "just right" but for £40 who can complain. My point is, the price shouldn't really matter. Just get a highly recommended plane.


----------



## Racers (12 Oct 2008)

Hi,

I have loads (6) of Stanley/Record N04 I could let you have one for £15 plus postage all tuned and sharpened.


Pete


----------



## Oryxdesign (12 Oct 2008)

Racers":2a0i0cpk said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have loads (6) of Stanley/Record N04 I could let you have one for £15 plus postage all tuned and sharpened.
> 
> ...



A snap at that, you can't go wrong.


----------



## wizer (12 Oct 2008)

I have a record No.4 1/2 that MarkW tuned up. It works very very well. Put a bit of work into an old one and it will pay you back. Go to a boot fair, you might pick one up for a fiver.


----------



## WellsWood (12 Oct 2008)

wizer":1t52bfgn said:


> I have a record No.4 1/2



Yeah, you wish :wink: It's a No. 4 mate, I'm afraid - a 4 1/2 wouldn't have been given away _quite_ so lightly.

You're right though, it's quite surprising what you can wring out of some very cheap tools. The thing is, often you don't know whether decent performance is acheivable till you've made a considerable investment of time and effort. If it turns out that no matter what you do you've still got a dog, you'll quickly wish you'd spent the cash and bought a Clifton or similar. This is particularly true of Ebay purchases IMO- DAMHIKT :roll:


----------



## wizer (13 Oct 2008)

What's 1/2 between friends?


----------



## bugbear (13 Oct 2008)

MarkW":32vrvndw said:


> You're right though, it's quite surprising what you can wring out of some very cheap tools.



The difficulty is telling the cheap tools tools with potential (bargains) from the cheap tools without potential (junk).

BugBear


----------



## lurker (13 Oct 2008)

Racers":3ujyomwj said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have loads (6) of Stanley/Record N04 I could let you have one for £15 plus postage all tuned and sharpened.
> 
> Pete



Knowing how well Pete tunes em, I'd snap this offer up pronto.

THEN you have time to look around boots for one to do up yourself.
With patience you can get a bargain. At a fiver even a lemon is worth it for the parts & practice.

PS my "personal best" is six planes for a tenner from a garage sale :lol: :lol: :lol: 
3 X Stanley No 4s
1 x No 102
A "rubbish" all brass smoother (for parts)
Stanley bullnose


----------



## Tierney (15 Oct 2008)

My first plane was a Stanley No.4 which I bought new three years ago, I then invested in a David Charlesworth book and have been on a journey of discovery every since then. Despite being frustrated with the poor quality of the Stanley and the poor performance I have achieved (a lot down to my skill), I have been forced to fettle the plane and analyse my skill.

I still haven't flattened the sole completely; but, it has been a great learning experience

David
p.s. I now own some LNs, because even a tuned up new Stanley doesn't come close.


----------



## joiner_sim (15 Oct 2008)

I'm quite shocked at how many have agreed with me that the stanley No.4 ain't that bad after some TLC. 

For reference here is an old rusted up Record No.6 Foreplane (1950's) I was given. My pictures & progress don't really apply to a brand new plane, until after getting all the rust off. But these pictures show how well a plane can be fixed up. Now I must admit, this foreplane just sits in the bottom of my tool box and the stanley No.4 is my preferencial choice. However, when i do find a job that I need this plane for, I know its sharp and good enough for the work.
https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums...days=0&postorder=asc&highlight=record&start=0


----------



## bugbear (16 Oct 2008)

Tierney":f43qx3xm said:


> p.s. I now own some LNs, because even a tuned up new Stanley doesn't come close.



A tuned up OLD Stanley (or better, in the UK, old Record) might come closer.

Post 1980 UK planes are pretty much all poor, until Clifton entered the fray.

BugBear


----------



## matthewwh (16 Oct 2008)

Tierney":ukqrnanz said:


> I now own some LNs, because even a tuned up new Stanley doesn't come close.



A valid comment, but in fairness I'd be interested to see what LN could come up with on a budget of £40 including VAT, duty, distributor and retailer mark ups, packaging and shipping costs?

