# Cheap brand plane experiences



## Reggie (23 Aug 2013)

Hi all, having just bought and fettled an axminster no.5 plane to a very usable state, I'm wondering what your personal experiences of the cheap planes are?

My experience was pretty simple, I just ran through the usual things that you'd check on a 2nd hand record/stanley bench plane, the yoke was loose, easily fixed with a pair of pliers to make the ends closer together which stops it jumping out of the adjust groove, I also had to regrind the face on the chipbreaker that meets the back of the blade, it only touched on the back edge of the face on the chipbreaker leaving quite a gap at the front, as soon as you try and plane anything it jams up immediately, once the face was reground, the front edge of that face meets the back of the blade correctly and now the shavings curl up nicely as they should do 

The actual brand of the axminster plane is SOBA, apparently made in india.

Mine needed a minimum amount of fettling, it's such it's a bargain for what it is. I'm hoping this thread will turn into a reasonable place to come and look for experiences on these types of planes and how to get them to a usable state.


----------



## baldpate (23 Aug 2013)

I think the extreme variation in feedback (http://www.axminster.co.uk/axminster-axminster-no-5-jack-plane-prod377654/#bottomsection) for this Axminster plane tells the general story: with a cheap plane what you get is a bit of a lottery. I think you got lucky, and got one at the better end of the spectrum. 

I've found that needing to hone the fit of the back iron/chipbreaker is not uncommon in older second-hand planes, so I imagine it is the same in new modern planes at the cheaper end of the market. 

My experience of cheap modern planes is limited, but negative. An Anant No 4, which I eventually got to work but required a lot of effort (extensive work on blade, chipbreaker, sole and frog); and a Silverline No 4 which had a fundamental flaw making it unusable (depth adjuster yoke not long enough to engage properly with the chipbreaker). 

I guess my examples came from the worse end of the spectrum .


----------



## matthewwh (23 Aug 2013)

Why not just fit a longer y lever?


----------



## G S Haydon (23 Aug 2013)

I think the key thing to remember here is your rights if your buy on line. The two bad reviews were of a faulty product. In that instance it should have returned for a replacement or refund.


----------



## Mr_P (24 Aug 2013)

Never used a new cheap plane so can't really comment but after reading this forum for a while now don't think I ever will.

I can buy a brand cheap car for £6k or I can buy a brand new expensive one for £100's of thousands. Both can be driven from the showroom and get me from A-B.

I can buy a very cheap plane and apparently these are not fit for purpose in most cases. How are manufactures getting away with this ?

1. Most of the cheap planes sold are sold to DIY'ers who don't have a clue, so they give up and blame themselves and rather than return them plonk them in the shed to rust and then chuck away in few years time.

2. People with more knowledge fettle the plane into something usable.

3. People with more knowledge return them for a refund.

4. They are not as bad as people say or perhaps its a lottery and some are great/ ok / appalling.

If more people took the 3rd approach maybe quality would improve ?


----------



## Reggie (24 Aug 2013)

The state of cheap planes is mainly why this topic exists, if people post their experiences here, how they fixed the issues, then these cheap planes can be a useful addition to a beginners tool kit.

If my plane hadn't been fixable then it would've gone back, if there had been any issues with the casting, again, it would've gone back, I might still send an email to axminster to let them know I had to fix it before it was usable.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (24 Aug 2013)

If you consider the cheapest of power tools - drills for £7.50 and other impossibly cheap offerings - these have a working lifespan counted in minutes. Possibly on one hand. The reason being that they are usually bought to do one job, then spend the rest of their life in the garage.

I suspect these planes take it a step further. They are made for people who will buy them with good intentions, but never get around to using them. So they don't need to actually work, just look the part :lol:


----------



## baldpate (24 Aug 2013)

matthewwh":2zuiue7u said:


> Why not just fit a longer y lever?


Tried that, Mathew - bought and fitted one of your very own 'extra long' ones. So bad was the mismatch. however, that even that didn't work! There was something fundamentally wrong with that plane.

