# Collector anonymous



## shed9 (12 Jan 2018)

As I've seen the use of the word collector used both positively and negatively on many woodworking forums, I feel the urge to ask - At what point do you become a collector, and is it positive or negative?

Possibly strange question I know but I read a thread recently on another forum and you would think they were discussing the morality of capital punishment.


----------



## Rorschach (12 Jan 2018)

For me a collector would be someone who purchases and seeks to purchase what are essentially duplicate items of things they already own for the pleasure of owning it rather than the necessity of needing or wanting to use it.

Example, someone who has 2 or 3 no.4 planes would just be a woodworker, someone who has 10 and still looks to buy more would be a collector.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (12 Jan 2018)

If it's your money, your time and it harms nobody else, it's nobody's business but your own. Thus, if it brings you pleasure, it's positive.

When do you become a collector? That's trickier - maybe when you have more tools than you actually need. So that's most of us, then!


----------



## Bod (12 Jan 2018)

Cheshirechappie":1zk0jiyw said:


> If it's your money, your time and it harms nobody else, it's nobody's business but your own. Thus, if it brings you pleasure, it's positive.
> 
> When do you become a collector? That's trickier - maybe when you have more tools than you actually need. So that's most of us, then!




Guilty as charged.

Bod


----------



## shed9 (12 Jan 2018)

Bod":3t4gh4ew said:


> Cheshirechappie":3t4gh4ew said:
> 
> 
> > If it's your money, your time and it harms nobody else, it's nobody's business but your own. Thus, if it brings you pleasure, it's positive.
> ...



Same here, hence the question.

I've seen arguments of taking tools out of circulation, negatively impacting prices for everyone else and even that it dilutes the craft itself.


----------



## StraightOffTheArk (12 Jan 2018)

I'd say it's when owning a tool is more important than using it - I seem to remember that Alf said something to the effect that she wasn't a collector, but had a lot of choice when it came to which one to use! Which, thanks to the relative cheapness of 2nd hand tools probably describes most of us.

Must admit that I don't understand the pejorative overtones - tools are great, their history is fascinating, their practical use (in the hands of others!) often breathtaking and the theory deeply interesting, something for everyone!

Cheers,

Carl


----------



## bugbear (12 Jan 2018)

I recall a "user" wanting to know the exact spec of a part, so that a cheaply bought tool could be restored and used.

One of those HORRIBLE collectors had a mint, unused version, and was able to provide all the measurements.  

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (12 Jan 2018)

Yes, it may spoil a good argument, but there are pros and cons on both sides. 

I have more tools than I need, but I enjoy using nearly all of them, so I think I'm not "just" a collector. But then, if I bought some cooper's tools, just because I liked them, I'd have no intention of making my own barrels, so I would definitely be a collector. And one or two of my tools are too old and knackered to be put to use, but are interesting objects.

I think the "more than you need" argument is a weak one too. Nobody would seriously expect a pottery enthusiast to only have one teapot, to make tea in, when there are so many thousands of teapots out there, all different, all with a tale to tell of materials and makers. Same sort of thing with tools.


----------



## shed9 (12 Jan 2018)

StraightOffTheArk":1kvaaw19 said:


> I'd say it's when owning a tool is more important than using it - I seem to remember that Alf said something to the effect that she wasn't a collector, but had a lot of choice when it came to which one to use!


That makes sense as a definition and I agree with the concept of greater choice (within reason of course).



bugbear":1kvaaw19 said:


> I recall a "user" wanting to know the exact spec of a part, so that a cheaply bought tool could be restored and used.
> 
> One of those HORRIBLE collectors had a mint, unused version, and was able to provide all the measurements.
> 
> BugBear


I suppose that would also add to the description, whether or not the tool actually gets used or stored and displayed.


----------



## D_W (12 Jan 2018)

A collector is someone who buys something they don't need. 

A user is the same self-defined person who complained that the collector paid too much and made the tool unaffordable for them. 

On a more serious note, positive or negative, I don't know. I don't love it when collectors buy washitas, but I do like the fact (a museum employee reminded me of this) that most of the pristine examples of older tools are around and will be around because collectors acquired them and took care of them without using them.


----------



## Bod (12 Jan 2018)

In my defence, I will see and buy a rough condition tool cheap, return it to a usable state, and use it.
Till I see a better one, (often as cheap, as the rough one) then I have two,or three.....
How do I get rid of the first?
Car boot, auction, local adds...easier to put into "stock". Thus I became a "collector".
Had to teach myself, saw sharpening, brought from carboots, £1-2 each, cleaned, sharpened, sold at carboot 50p-£1 just to get rid of. (had some knowledgable comments on the good sharpening, but they all were either retired, or used hardpoint.)
Still have too many, anyone interested in tenon saws?, most of the bigger ones have gone.
Am I a collector by default?

Bod


----------



## Tasky (12 Jan 2018)

Collecting is basically organised hoarding. 



shed9":2uh32b6h said:


> As I've seen the use of the word collector used both positively and negatively on many woodworking forums, I feel the urge to ask - At what point do you become a collector, and is it positive or negative?


I'd surmise that you become a tool collector when you own more multiples of a specific thing (say, Marples chisels, or No. 5½ planes) than you'll likely have need of or use for, or you just amass a large number of tools in general for the express purpose of having them rather than using them. 
Same for most things, really. 

There's having four or five different spokeshaves, with perhaps a second of each as backup, to give you a choice... and then there's having multiples of each kind, from each year of manufacture, especially if you don't even know how they work. 
If they're organised away or on display in cabinets, perhaps lovingly restored, you're a definite collector. If they're displayed and open to visitors, you're a museum. If they're gathering dust in some cardboard box somewhere, you're hoarding... even if you always plan on sorting them out, but never manage to get around to it. 

Whether this is good or bad depends on who you ask. 
Some people "collect" original flash battery cases from Graflex cameras, much to the annoyance of Graflex camera enthusiasts... later on, these "collections" end up being sold to replica prop makers, who use them to make Star Wars Lightsaber replicas... because the handle of Luke's original blue Lightsaber was a Graflex camera flash battery tube. 
The Graflex club are incensed by this wanton destruction of an original piece of history, especially since other people out there make perfect copies of the things precisely for use in Lightsabers. 

I know several people with quite large prop collections, worth more than the houses they're stored in. Some hide their stuff away from everyone, letting them rot in cardboard boxes... Others take pics of everything and post them online for people to see. A couple actually exhibit them at public events. 

I guess it's up to you whether depriving another woodworker of a tool they could use is worth you having a ninety-third No4 plane in your collection, or not. Perhaps if it helps to kill off the whole hobby of woodworking with hand tools, it would actually _increase _the value of your collection...?
Sounds pretty selfish if you're looking for that blasted router plane that Paul Sellers keeps advocating, until you learn that tool collection is what will one day send the collector's grand-daughter to nursing school...


----------



## StraightOffTheArk (12 Jan 2018)

Bod":2xeeg24u said:


> In my defence, I will see and buy a rough condition tool cheap, return it to a usable state, and use it.
> Till I see a better one, (often as cheap, as the rough one) then I have two,or three.....
> 
> Bod



I'm sure that this is also true of many of us - but there is a difference between you and a true collector because of your reasons for acquiring the tool in the first place. By the way, if you can be faffed with packaging, ebay is generally a much more profitable way of getting rid of excess tools, then you'll have even more money to buy more tools! There's also various charities that specialise in distributing tools.

Carl


----------



## AndyT (12 Jan 2018)

In response to Tasky, if nobody collects stuff, it gets chucked out and disappears.
Conversely, as more people get the idea that old tools are sometimes worth a bit, they will make the effort to offer them for sale, keeping them in circulation.