Turning that argument on its head we are shortly to see what Stanley can do when you give them a little more to play with. I've just - literally five minutes ago - received a confirmation from Stanley (UK) that the new premium range will be available over here in March 2009. 







They will be Ductile and A2, not my personal favourites, but much easier and faster to mass produce than making planes the way Clico do, which will be reflected in the price. 

The bodies will be ground to a tolerance of 3 thou, the same as Veritas (LN and Clifton work to half that) which is more than adequate for the job in hand. The irons will be substantial chunks of A2 and will be made in England, not that it really matters, but it's nice to know that there are some UK jobs coming out of the deal too.


----------



## Jack Plane (16 Oct 2008)

PerranOak":3bgqmyxg said:


> OK, I'd like to buy a smoothing plane for 300 quid but ... it's not gonna happen.
> 
> I bought an Anant plane but sent it back.
> 
> ...



I've got a couple of Anant planes and, admittedly, they both needed a little work on them straight out of the box. I gave the blade a good honing and did a small amount of fettling but thats all. When I consider the price I paid for them and cost of my time to tune them up, I've got two really good planes for not that much money. 

JP


----------



## bugbear (16 Oct 2008)

matthewwh":1ydtrmpv said:


> The bodies will be ground to a tolerance of 3 thou, the same as Veritas (LN and Clifton work to half that) which is more than adequate for the job in hand.



Over the years there has been substantial confusion in this area.

Is 3 thou quoted from Stanley total error, or maximum deviation from mean plane?

BugBear


----------



## matthewwh (16 Oct 2008)

Hi Bugbear,

As far as I know it's always the total error figure that is quoted.


----------



## TonyW (16 Oct 2008)

Article from Woodworking magazine weblog about the new Stanleys Here including some list prices.


----------



## tnimble (16 Oct 2008)

bugbear":55soygvm said:


> matthewwh":55soygvm said:
> 
> 
> > The bodies will be ground to a tolerance of 3 thou, the same as Veritas (LN and Clifton work to half that) which is more than adequate for the job in hand.
> ...



Beside that, what is also a very good question is when and what measured? Lets asume total error. Is that 3 thou on the firsts, lasts, standard deviation, mean or maximum? Is it measured before shipping, stocking, right after or during machining. And if right after or during machining, when are the parts machined? After stocking raw casts, after annealing or direct after emptying the molds?


----------



## matthewwh (16 Oct 2008)

Hi Laura,

I can't speak for the others as I haven't visited their production facilities but Cliftons are inspected twice, once after the final stages of grinding and then again immediately before they are packaged. These two stages are usually at least a week apart.




At each station there is a grade AA granite surface plate, a Moore & Wright grade 'A' straight edge and a 1.5 thou feeler gauge. The production manager places the plane on the surface plate and runs the feeler gauge around its perimeter. He then inverts the plane laying it across a tote and places the straight edge along its centreline and checks with the feeler gauge, he then turns the straightedge through 90 degrees and checks across the width at the toe, ahead of the mouth, behind the mouth and at the tail. Finally he lays the straightedge across both diagonals and checks them. 




This process gives them a working tolerance of +/- 0.75 thou on centreline or 1.5 thou total deviation. This is half the deviation allowed by British Standards, the idea being that if the plane is made on a cold February day in Sheffield and ends up being used in the blazing heat of Arizona it should still be well within British Standard (which itself has a big cushion before the functionality of the tool is affected) when it gets there.


----------



## bugbear (17 Oct 2008)

matthewwh":dr17b2ej said:


> Hi Bugbear,
> 
> As far as I know it's always the total error figure that is quoted.



By whom - all of them? That's certainly not normal engineering practice where a single tolerance figure is taken be plus-or-minus.

BugBear


----------



## matthewwh (17 Oct 2008)

Maybe it is easier to work with reference to British Standard which is 1.5 thou off centreline (3 thou total deviation). 

Veritas and Stanley (the new range) work to British standard. 

Clifton and Lie-Nielsen work to half that tolerance i.e. 0.75 thou off centreline (1.5 thou total deviation).


----------



## bugbear (17 Oct 2008)

matthewwh":nnlhqipq said:


> Maybe it is easier to work with reference to British Standard which is 1.5 thou off centreline (3 thou total deviation).
> 
> Veritas and Stanley (the new range) work to British standard.



Not true for Veritas, at least according to classic hand tools:

http://www.classichandtools.com/acatalo ... Plane.html

"The sole is guaranteed to be flat to 0.003" concave, never convex. "

BugBear


----------



## matthewwh (17 Oct 2008)

It's the same thing expressed differently. 

You can't actually measure against a centreline in practice, so it has to be measured as a unilateral tolerance against a flat surface as shown in the photos above. By definition this must be twice the maximum deviation from an imaginary centreline of deviation. 

Repeat the procedure in the photos above with a 3 thou feeler gauge and you are measuring to British Standard. Whether you refer to this as a 3 thou unilateral tolerance or a 1.5 thou bilateral tolerance in relation to an imaginary centreline is merely two different ways of expressing the same thing.

Having said that, I can imagine that a plane with even a thou of bump would rock audibly on the surface plate - as would a straightedge with a 1 thou feeler gauge under it, and I can't imagine any engineer would pass that. Maybe we have just answered your earlier question about why planemakers tend to refer to total deviation?


----------



## bugbear (17 Oct 2008)

matthewwh":g19k490h said:


> It's the same thing expressed differently.
> 
> You can't actually measure against a centreline in practice, so it has to be measured as a unilateral tolerance against a flat surface as shown in the photos above. By definition this must be twice the maximum deviation from an imaginary centreline of deviation.



I'm fairly sure that "never convex". implies that direction of error, as well as magnitude is being stated.

I think it also implies an assumption that the error is (what might loosely be termed) a "bow" as opposed to a more complex "ripple" or "bumpiness".

Working with those assumptions, I think it implies an accuracy equivalent to +-1.5 thou deviation from mean plane for Veritas, although Veritas do seem to be trying (quite hard) to express assymetric tolerances..

BugBear


----------



## matthewwh (17 Oct 2008)

Exactly, and as long as the total error still falls within the British standard of 3 thou total deviation the tool conforms. 

I must admit I have only ever lapped one plane sole that was convex and that was a Norris - steel as opposed to cast iron - very long process - never again!!! All the non-flat cast plane bodies I have worked on have invariably been low in the centre - usually cheaper ones that probably haven't been annealed or ground properly. 

It makes sense if you think that the outside of a casting cools first, then the as the inside cools and contracts it would tend to draw the middle of a surface inwards. If heat is reintroduced during grinding then the cooling process after grinding would cause the same effect - albeit limited - on the ground surface. This is why Cliffies are ground so slowly, about 14 minutes for each face with a constant flow of coolant and time for the heat from each pass to dissipate before the next one starts, so there is no chance for the heat to build up.

I believe Ductile is easier and faster to machine accurately than fully annealed grey although I'm not sure of the specifics, has anyone visited the LN or Veritas production facilities?


----------



## PerranOak (19 Oct 2008)

Thanks guys. (Sorry. Been away for a while!)

My prob is that I can't get on with powered planes but the hand planes I've bought (both Anant) I've been unable to use.

My problem is that though I can just about sharpen (Hone? Maybe!) a chisel, a plane is a bit beyond me just now.

I need a plane I can just ... well ... use!

Many thanks to Pete for his offer.

I'm also very interested in the Clifton planes mentioned above. I need, I guess, a smoothing plane and a jack plane at the very least. Maybe, also a block plane.

I would rather try to get it right with a plane than botch it then attempt to "sand my way out of trouble"!


----------



## bugbear (20 Oct 2008)

matthewwh":2888gdzt said:


> Exactly, and as long as the total error still falls within the British standard of 3 thou total deviation the tool conforms.



The fact that an item conforms to a particular spec doesn't mean that the spec fully describes the item, of course.

BugBear


----------



## lurker (21 Oct 2008)

PerranOak":2skh9lm7 said:


> Thanks guys. (Sorry. Been away for a while!)
> 
> My prob is that I can't get on with powered planes but the hand planes I've bought (both Anant) I've been unable to use.
> 
> ...



We have had this discussion soooooooo many times.
PO, even if you buy the best planes going ,you will HAVE to learn to tune & hone (unless you are going to put them in a glass case) them.