----------



## shed9 (12 Jan 2018)

Tasky":11utvnht said:


> Some people "collect" original flash battery cases from Graflex cameras, much to the annoyance of Graflex camera enthusiasts... later on, these "collections" end up being sold to replica prop makers, who use them to make Star Wars Lightsaber replicas... because the handle of Luke's original blue Lightsaber was a Graflex camera flash battery tube.
> The Graflex club are incensed by this wanton destruction of an original piece of history, especially since other people out there make perfect copies of the things precisely for use in Lightsabers.


It could be argued that Star Wars enthusiasts are incensed that Graflex club members are depleting the stock of much needed prop material especially when there are perfect copies out for them to use with their camera's.


----------



## Bod (12 Jan 2018)

StraightOffTheArk":1ip1pjgp said:


> Bod":1ip1pjgp said:
> 
> 
> > In my defence, I will see and buy a rough condition tool cheap, return it to a usable state, and use it.
> ...



Ideas, ideas.....

Bod


----------



## Cheshirechappie (12 Jan 2018)

There are different levels of affliction. 

There are those who bought some Jennings pattern bits .... then desperately hunted about to fill in the gaps, 'cos you need a set. Then discovered the hard way that two or three sizes get used quite a lot, two or three occasionally, and the rest not at all, so they decide that since they have some Jennings bits, they don't need Irwin pattern bits. That's the mild version. (That's about my level. Give or take a hundred chisels or so...)

There are those who need an example of every size of Bailey-type bench plane made. That's a bit more hardcore.

Then there are those who need every size of bench plane, and a sample of each size by every manufacturer. That's very hardcore.

Then there are those who need every size, example by every manufacturer, and every version that each manufacturer made. Now we're getting into major OCD territory.... and as for actually using them - that would damage the original patina. We can't have that!


----------



## Tasky (12 Jan 2018)

AndyT":12dx2r8q said:


> In response to Tasky, if nobody collects stuff, it gets chucked out and disappears.


Or sold on straight away... 
I don't recall ever seeing a _collection_ of router planes for sale, but I have seen many 'sets' of woodworking tools containing one of everything, though... 



shed9":12dx2r8q said:


> It could be argued that Star Wars enthusiasts are incensed that Graflex club members are depleting the stock of much needed prop material especially when there are perfect copies out for them to use with their camera's.


The Graflex club can't buy replicas (which I think are also 'non-usable' anyway), as the point is to preserve original pieces, intact and restore any others if able. 
Kinda like saying you don't need an original old wood plane, when there's a nice new Stanley-clone in B&Q for a fiver...


----------



## thetyreman (12 Jan 2018)

collecting for the sake of collecting is annoying, I can't even begin to imagine how many amazing tools there must be out there, that may never be used by a craftsman


----------



## shed9 (12 Jan 2018)

thetyreman":3hei2fne said:


> collecting for the sake of collecting is annoying, I can't even begin to imagine how many amazing tools there must be out there, that may never be used by a craftsman


I suppose the bottom line is that nothing really gets taken out of circulation forever, it's just a potential issue (depending on your viewpoint) whilst in the custodianship of the 'collector'.


----------



## nabs (12 Jan 2018)

(in the UK) are there actually any commonly used hand tools that have become rare (for whatever reason)? 

I'd say 'no' (including the router planes that Tasky keeps banging on about!). 

As said above, interest in hand tools, no matter what the reason, actually increases the supply as tools that would have otherwise ended up in skip/on the fire/on a shelf are offered for sale.

To answer the OP's question, I'd say a collector will make a purchase because of the pleasure of ownership, thrill of the chase etc and needs no other justification. And if that floats their boat, good for them


----------



## Tasky (12 Jan 2018)

nabs":2h59939k said:


> I'd say 'no' (including the router planes that Tasky keeps banging on about!).


Depends how you define 'rare'...
I cite routers as just the first thing I can think of that I had trouble finding (got one now), probably because I was on the tail end of a Sellers Fan Wave. 

But anything that lots of people may own, yet hardly ever comes on the market, could be also considered rare - In the same way a particular specialist plane that was only ever made for a few years might be. 
Plus they don't last forever and for every rusted up No 4 that gets lovingly restored, there's probably 2 or 3 that rust beyond recovery.


----------



## sunnybob (12 Jan 2018)

A collector is someone who pays full retail (or more) for something, just because he can.

My pet hate is motorcycle collectors. I have seen barns FILLED with British motorcycles that cant possibly be ever used, and are hidden away under massive security because they are "worth" so much to other collectors.

If they were on the open market, i might then be able to afford one of them.


----------



## thetyreman (12 Jan 2018)

sunnybob":3vsr1o5n said:


> A collector is someone who pays full retail (or more) for something, just because he can.
> 
> My pet hate is motorcycle collectors. I have seen barns FILLED with British motorcycles that cant possibly be ever used, and are hidden away under massive security because they are "worth" so much to other collectors.
> 
> If they were on the open market, i might then be able to afford one of them.



:lol:


----------



## bugbear (12 Jan 2018)

sunnybob":3bnvxcud said:


> A collector is someone who pays full retail (or more) for something, just because he can.
> 
> My pet hate is motorcycle collectors. I have seen barns FILLED with British motorcycles that cant possibly be ever used, and are hidden away under massive security because they are "worth" so much to other collectors.
> 
> If they were on the open market, i might then be able to afford one of them.


They are on the open market. You just can't afford them!

BugBear


----------



## D_W (12 Jan 2018)

sunnybob":gdnxllxx said:


> A collector is someone who pays full retail (or more) for something, just because he can.
> 
> My pet hate is motorcycle collectors. I have seen barns FILLED with British motorcycles that cant possibly be ever used, and are hidden away under massive security because they are "worth" so much to other collectors.
> 
> If they were on the open market, i might then be able to afford one of them.



Your collectors over there are different than ours over here. Some of the collectors here are cutthroat and dishonest and will lie to pay as little as they can. 

I'm not familiar with the type who show up to Brown's auction and spend $25,000 on a plane, but those people probably aren't at the auction, anyway.


----------



## profchris (12 Jan 2018)

I honestly can't see that tool collectors drive up prices. Is there a hand tool which you can't buy a working example of for substantially less than half the price of an equivalent new tool? Obviously historic tools, no longer made, are exceptions, so I guess I have some (slight) sympathy for someone who wants a Norris smoother as a purely working tool but can't get one for £30 ...

Pure collectors, i.e. those who won't use their tools because it diminishes their originality/condition, are looking at maybe only 1% of sales, probably less. That has no effect on prices in the rest of the market.


----------



## sunnybob (13 Jan 2018)

bugbear":2zjgd9kf said:


> sunnybob":2zjgd9kf said:
> 
> 
> > A collector is someone who pays full retail (or more) for something, just because he can.
> ...


 In 1968, I owned two BSA rocket gold stars, as well as a couple of other BSA twins. They were each the same price as roughly three weeks wages or less (one 650 cost me a tenner because the seat was ripped).
when i got married in 72, I had to GIVE them away because no one would buy them.
A RGS is now for sale at £24,000, and no, I cant find that kind of money in any way short of robbing a bank, so yes i blame collectors.

I spoke to a "collector" about his perfect Gold star on the exhibition stand and asked him how often he rode it. his answer was "its too valuable to ride".
I rest my case.

The same thing applies to tools, but on a reduced scale thats all.


----------



## shed9 (13 Jan 2018)

sunnybob":3dhpjt13 said:


> In 1968, I owned two BSA rocket gold stars, as well as a couple of other BSA twins. They were each the same price as roughly three weeks wages or less (one 650 cost me a tenner because the seat was ripped).
> when i got married in 72, I had to GIVE them away because no one would buy them.
> A RGS is now for sale at £24,000, and no, I cant find that kind of money in any way short of robbing a bank, so yes i blame collectors.
> 
> ...


Do you not see the contradictory nature of your complaint though? They may have had a disposable value in 1972, but thanks to collectors and enthusiasts there are still working examples around now. Yes they cost significantly more but this market does not exist to sell you your nostalgia back to you at a convenient moment for a reasonable price. 

I suspect they fetch circa £24,000 because someone or a number of someones cared enough to keep an early sixties bike in their collective possessions for over 50 years. That includes all the storage, transport, accumulative repairs and maintenance. This would not have been predominantly down to collectors but I suspect they've played an important part in this process.


----------



## nabs (13 Jan 2018)

yep - collectors preserve the overall levels of "stock" by buying up good items and looking after them. Interest drives up demand and as a result some items that would have been scrapped are saved, but over a long enough period stock levels decrease due to wear an tear and the price goes up.

frustrating if you want an inexpensive BSA Gold Star but not really relevant to UK based hand-tool woodworkers where there is an abundant supply of good quality old tools.


----------



## sunnybob (13 Jan 2018)

The main pint has slightly gone astray. A collection for the sake of having a collection is a bad thing. 
Bikes, cars, or tools, a collection that is never used and cannot be accessed by many is worthless except to the collector.

tools that are taken out of circulation drive up the price of the remainder. Luckily with old tools the prices are still mostly in the affordable band.

I think i remember this quote correctly, even after many years, but here goes;
A collector knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (13 Jan 2018)

There's another angle.

Collectors have pushed up the prices of some older tools to the point where others feel they can fill a gap making new copies, or similar versions. Thus, users now have the choice to buy vintage or new.

If second hand tools in good usable order were readily available and cheap, there would be no (or a much smaller) market for new versions. Thus, maybe the collectors have done all of us a favour.


----------



## custard (13 Jan 2018)

The word "collector" covers a huge range of different behaviours. The behaviour I see most often amongst woodworkers is "completionism", the urge to complete a set. So if there are a dozen different widths of chisel produced by a manufacturer then many woodworkers feel they're inadequately equipped unless they have all twelve.

Will a woodworker's projects suffer if there are chisel sizing gaps in their toolbox? Not really.

Is that the best use of a budding woodworker's budget? I doubt it.

Is set completing a sin? Don't be daft, no-one dies.


----------



## shed9 (13 Jan 2018)

sunnybob":1sryfb3x said:


> The main pint has slightly gone astray. A collection for the sake of having a collection is a bad thing.
> Bikes, cars, or tools, a collection that is never used and cannot be accessed by many is worthless except to the collector.



I appreciate your point of view sunnybob, but the lack of use of that tool is only during the period of that collectors ownership, it's not forever. Maybe those bikes, cars or tools would not exist in the now and the future if it weren't for collectors being involved in the flow of ownership.

Also not sure that a collection for the sake of collection is negative. Where do you draw the line? Somethings have no actual use other than being collected.


----------



## bugbear (13 Jan 2018)

shed9":1h78x7bg said:


> I appreciate your point of view sunnybob, but the lack of use of that tool is only during the period of that collectors ownership, it's not forever.


Some things are too precious, and the knowledge they embody too rare, to be used, and eventually used up.

Surely no-one would advocate hauling the Benjamin Seaton tools out of their chest, giving them a quick blast on a grinder, and using them?

BugBear


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Jan 2018)

sunnybob":3ks3d0ee said:


> I think i remember this quote correctly, even after many years, but here goes;
> A collector knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing.




It was Oscar Wilde that famously said “What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing”


----------



## Cheshirechappie (13 Jan 2018)

bugbear":11cs1wb0 said:


> shed9":11cs1wb0 said:
> 
> 
> > I appreciate your point of view sunnybob, but the lack of use of that tool is only during the period of that collectors ownership, it's not forever.
> ...



Perhaps not, but more than one person has made careful study of Seaton's tools, made (as close as they can) replicas, and used those. In some cases, offering them for sale.

Seaton's tools may never be used, but the fact that they still exist to study is a great deal better than just having references in literature.


----------



## profchris (13 Jan 2018)

Cheshirechappie":11epu2c6 said:


> bugbear":11epu2c6 said:
> 
> 
> > shed9":11epu2c6 said:
> ...



I think all three of you are on the same side of this argument.

One day we'll invent a material which can only be worked with one of those Stanley fibreboard planes, and then we'll all thank the collectors because otherwise they'd all be in landfill


----------



## Cheshirechappie (13 Jan 2018)

profchris":2mx81bkp said:


> I think all three of you are on the same side of this argument.
> 
> One day we'll invent a material which can only be worked with one of those Stanley fibreboard planes, and then we'll all thank the collectors because otherwise they'd all be in landfill



Indeed - pretty much.

Fibreboard planes do indeed have a use. They can crop up in those 'What's it for?' articles having a photo of a fagging hook, 19th century mole trap or similar. They could be quite a good puzzle, because very few people found a use for them first time round!


----------



## richarnold (13 Jan 2018)

As a user, and a "collector of woodworking tools, I have found this an interesting discussion. Some of the tools I use in my everyday work, IE Norris, and other infill planes would be perhaps considered collectors items, and on occasion I have been told that I should perhaps not be using them for everyday use, but as they are cared for, I see no harm in using them.
Approaching this from the other side, I have been collecting 18th century woodworking tools, mainly planes, for over 20 years now, and the "collection" possibly amounts to over a thousand artifacts. the reason for amassing such a large amount of items is not collecting as such , but more an attempt to create a working archive for people to study. As to where this archive may end up in the future is proving to be a bit of a headache, as my initial enquiries to date have drawn a bit of a blank, with no suitable institutions in the uk that have shown much interest. For now the collection is serving its purpose, in that people interested in this field can contact me for information, images, and measurement's. This has already proved useful for some modern plane makers wanting to reproduce 18th century copies.
As to whether "collectors" are inflating prices, I'm not so sure, as over the years I have observed a steady decline in value for most collectable woodworking tools. As an example, my Norris panel plane at one point would have possibly fetched a four figure sum, but in recent times it would struggle to make £400.00 pounds. 18th century collectable woodworking planes now sell for a pitiful amount. In the 80's and 90's a Robert Wooding moulding plane would have set you back in the region of 3-400 pounds. they now sell at auction for as little as £70.00.


----------



## bugbear (13 Jan 2018)

richarnold":3vjqb4o1 said:


> The reason for amassing such a large amount of items is not collecting as such , but more an attempt to create a working archive for people to study.


I had forgotten that point - studying one old tool is fine and interesting.

But being able to look at a _range_ (either across time, makers, regions or whatever), allows valuable information about lines of development to be seen.

This is only possible in a large, well documented collection. This may sound like a museum. Yes, museums have collections.

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (13 Jan 2018)

But not so many museums have collections of tools on display.

For example, the Science Museum owns a lot of tools but last time I visited I couldn't see any.
The museum in St Albans owns the collection of the late RA Salaman - author of two superb dictionaries of tools - but they are all in storage, not accessible to the ordinary visitor.

Richard's collection is superb - and it's great for the rest of us that he does so much to share it with us.

The most significant UK tool collection is of course that of the late Ken Hawley, who personally rescued thousands of items of Sheffield's history from the skip, the scrap man and the bonfire.
Fortunately that story has a happy ending and some of the collection is easily seen at Kelham Island, where a crew of volunteers look after it.


----------



## shed9 (13 Jan 2018)

richarnold":3q1cwwud said:


> Approaching this from the other side, I have been collecting 18th century woodworking tools, mainly planes, for over 20 years now, and the "collection" possibly amounts to over a *thousand* artifacts.


 :shock: 

I'd love to see that.



richarnold":3q1cwwud said:


> As to where this archive may end up in the future is proving to be a bit of a headache, as my initial enquiries to date have drawn a bit of a blank, with no suitable institutions in the uk that have shown much interest..