So..... here's your choice 

- spend a heap of cash on a brilliant plane & risk F ing it up whilst learning honeing.
Or take Pete up on his most generous offer, see & use a plane as it should be and then learn to hone - should you cock up its no big loss.


----------



## PerranOak (21 Oct 2008)

Yes! Exactly.

The problem was, the Anant plane was unusable ... or .. am I just a dill?!

At least with Pete's plane, if I'm rubbish, I'll know it's my fault!


----------



## edsof754 (29 Oct 2008)

I bought a plane from Pete. Excellent value. Thank you


----------



## PerranOak (30 Oct 2008)

Yes! Thank you very much Pete.
It has arrived and I've tried it out.
I'm now hissing along nicely.
It obviously was a duff plane that I had before.
My technique still needs honing but at least the plane doesn't (!)


----------



## Racers (30 Oct 2008)

Hi, Chaps

Glad they arrived safely, I still have some left if any one wants one.


Pete


----------



## Bassbear81 (30 Oct 2008)

Pete

Did you get my pm, you were going to get back to me about postage.

Cheers


----------



## Benchwayze (30 Oct 2008)

I bought a new LN Bronze No4, Bedrock pattern smoother and a used LN Low-angle Jack. 

Of the two I prefer the low angle jack. So far it’s left a beautiful finish on every sample I’ve planed with it. 

I don’t know if I have to 'work-in' the new No. 4 blade, but I am finding it difficult to get a curve on the hone and subsequently it leaves tramlines. The shavings are not as thin as I can get with my old, fettled Stanley to be honest. It either refuses to cut, or it takes a shaving that is about the same as the average bench-jack.

Unwittingly I laid the plane on its side today, on my bench and onto some crumbs of mahogany that I had overlooked. These chippings marked the bronze with tiny scratches. Very soft I would say, but I'll perservere. 

Regards
John 
:?


----------



## Racers (1 Nov 2008)

Hi,

Number 4s all spoken for. :wink: 

Pete


----------



## Benchwayze (1 Nov 2008)

Racers":2oez3h86 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Number 4s all spoken for. :wink:
> 
> Pete



Well Pete, if that was meant for me, no probs! I won't let a plane beat me. I am quite sure it's my unfamiliarity wth this 'Bedrock' thing! I will sort it eventually. 

Cheers
John


----------



## newt (1 Nov 2008)

Benchways, I have a LN bronze no4 and it is great no problems at all, very flat sole, half a thou shavings honest.


----------



## newt (1 Nov 2008)

Benchwayze, I should add that I have an LA bevel up jack which is more versatile which is what I would choose if I only had one plane.


----------



## Benchwayze (1 Nov 2008)

Hi Newt, 
Yes, I agree entirely. Now I bought a used Bevel-up LN Jack, I wouldn't be without it. 
I just got through fine-tuning it and the No. 4. I'll photograph some shavings tomorrow! 
Thanks again

John


----------



## PerranOak (2 Nov 2008)

I am well chuffed!

I spent hours making shavings like whisps of pure ether wafting effortlessly off the blade with a hiss soft as an angel's kiss.

True the 18 mil shelf I was making is now 15 mil but I couldn't stop myself! I tell you what, it's flat though but!

Cheers Pete. I now understand the importance of proper and properly sharpened tools!


----------



## bugbear (3 Nov 2008)

PerranOak":2whpn9gg said:


> I am well chuffed!
> 
> I spent hours making shavings like whisps of pure ether wafting effortlessly off the blade with a hiss soft as an angel's kiss.



How many times did you sharpen?

BugBear


----------



## PerranOak (3 Nov 2008)

None! And still she sings!


----------



## Benchwayze (3 Nov 2008)

Hi Perran, 

Now you have found out what a properly sharpened and set plane can really do, don't be idle like me and go a 'shaving too far' before you take the iron to a stone. 

I hereby nominate you as the Forum 'Poet-Arboreate'; such a way with words you have, though-but. 

All the best. 
John   ccasion5:


----------



## lurker (3 Nov 2008)

PerranOak":jnvcs3yv said:


> I am well chuffed!
> 
> I spent hours making shavings like whisps of pure ether wafting effortlessly off the blade with a hiss soft as an angel's kiss.
> 
> ...