I can strangely see how that is a reality and I do hope you resolve this.


----------



## shed9 (13 Jan 2018)

AndyT":1fgmf1c1 said:


> But not so many museums have collections of tools on display.



Maybe a museum is not the right path for this type of collection, maybe bolting something onto a school or collection of schools and regarded individuals.


----------



## AndyT (13 Jan 2018)

To shed9 and anyone else who's interested in Richard's collection.
Since 2014, Richard has held a summer open day at his workshop where his collection - and much more besides - has been accessible. (These days have also raised thousands of pounds for Macmillan Cancer Support.)

This thread has some pictures from the first one, though Photobucket has removed some pics.

workshop-open-week-end-charity-event-update-t78163.html?hilit=Charity%20open&start=30

I also recommend looking at his posts on Instagram - you can see them without signing up if you prefer
https://www.instagram.com/arnold_richard/


----------



## nabs (13 Jan 2018)

Hopefully the Salaman collection will go back on display when the new St Albans museum is complete. 

I think Richard's point on pricing is evidence that interest from whatever quarter, collectors or users, results in items that would have been dumped/sat unloved on a shelf somewhere going into circulation in a way that benefits everyone.

The years of effort that have gone into collections of the type put together by Richard, Salaman and others are important -and these two examples specifically are good examples of collecting with the best intentions. To be applauded IMO!

PS in the interst of full disclosure, as far as I know I am not a collector of anything apart from bad habits. I do have three #4 bench planes though


----------



## AndyT (13 Jan 2018)

I have just looked at the website for the new museum and it's very close to reaching its fundraising target 

http://www.stalbansmuseumsandgalleriest ... st-albans/

And the video of the curator specifically mentions the Salaman Collection, so finger crossed for a big reopening this year.


----------



## Tasky (13 Jan 2018)

richarnold":8n02zzy7 said:


> As to whether "collectors" are inflating prices, I'm not so sure, as over the years I have observed a steady decline in value for most collectable woodworking tools. As an example, my Norris panel plane at one point would have possibly fetched a four figure sum, but in recent times it would struggle to make £400.00 pounds.


Prices are just what people will pay for things. 
If you're talking "collector's items" like coins or cars, the prices are always high... and yet the actual value given them by whatever experts or official sources there are on the subject tends to be massively lower. 
A MkII Supra is valued at maybe a few hundred quid, but the price of them is past £10,000 because collectors will pay that much.


----------



## bugbear (13 Jan 2018)

Tasky":1y8znkau said:


> richarnold":1y8znkau said:
> 
> 
> > As to whether "collectors" are inflating prices, I'm not so sure, as over the years I have observed a steady decline in value for most collectable woodworking tools. As an example, my Norris panel plane at one point would have possibly fetched a four figure sum, but in recent times it would struggle to make £400.00 pounds.
> ...


If the "expert valuers" aren't predicting the actual prices, I wouldn't call them "expert".

BugBear


----------



## MarkDennehy (14 Jan 2018)

custard":1eswvo0y said:


> The word "collector" covers a huge range of different behaviours. The behaviour I see most often amongst woodworkers is "completionism", the urge to complete a set.


_*looks at the spare spot on his wall where a Record 02 would go*_

Oh pipper.


----------



## D_W (14 Jan 2018)

One more spoof definition:
* collector - someone who buys something for more than you'll pay
* user - someone who wanted to buy something you have two of, but won't pay as much as you


----------



## Tasky (15 Jan 2018)

bugbear":2gbepqkx said:


> If the "expert valuers" aren't predicting the actual prices, I wouldn't call them "expert".


A Krugerrand is 1 troy oz. of fine gold. 
The value of 1oz of gold, at this time of checking, is £940.12. Therefore, the value of a Krugerrand is supposed to be the same, which is the whole point of them. 
The price at which many of them actually sold in the last week or so is as high as £2,069.55. 

That's what I mean by the difference and collectors paying over the odds - Most of these are nothing special and collectors are just looking to fill in the date gaps in their collections.


----------



## shed9 (15 Jan 2018)

Tasky":31nlaz4k said:


> bugbear":31nlaz4k said:
> 
> 
> > If the "expert valuers" aren't predicting the actual prices, I wouldn't call them "expert".
> ...


Some limited proofed coins fetch high premiums but's that's due to the limited nature of them. Standard Krugerrands are typically 6-8% over base price but then they are minted, certified and easy to sell.

The Krugerrand was never meant to be a straight £ for £ gold purchase, that was not the point of them then or now. It was a marketing ploy by the RSA that proved to be hugely successful and at one point accounting for almost the entire gold coin investment market worldwide.

Not sure this example explains the follies of collecting. If anything it highlights the success of a country and an industry, in part, based on collecting.


----------



## D_W (15 Jan 2018)

Krugerrands were not permissible here in the 1980s, I suppose due to apartheid, but they were common. My mother's brother convinced my father to buy a bunch and bury them without writing down their locations or telling anyone where they are. I guess that was everyones' little adventure in thinking "ooh...we're doing something illegal....we buy krugerrands and go 3 miles an hour above the speed limit, and occasionally only come to a rolling stop at a stop sign"


----------



## Tasky (15 Jan 2018)

shed9":1uh4bvvb said:


> The Krugerrand was never meant to be a straight £ for £ gold purchase, that was not the point of them then or now.


Actually, that's precisely what it's for - "The krugerrand was originally a one-ounce piece of 22 carat gold with no monetary value imprinted on it; its value is based upon the market gold price that frequently fluctuates". 
The fact that people pay insane money just to possess these things is nothing to do with their intended purpose, as evidenced by those who continue to invest in Krugerrand. Yes, there are usually admin/handling fees 



shed9":1uh4bvvb said:


> It was a marketing ploy by the RSA that proved to be hugely successful and at one point accounting for almost the entire gold coin investment market worldwide.


But it was specifically to market South African gold as investment, which I understand is VAT exempt in the EU and probably elsewhere. Nothing to do with being coins or collecting. 



shed9":1uh4bvvb said:


> Not sure this example explains the follies of collecting. If anything it highlights the success of a country and an industry, in part, based on collecting.


It illustrates the point quite well, I think... 
"Users" invest in the Krugerrand for its gold value and may well pay 6-8% over base price. 
"Collectors" want one or more complete sets, comprising one of each year plus one of each special edition, to complete the set and will pay more than double the base price.


----------



## D_W (15 Jan 2018)

It's not a one ounce piece, though. It's one ounce of gold, plus more copper (so that it's not too soft). 

Right now, it's ask is about 3% higher than gold bullion. The actual offers are almost the same as gold bullion, though - less than a percent apart. 

i'd never buy either, but I think it's interesting to watch other people do it. it's less interesting watch my dad do it, because he's guessing and taking advice from people who are not smart enough to invest in the open market and leave their investments alone until they want to spend them.


----------



## shed9 (15 Jan 2018)

Tasky":3v4773xj said:


> Actually, that's precisely what it's for - "The krugerrand was originally a one-ounce piece of 22 carat gold with no monetary value imprinted on it; its value is based upon the market gold price that frequently fluctuates".
> The fact that people pay insane money just to possess these things is nothing to do with their intended purpose, as evidenced by those who continue to invest in Krugerrand. Yes, there are usually admin/handling fees


All bullion coinage is sold at premium even if at a small percentage. What business model could sustain manufacture, administration, authority, storage and logistics at the base price of the material used? Anything in the precious metals market that is certified comes at premium.


Tasky":3v4773xj said:


> But it was specifically to market South African gold as investment, which I understand is VAT exempt in the EU and probably elsewhere. Nothing to do with being coins or collecting.


Clearly this is investment and specifically pushes RSA gold, hence the Kruger / Rand aspect. I think we agree there so not sure what your retort was meant to achieve?


Tasky":3v4773xj said:


> It illustrates the point quite well, I think...
> "Users" invest in the Krugerrand for its gold value and may well pay 6-8% over base price.
> "Collectors" want one or more complete sets, comprising one of each year plus one of each special edition, to complete the set and will pay more than double the base price.


Limited / proof runs of coins hold value for these very reasons. I fail to see how you can differentiate a user from a collector when both end products have a defined and reliable value within the same market.


----------



## shed9 (15 Jan 2018)

shed9":s0dhnclx said:


> double post


----------



## bugbear (15 Jan 2018)

Tasky":vxf6y17j said:


> It illustrates the point quite well, I think...
> "Users" invest in the Krugerrand for its gold value and may well pay 6-8% over base price.
> "Collectors" want one or more complete sets, comprising one of each year plus one of each special edition, to complete the set and will pay more than double the base price.


On the assumption that "other coins of 1Oz gold are available", the collectors won't be distorting the user market, since to a user, all certified 1Oz blobs of gold are interchangeable.

BugBear


----------



## Tasky (15 Jan 2018)

D_W":1umkzg1u said:


> he's guessing and taking advice from people who are not smart enough to invest in the open market and leave their investments alone until they want to spend them.


Pretty much anyone is guessing though, aren't they?
There are informed guesses, perhaps, but it's still guessing - If it weren't, experienced investors wouldn't still be losing so much money on their investments. Others advise investing by buying actual gold over merely investing 'in gold', because it's more stable and subject to fewer influences. 

Could be worse - It could be BitCoin!! 



shed9":1umkzg1u said:


> All bullion coinage is sold at premium even if at a small percentage. What business model could sustain manufacture, administration, authority, storage and logistics at the base price of the material used? Anything in the precious metals market that is certified comes at premium.


Yes, everything has a premium that the companies apply (currently about 4%, it seems), both reduction in buying from you and increase in selling to you... But for the average person on the street, it is a 1oz piece of gold and as a benchmark it is worth (near enough) whatever the ounce value is of that gold. 
Even Proof Krugerrands are valued at £1250-odd and that's maybe a 20% premium. 

The premium is a given, though, just like postage & packing and can be assumed a feature of transacting, but does not form part of the actual value of the item itself. 

The difference in collecting versus merely using is where people pay well over the market value for something. 
For instance, I could buy a plain black t-shirt for a tenner. It's worth a tenner and that's it... but if I get it worn by Brad Pitt for one short 20-second scene in a movie - The actual value does not change, but collectors will pay well over $1,000 for it. 



shed9":1umkzg1u said:


> Clearly this is investment and specifically pushes RSA gold, hence the Kruger / Rand aspect. I think we agree there so not sure what your retort was meant to achieve?


No investor is going to pay the collector price of £1900 for a Proof Krugerrand that is only valued at £1200. 
That was the point. 



shed9":1umkzg1u said:


> Limited / proof runs of coins hold value for these very reasons. I fail to see how you can differentiate a user from a collector when both end products have a defined and reliable value within the same market.


To the collector, an item may be worth a lot, but also collectors items are usually only worth that to a collector. 
To everyone else, it's worth the basic value, which is usually substantially less. 
This is why I cited a niche-market 'collectors' car earlier - Most people would pay maybe £500 for the rotting pile of junk parked outside my mate's garage, because that's all it's market-valued at, while a collector might pay as much as £11,000. 
Collector prices are more like auction prices, when comparing them to the actual value. This is why I cited the Router Plane, although it seems Aldi Chisels are just as good - They're worth £8. You can buy them yourself. But slap on "As recommended by Paul Sellers" in your auction title, you can up the price by more than three times, because collectors will buy that. 



bugbear":1umkzg1u said:


> On the assumption that "other coins of 1Oz gold are available", the collectors won't be distorting the user market, since to a user, all certified 1Oz blobs of gold are interchangeable.


The trouble is that, because collectors will pay that much and so dealers can make more, gold coins will rise in sales price.


----------



## bugbear (15 Jan 2018)

Tasky":2ev1p8iv said:


> The difference in collecting versus merely using is where people pay well over the market value for something.
> For instance, I could buy a plain black t-shirt for a tenner. It's worth a tenner and that's it... but if I get it worn by Brad Pitt for one short 20-second scene in a movie - The actual value does not change, but collectors will pay well over $1,000 for it.


I think you'll need to be explicit about the meaning you're putting on "market value" and "actual value".

I'll start:

Market value normally means the price agreed being a willing seller, and a willing and fully informed buyer.

I'm not aware of a conventional distinction between "market value" and "actual value".

BugBear


----------



## D_W (15 Jan 2018)

Yes, we're generally all guessing. He just does a lot worse than my much more educated father in law. Not to disclose peoples' details, but one makes half as much as the other (and saves about half as much), but has greater net assets after investment gains. 

I have a lot of experience with investments at an institutional level, and much less at a personal level (less in terms of doing anything other than dumping money into something that represents the economy at large and just allowing it to appreciate at the lowest possible expenses). I do that at a personal level, because that's generally what institutional investors do (those who need appreciation without taking on pointless unique risks). 

At any rate, Krugerrands (non proof level, things that are rare often trade for more due to rarity - you can't compare them on material costs) appear to be almost the same street price as an ounce of bullion. They're recognizable and easy to test, so it would seem if someone would like to confuse a hedge for an appreciating asset, they're not that bad. 

I'm sure you could find a local dealer who would add a hundred quid to the price and tell you that's the cost of doing business, but that's not really necessary to do these days. 

As far as collectors, the generation who likes gold as an "investment" is mostly children of parents who lived through the great depression. There is a ceiling on the value of items (and a timing issue for investing in them - a speculative one) like gold coins. The spread isn't going to increase forever. 

Reminds me of what's going on in the central US right now. Land appreciation combined with retirement of farmers who are selling the land has made rare vintage machinery really expensive. Same with muscle cars. Both of those are going through the roof because the boomer and slightly older generations who dreamed of the rare cars or the rare 100 year-old machinery are spending. The generation will disappear, and so will the appreciation in value of their fantasy items. For the rest of us, it's probably better to ignore that in general. Rare tools, rare coins, rare machines...let someone else take the risk and don't worry about the value. 

Long ago, Kingshott said in one of his videos "leave those for the collectors", talking about rarer wooden planes. I agree, don't worry about it. Get the best information you can, make a rational decision and don't worry about others' irrationality.


----------



## MarkDennehy (15 Jan 2018)

> Pretty much anyone is guessing though, aren't they?


Well, to an extent. 
But investing over the long term in index funds is pretty safe, by the standards of the stock market. 

Hedge funds, on the other hand... well, I've lost count of how many actual honest-to-goodness scientific studies (with peer review and published in reputable journals) there have been which showed time and again that hedge fund managers and day traders never do as well as a random number generator, whether that random number generator be a computer program picking random numbers, a dice being thrown, a coin being tossed, or some animal's behaviour being monitored (so far they've used cats, monkey and I think they've used either octopi or squid as well). 

As to gold... if things ever get so bad that you want gold because the currency has collapsed, you should have invested in a shotgun, shells, dried and canned goods and a very stout door. 


Personally though, I think you should invest in Walnut. If the prices over here are anything to go by, I'll need to bring two cars next time I go buy a batch of the stuff. One to bring it back home and one to leave in payment...


----------



## nabs (15 Jan 2018)

tasky has introduced an unnecessary confusion here - in an earlier post he said 'an item is worth what someone is willing to pay for it', which is true.

Objects do not have an intrinsic monetary value - the only thing that is relevant is what someone is willing to pay for it. This is true even if you dismantle the object and sell it as raw materials or parts.

There may be all sorts of reasons that a collector is willing to pay more for an object than your average end-users, but it has nothing to do with some magical property of intrinsic financial value.