The next revelation is when you manage to sharpen a blade as well as Pete. And the one after that is when you aquire a manky old car boot plane & do a "Pete" on it.

By the way, Pete makes beautiful planes from scratch. He is far too modest to say so himself, but he might be induced to post a few pictures


----------



## Mikey R (3 Nov 2008)

lurker":3oiz5r5a said:


> The next revelation is when you manage to sharpen a blade as well as Pete. And the one after that is when you aquire a manky old car boot plane & do a "Pete" on it.
> 
> By the way, Pete makes beautiful planes from scratch. He is far too modest to say so himself, but he might be induced to post a few pictures



Im pleased to hear that, I think I got the last of Petes no 4s, and really looking forward to it ariving in the post!

EDIT: it arrived this morning


----------



## PerranOak (8 Nov 2008)

Benchwayze":29vngi41 said:


> Hi Perran,
> 
> Now you have found out what a properly sharpened and set plane can really do, don't be idle like me and go a 'shaving too far' before you take the iron to a stone.
> 
> ...



Benchwayze,

Thank you for your nomination. :wink: 

If I had half the skill with wood that I have with words, I'd have twice as much as I do with sharpening.

I have a stone and one of those eclipse guides. I've sharpened a chisel to an acceptable edge but a plane! Daunting!

If I destroyed Pete's perfection I'd be mortified!


----------



## bugbear (10 Nov 2008)

PerranOak":onrd8p7a said:


> I have a stone and one of those eclipse guides. I've sharpened a chisel to an acceptable edge but a plane! Daunting!
> 
> If I destroyed Pete's perfection I'd be mortified!



It's probably already blunt. Sharpening is NOT avoidable.

BugBear


----------



## PerranOak (12 Nov 2008)

True but I can't even sharpen a chisel yet!


----------



## frugal (14 Nov 2008)

I find chisels far harder to sharpen than plane blades as there is a higher possibility of them skewing when in the sharpening jig.


----------



## PerranOak (14 Nov 2008)

Oh.

What about making them (for a smoothing plane) curved at the ends?


----------



## Benchwayze (14 Nov 2008)

PerranOak":1m0fobrt said:


> Oh.
> 
> What about making them (for a smoothing plane) curved at the ends?




That's where the Eclipse guide comes into its own Perran. Mind you, I have a sneaking supicion that a slightly hollowed stone also helps.


----------



## Losos (14 Nov 2008)

bugbear":j7mzlvjc said:


> A tuned up OLD Stanley (or better, in the UK, old Record) might come closer.
> 
> Post 1980 UK planes are pretty much all poor, until Clifton entered the fray.
> 
> BugBear



Agree, in the 1970's I aquired some *Record planes*, it was literally many *years* before I really knew how to fettle them and more years beyond before I was able *to sharpen them properly *but now i find they work a treat. Obviously not up to LN or Veritas standard, but I'm quite happy with them now.


----------



## frugal (15 Nov 2008)

PerranOak":z6xts9qq said:


> Oh.
> 
> What about making them (for a smoothing plane) curved at the ends?



I have not figured out how to do that properly, which is one of many reasons why I have not managed to crack face planing wood - I end up with track lines from the corners of the blade ;(


----------



## Ironballs (15 Nov 2008)

I've bought a camber roller for my Veritas MkII jig, not used it yet but will hopefully nicely round the edges and get rid of those track lines


----------



## thejhw (15 Nov 2008)

Ironballs":3drhnbpe said:


> I've bought a camber roller for my Veritas MkII jig, not used it yet but will hopefully nicely round the edges and get rid of those track lines



I hope you'll let us know how you get on with it, IB: I have been thinking of getting one myself.

Jim


----------



## Paul Chapman (15 Nov 2008)

frugal":2smunrpm said:


> PerranOak":2smunrpm said:
> 
> 
> > Oh.
> ...



If you want to get rid of the sharp corners of the blade, just run the corners along the sharpening stone - that will get rid of it. Alternatively, if you want to camber the corners slightly, finger pressure on one side of the blade, then the other, will do it. This would work with virtually any type of honing guide.

Hope this helps.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------