----------



## shed9 (15 Jan 2018)

Tasky":riwc2xjw said:


> Yes, everything has a premium that the companies apply (currently about 4%, it seems), both reduction in buying from you and increase in selling to you... But for the average person on the street, it is a 1oz piece of gold and as a benchmark it is worth (near enough) whatever the ounce value is of that gold.
> Even Proof Krugerrands are valued at £1250-odd and that's maybe a 20% premium.
> The premium is a given, though, just like postage & packing and can be assumed a feature of transacting, but does not form part of the actual value of the item itself.
> The difference in collecting versus merely using is where people pay well over the market value for something.
> ...



To the average person in the street it's a Krugerrand, same as it is to a user and / or collector and has the relevant value of a Krugerrand. Proofs fetch higher prices because of the nature of what they are, proofs. If anyone buys a proof coin at £1,900 then that is its value, not the base metal trade-in. Things are not (usually) valued based on their base component value. I appreciate that ironically basic base metals are one of the few exceptions to this rule but in reality we are not discussing stocks, shares and simple metal.

Just saying that using an investment market to highlight your view that collectors negatively skew opportunity for others does not (in my opinion) actually hold any water.


----------



## Tasky (15 Jan 2018)

bugbear":3705v1rf said:


> I think you'll need to be explicit about the meaning you're putting on "market value" and "actual value".


Value (of any kind) being whatever a thing would normally sell for, be it a shop or a car boot sale, among normal users. 
Price, in this instance, being what a collector would pay for it purely because of some aspect to it that they believe makes it special somehow... like THE specific $5 cheese grater that was handled by some actor in a movie. 

It's not exactly important as to the financial terms used, as who is paying. 



MarkDennehy":3705v1rf said:


> As to gold... if things ever get so bad that you want gold because the currency has collapsed, you should have invested in a shotgun, shells, dried and canned goods and a very stout door.


Knowing some people who are buying stuff because they think the Pound will collapse post-Brexit... The idea of buying gold _should_ be sound, since other currencies won't have collapsed and they will still pay decent money for that gold... 
Shotguns and things only come into play when the Zombies take over, as I understand it...



nabs":3705v1rf said:


> There may be all sorts of reasons that a collector is willing to pay more for an object than your average end-users, but it has nothing to do with some magical property of intrinsic financial value.


Just to be clear, I'm not trying to imply anything magical of the sort... just that collectors often do pay well over the odds for things and, in doing so, can end up pricing normal users out of the market. 



shed9":3705v1rf said:


> Things are not (usually) valued based on their base component value.


That was the point I was trying to make with Krugerrand, though - It *is* supposed to be worth (or based on) it's current gold value (plus sales fees, obviously), to the point where they started making these special collectors versions specifically, but even then you can buy those from a bullion dealer at far lower prices than from fellow collectors... 



shed9":3705v1rf said:


> Just saying that using an investment market to highlight your view that collectors negatively skew opportunity for others does not (in my opinion) actually hold any water.


No, that was just to highlight how collectors pay over the odds for what they could simply get at normal prices.


----------



## bugbear (15 Jan 2018)

Tasky":hdo4ckms said:


> No, that was just to highlight how collectors pay over the odds for what they could simply get at normal prices.



I happen to hang out with some vintage computer collectors - they would be ecstatic to pay less, if they could get stuff at "normal prices". 

But what (on earth) is the "normal price" of a mid 1980's 8 bit computer, say an Atari 800, for a specific example, and where can I get some at "normal price"

BugBear


----------



## Tasky (15 Jan 2018)

bugbear":3ibhags4 said:


> I happen to hang out with some vintage computer collectors - they would be ecstatic to pay less, if they could get stuff at "normal prices".


Is it stuff that 'regular' people also want, though, or is it pretty much just other collectors buying it?
If the latter, tell them to stay away from mechanics in Reading, as I know one who often throws out stuff like this, much to my own objections!!



bugbear":3ibhags4 said:


> But what (on earth) is the "normal price" of a mid 1980's 8 bit computer, say an Atari 800, for a specific example, and where can I get some at "normal price"


Depends. 
Just the 800 looks to be £80-100 in working order, although there are some sold for over £250 (with 60+ games, Quickshot II, data drive, etc). 
The 800XL looks to go for maybe £60-90, as an average (but again, some overinflated price examples too), so I'm guessing the lesser model? 
Either way, that's less even in today's money than what we paid for a Speccy 48k back in 1984!!

But there too, some people obviously selling at normal prices, while others selling it at "OMG, look here, ultra *rare* computer" price listings...


----------



## bugbear (15 Jan 2018)

Tasky":2uhtf8e3 said:


> bugbear":2uhtf8e3 said:
> 
> 
> > I happen to hang out with some vintage computer collectors - they would be ecstatic to pay less, if they could get stuff at "normal prices".
> ...


So you're saying the people buying an Atari 800 at £60 aren't collectors? What the h*ell else are they? Who else buys obselete slow bits of junk? They're simply collectors getting a good deal. They're still collectors.

The collector/users thing a false dichotomy.

BugBear


----------



## Tasky (15 Jan 2018)

bugbear":33r0csz6 said:


> So you're saying the people buying an Atari 800 at £60 *aren't* collectors?


Am I?
Sounds to me more like the opposite, really... and they're only able to get such good prices because the average computer user doesn't want them any more. 
I guess that'd be like no-one except collectors wanting a Stanley 71, because most people buy the Veritas?

But by contrast, a ricketty old pile-of-junk chest made very cheaply 100 years ago now commands such a high price in the collectors' world, you'd think it belonged to the queen of Sheba. All you have to do is label something as vintage or antique and some silly person will pay too much for it.


----------



## shed9 (15 Jan 2018)

I give up Tasky, you're using the investment sector to explain how collectors have a negative impact on it, the used vehicle and the tool market by suggesting real gold investors are mirrored by collectors who buy false investments that are dangled on a string to them. These 'false investments' I'll add that are valued by the same 'real investors' within the same sector.

I'm never going to win that argument or convince you otherwise. I can see elements of your argument but don't see it all holding together cohesively, not enough to convince me anyhow.

It could be worse, I could be wrong......


----------



## bugbear (16 Jan 2018)

Tasky":76y7mcyf said:


> bugbear":76y7mcyf said:
> 
> 
> > So you're saying the people buying an Atari 800 at £60 *aren't* collectors?
> ...


Wait, what?! Now you're saying the reason the price is low is because the _users_ haven't driven them up?

I thought your assertion was that (evil) _collectors_ drive prices up, to the detriment of _users_?

BugBear


----------



## Tasky (16 Jan 2018)

shed9":19xcvt8c said:


> I give up Tasky, you're using the investment sector to explain how collectors have a negative impact on it


I never said it was negative. 
For dealers in collectible gold coins, it's pretty great... All it does is rob the users of gold to invest in, which is bad from their perspective as they need it for their business, and their investors need it for theirs. 



bugbear":19xcvt8c said:


> Wait, what?! Now you're saying the reason the price is low is because the _users_ haven't driven them up?


No.... mostly. More that there _are _no users. 
More users would create more demand, yes, but usually that puts more products onto the market. When a new iPhone comes out, for example, the previous model starts hitting the market in both cheaper new format and even cheaper second-hand. Eventually it'll be so old no-one wants to use it, so only collectors buy them, at which point a former user will value it low and a collector will assign whatever value they think it amounts to. 
It generally won't hit high prices until there are fewer old models than collectors, though, or at least people present it as such which is more common these days. 

But where you have users and collectors both interested in stuff, that's where it gets expensive - Sellers would rather sell to a collector than a user, because they'll pay stupid money especially if everyone thinks it's a collectors item. 



bugbear":19xcvt8c said:


> I thought your assertion was that (evil) _collectors_ drive prices up, to the detriment of _users_?


They can, even when the industry that hinges on it decides the 'official' value, collectors (and sellers) can inflate prices well over the odds which just takes products off the market.


----------



## Rhyolith (16 Jan 2018)

I think its wrong and inaccurate to put a line between users and collectors. With tools at least it seems to me that most fall somewhere in both philosophies; I certainly think I do, and I would be confident to wager that there are very few members here who have just what they need and not an single tool more.


----------



## D_W (16 Jan 2018)

Rhyolith":20lc5vp6 said:


> I think its wrong and inaccurate to put a line between users and collectors. With tools at least it seems to me that most fall somewhere in both philosophies; I certainly think I do, and I would be confident to wager that there are very few members here who have just what they need and not an single tool more.



Except Charlie Stanford. He's perfect!

Kidding aside, I'm a user, collector (not intentionally, I guess, but sort of as a matter of duplication of things I like) and maker. 

Where does maker come into this?

My good friend George has a large appetite for buying and keeping tools, too, and I haven't met a finer maker of any type (especially of toolmakers in general). He's mostly retired, but he was far more of a user than any of the gurus.


----------



## Tasky (16 Jan 2018)

D_W":p6501s0b said:


> Where does maker come into this?


Possibly at the point where a tool manufacturer starts doing miniature versions of all their kit?


----------



## knockknock (16 Jan 2018)

Tasky":2mmbci3q said:


> D_W":2mmbci3q said:
> 
> 
> > Where does maker come into this?
> ...


  I have some of those, and a fancy little plumb bob too.


----------



## Tasky (16 Jan 2018)

knockknock":1eh3ozw7 said:


> I have some of those, and a fancy little plumb bob too.


Are the chisels and router any good?
I kinda fancy them for messing around on tiny projects!


----------



## knockknock (16 Jan 2018)

Tasky":1bhrmsaj said:


> knockknock":1bhrmsaj said:
> 
> 
> > I have some of those, and a fancy little plumb bob too.
> ...


I haven't used them for anything, so I don't know how well they work. Also, I don't have the chisels, I only have the BUS, block, router and shoulder.


----------



## Sam_Jack (21 Jan 2018)

Interesting topic; but I feel there is a category missing. The ‘aficionado’. Those who accidentally ‘collect’ and end up with a collection. I’ll try to explain – many (many) years ago I found sitting on the top of a skip a bench plane; looked to be just out of the box, indeed, I found the box at the same time. It had been hurled, in disgust I assumed, into the skip by the purchaser. So, I had a look-see. The cutter looked, to my eye to be pretty good and about #4 size. Long story short, I took it home as a puzzle and perhaps spare parts. One pass over a billet explained why it had been hurled, the blooming thing was hopeless. I saw this as an opportunity to discover what, exactly, made it so. Thus began an adventure into what makes a ‘good’ plane and what made this one so bad. It took a while for me to discover the faults and frailties, but it was an enjoyable study. A study which lead me to scrub planes. In the end, I turned the junk into a very good, useful scrub plane. I still curse the depth setting (hammer) and the lateral set – by guess and by Golly, but I still reach for it when I need to take down a board – it really does a good job (once set) and the blade is a gem. 

The point, well a collectors item it ain’t. Would I part with it – No. It lives with my modest ‘collection’ of hard working tools. Never, ever bought a new hand tool off the shelf. All have individual characters and I have, through use, come to know their little ways; their personality, if you will. 

I don’t hoard ‘em, I do use ‘em, hard and often. There are quite a few, although I have never counted. I just know that #2 Stanley 5 will work best on some timber and grain; but #4 Stanley 5 ain’t anywhere near as good on others as the Falcon. Do I have a ‘collection’? Some would say I do, are they all artisan working tools, yes, they are. I believe I am a pragmatic aficionado, I hold that which I may use, I look after that which is of value – to me and repays my attention with stellar service. Could I toss ‘em out? Not a chance. Would I sell ‘em? No. How could I put a value on the time, effort and energy invested in tools which simply perform design function – as and when required. My work, done with my tools; tools which I know will still be functioning 50 years from today. 

There, my two bob; spent as pleased me best.


----------



## kwigly (24 Jan 2018)

Users are a pox on old tools.
Users wear down, b ugger, break, and otherwise slowly destroy a finite resource, denying it to future generations. 
And they whine when the old tools become rarer and more expensive.

Collectors nurture their old tools, investigate the origins of each tool and its place in tool development, and add to the knowledge base of tool trivia. When Collectors cease collecting (after losing interest, dying, becoming bankrupt from investing in gold coins, or on orders from the Wife), their tools remain in the same good condition as when first collected and go back into circulation for the next Minder.

Users could get their tools from current Manufacturers, or if they lust to use an old tool surely they could make, or purchase, a replica (provided a Collector has saved an original that can be referenced for replication).

[Disclosures; I enjoy the hunt for old tools, and sometimes I buy them just to have them (but they're often in need of attention as I refuse to pay inflated prices). Sometimes I can't resist the urge to use old tools. Sometimes I damage old tools while "restoring" them. I have some beautiful old tools, and some unusual ones (but no really valuable ones, as I refuse to pay inflated prices, ..so far) ]


----------



## Tasky (24 Jan 2018)

kwigly":94iwln5t said:


> Users wear down, b ugger, break, and otherwise slowly destroy a finite resource, denying it to future generations.


What are future generations going to do with it, though? Why do we need to save it for them?



kwigly":94iwln5t said:


> Collectors nurture their old tools, investigate the origins of each tool and its place in tool development, and add to the knowledge base of tool trivia.


Or just chuck it in a cardboard box to rust away with seventeen others just like that one...



kwigly":94iwln5t said:


> Users could get their tools from current Manufacturers, or if they lust to use an old tool surely they could make, or purchase, a replica (provided a Collector has saved an original that can be referenced for replication).


If there's a current version that works just as well, then happily!!!!! 
The general suggestion is that very few modern vesions are as good, though, especially if they're even more expensive than the old ones.


----------



## Sam_Jack (25 Jan 2018)

Objection M’lud. 

Without proof or even supporting evidence, my learned colleague accuses those who actually ‘use’ old tools of being a counterproductive, destructive force. I say, this is is not only risible, but inaccurate. 

How many, reading this forum own old tools? A great plenty I’d say. How many of those abuse and ‘damage’ those tools – with malice aforethought. Not too many, (barring accident) I’d bet. 

I have in my modest collection an old, wooden ‘coffin’ smoother – Scots by the maker. Now, at some time in it’s past, this plane has been dropped, severely damaged, partially repaired and subsequently discarded. It is old and it was a bloody mess then it came to my workshop. No longer a ‘mess’. Patiently and carefully repaired, then restored, then fettled, tuned and returned to service; that massive, heavy blade and it’s wooden carriage, trued up four, long Oak boards today, part of an architect designed, staircase without effort, singing all the while. Happy in it’s work. 

Was it used? Of course it was. Was it abused? No. Is it in working condition? Of course it is. Did my nine year old grandson ask me if he could have it? Yes, he did. Will that plane serve him for the next two or three decades? Probably, provided he takes good care of it.

It is not those of us who repair, maintain, use and respect a tool – for what it is that lay waste to the ‘collectors’ obsessions (and profits) which cause the alleged damage. I’d say, it is those of us who actually preserve and use the inherent integrity and operational viability of ‘old’ tools, rust free and fit for purpose that will pass on the knowledge of how to ‘care for tools; and, such humble skills as we posses to a new generation of how best to use ‘em. So, I call a pox on those who would lock away a rusting ‘icon’ for selfish reasons, without restoring the thing to an operational status and passing the skill and knowledge to do so on to the next interested generation. 

My old tools queue up to go to work; and at the end of day the ask no more than a quick dust off and a sip of oil, ready to go again, asking no more than a quick ‘touch up’ on the oil stone. 

There is little demand for these tools, certainly not enough to inspire mass production. There used to be; but few would bother to make a rebate plane when the circular saw can be easily set, why use a one hundred year old wooden smoothing plane when there is a whiz bang electronic version? The answers are found in ridiculously simple questions. Why chop a perfect Mortise and cut a Tenon to make a joint by hand, when there is a router available? Why make 12 dovetails and their pins by mallet and chisel? Why drill a perfect hole with a brace and auger when there’s a drill press in the corner? 

You know why – all of you here do. 

Aye; enough and my glass is empty.


----------



## Rhyolith (25 Jan 2018)

The skills to use these tools are as much a part of them as the physical objects, so if you just focus on preserving the objects themselves then your still losing them. This is the problem I have with a lot of museums, they have the stuff but not the history. I think this why I liked the Llanberris Slate Musuem so much, it was real because they still split and work slate there. 

Personally I do want there to be some old tools still in their original boxes and in “off the self” condition to go and look at, just like I want there to be some in active use by people who can show me how to use them as the makers intended. I don’t like the idea of all old tools being stored in glass cabinets and never touched or all being worn down in use so there are not examples left in original condition (just thinking of how many of my tools would not have made it to me in a functional state if they had been worked their whole life, most probably lived in a loft or shed for 20+years!).

The only problem really are people not respecting these objects, whether their labelled as “collectors” or “users” really does not matter. I am looking at you unpcyclers


----------



## TFrench (25 Jan 2018)

How about the lunatic dealers? I saw this plane come up on one of my usual local ebay searches and knew it would probably go for silly money so I watched it out of curiosity. Sure enough, its bid up to £2,050. Only that didn't meet reserve and he's now relisted it for TEN GRAND! If its bid up to 2K thats surely the market value for it! silly person...
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Norris-M...%3A2f938c4d1610a861ef490838ffd61acf%7Ciid%3A1


----------



## Tasky (26 Jan 2018)

TFrench":1gaf2j9u said:


> Sure enough, its bid up to £2,050. Only that didn't meet reserve and he's now relisted it for TEN GRAND! If its bid up to 2K thats surely the market value for it! silly person...


Yeah, what do _you _know? You're just a dumb woodworker...
This seller, while not a collector themselves, has "had guidance from _several antique tool dealers_ to make sure it is priced correctly and can make its true value".... :roll:  

Dealers say, collectors will pay.


----------



## D_W (26 Jan 2018)

TFrench":3ueaqs10 said:


> How about the lunatic dealers? I saw this plane come up on one of my usual local ebay searches and knew it would probably go for silly money so I watched it out of curiosity. Sure enough, its bid up to £2,050. Only that didn't meet reserve and he's now relisted it for TEN GRAND! If its bid up to 2K thats surely the market value for it! silly person...
> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Norris-M...%3A2f938c4d1610a861ef490838ffd61acf%7Ciid%3A1



If it's truly that rare, an ebay auction is the wrong place to sell it. A fixed price listing may not be. I have made the mistake of selling some older limited market items as straight up auctions on ebay. Once in a while, they bring more than you expect, but usually, they just don't have enough exposure in one week to reach the whole market. 

I follow Kingshott's advice, let the collectors have the stuff that's expensive. I could *make* that plane for about $250 of materials (though it might have to be ebony instead of brazlian) and 75-100 hours of time, perhaps a bit less with some power tool assist on wasting the dovetails.

That said, if there is an established price for collectors of 10k pounds for a rare plane, even with pitting, then by all means, let them have it and don't worry about it.


----------



## AndyT (26 Jan 2018)

At least he's not weighed the plane in for scrap


----------



## D_W (26 Jan 2018)

Tasky":te2i7xnt said:


> TFrench":te2i7xnt said:
> 
> 
> > Sure enough, its bid up to £2,050. Only that didn't meet reserve and he's now relisted it for TEN GRAND! If its bid up to 2K thats surely the market value for it! silly person...
> ...



I saw a bunch of "dumb woodworkers" ridiculing a Norton Axe Man barber hone a couple of years ago because someone listed it starting at $600. They had endless fun talking about how stupid the seller of a 5x2 1/2 inch sharpening stone was, and then when it started to get bids, they had endless ridicule for the "dumb idiots who must've been suckers for bidding on it" and "look how stupid people are". 

The dumb woodworkers had no idea that they are rare and the market value of them in Australia for competitive axe men is in the four figure range. 

The forum community has a bad habit of wanting to tell other people what things should be worth and what they should do with them - kind of like a bunch of old hens. It's not exclusive to woodworkers, but it sure seems to come up a lot. And I'm not one of those well-heeled collectors. I don't love it when I see a dealer go to a sale and buy an entire estate collection and then take it overseas and triple the price, but there must be a market for it. As long as there is, postulating what other people should do is sort of a waste of time.


----------



## AndyT (26 Jan 2018)

D_W":wo16xv7o said:


> I don't love it when I see a dealer go to a sale and buy an entire estate collection and then take it overseas and triple the price, but there must be a market for it.



Just a doggone minute! You *are* overseas! Anyone who's watched Patrick Leach at the end of a Stanley's sale with another container's worth of old tools to take back to the States and sell for many times what we Brits will pay will have no sympathy at all! :lol:


----------



## Tasky (26 Jan 2018)

D_W":6zmizbpo said:


> The dumb woodworkers had no idea that they are rare and the market value of them in Australia for competitive axe men is in the four figure range.


This dumb woodworker just spent 5 minutes on Google... and apparently they are somewhat rarer than Frictionite products (by a factor of about 8) but really no more than other brands, some of which are considered to be better anyway. 
It's like buying Stanley tools and ignoring Record, Marples, Ward, Sorby, etc. 

Those who buy Nortons and think they're nothing special, either for woodworking or shaving, get them off carpenters or at flea markets for a few (as in under $10) dollars and value pristine vintage ones at about $75. Seems to be just competitive lumberjacks who pay insane money for them. 



D_W":6zmizbpo said:


> The forum community has a bad habit of wanting to tell other people what things should be worth and what they should do with them - kind of like a bunch of old hens. It's not exclusive to woodworkers, but it sure seems to come up a lot.


There are also a metric feckton of sellers on eBay and the like who artificially increase prices just by putting "Rare, Antique, Vintage" and similar BS in their listings, before selling to complete idiots.... so much that you can buy "genuine SAS-issue" underwear for a fortune, while still being able to pick up the same black boxers for a quid at TK Max. 



D_W":6zmizbpo said:


> And I'm not one of those well-heeled collectors. I don't love it when I see a dealer go to a sale and buy an entire estate collection and then take it overseas and triple the price, but there must be a market for it. As long as there is, postulating what other people should do is sort of a waste of time.


I suspect there's only a market for it because people don't realise how cheap others get theirs for... and I suspect a lot of the dealers create/exploit that 'market' for all their worth, just like how £6 Apple electronic device markets are monopolised by the retailers who sell them for £900 here. 

Just because some silly person is willing to spend stupid money on something, doesn't mean we should all follow their example. 
That's how stuff gets expensive in the first place.


----------



## D_W (26 Jan 2018)

Agree on not following, thus back to Kingshott's advice. Leave that stuff to the collectors and move on to something they don't love. If they love something you want, make a copy of it instead. 

No clue on the dealers buying planes, except ebay seized a 225 pound norris 2 that I bought this year with original wood (albeit a short iron, but the iron was original and just well used). I checked over here and found a dealer with a less nice plane for $800. Ebay told me that they did me a favor by giving me a refund when it would've gotten seized by customs...maybe. Except that's never happened when I didn't ship something through them. At any rate, 225 pounds turns into $800 here, and if a dealer is well capitalized, they don't care if they're sitting on their stock for a while. 

Just the way it goes.


----------