On the bright side, I now have a longer-reach Y-lever ready for the day I choose to fit an extra-thick iron to one of my other planes.


----------



## Graham Orm (24 Aug 2013)

*EBAY!!* Masses of reasonable planes at good prices. All shapes and types. Almost guaranteed as good if not better than the cheap new ones.


----------



## Vann (24 Aug 2013)

Grayorm":2hu12bv1 said:


> *EBAY!!* Masses of reasonable planes at good prices. All shapes and types. Almost guaranteed as good if not better than the cheap new ones.


But Grayorm, they're not nice and shiney... #-o 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Graham Orm (24 Aug 2013)

Vann":1ejmua2g said:


> Grayorm":1ejmua2g said:
> 
> 
> > *EBAY!!* Masses of reasonable planes at good prices. All shapes and types. Almost guaranteed as good if not better than the cheap new ones.
> ...



They can be and it's fun making them shine! :mrgreen:


----------



## longinthetooth (24 Aug 2013)

You can buy a cheap NEW plane & fettle it all you like without knowing how the casting might warp over time ... 

I just hate the thinking that goes into the manufacture of cheap stuff. It lacks integrity. It hoodwinks the unwary. If a thing doesn't work right because of poor manufacture, & remains un-used for that reason, then the materials and energy that went into it are wasted. There are principles at stake.


----------



## Jacob (24 Aug 2013)

longinthetooth":1w57x3rf said:


> You can buy a cheap NEW plane & fettle it all you like without knowing how the casting might warp over time ...
> 
> I just hate the thinking that goes into the manufacture of cheap stuff. It lacks integrity. It hoodwinks the unwary. If a thing doesn't work right because of poor manufacture, & remains un-used for that reason, then the materials and energy that went into it are wasted. There are principles at stake.


That's a bit romantic! I bet a great number of the beautiful posh planes people buy hardly get used at all.
If saving materials and energy were an issue then most of us could manage perfectly well with a tenth of the tools we have, and buy them all second hand.


----------



## Vann (24 Aug 2013)

longinthetooth":feh0ct2t said:


> I just hate the thinking that goes into the manufacture of cheap stuff. It lacks integrity. It hoodwinks the unwary. If a thing doesn't work right because of poor manufacture, & remains un-used for that reason, then the materials and energy that went into it are wasted. There are principles at stake.


I agree. When I buy new hand tools (whether they are users or nice-to-haves), part of the attraction is that they are made by people who are trying to make something well. I don't care if I could buy a cheap shiney item for £10, that could be made to work. I don't want something that was made/marketed by a company that's just wants to make a buck. I'd rather buy an old one off "the bay". This is my hobby - I want to feel good about it. It IS about the tools... 

My old apprentice instructor would say "If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well." I prefer to spend my precious tool funds on companies that feel the same way. 

Luckily we've got Clifton, Lie-Nielsen and Veritas, and hundreds of pre-1960s planes for sale on internet sites. 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Reggie (24 Aug 2013)

Thanks for all your opinions on why you wouldn't buy cheap planes or buying old planes off ebay but that's not what this thread is about, it's about the experiences people have had when they have bought cheap planes and how they fixed any issues. There are threads for fettling old tools, threads to look at the shiny shiny new things, I can start another thread if you'd like to do 20 pages of the merits of each type of plane :-D

If you can't bear your hands touching anything but a > £150 plane, this thread probably isn't for you :-D

The thread is somewhere for people to come who have made a choice to buy a new cheap plane and see if they can make it usable, whether they've had experience with customer support etc.


----------



## matthewwh (24 Aug 2013)

baldpate":32tzfnlf said:


> On the bright side, I now have a longer-reach Y-lever ready for the day I choose to fit an extra-thick iron to one of my other planes.


      

There is a cost associated with making a metal plane flat, square and true with properly engineered components. There are also plenty of people who don't want to pay those costs, and for that market the world has provided metal planes that are not flat, square, true or properly engineered. I can understand why they are made, what baffles me is why anyone would choose to buy one?

If you want to plane wood accurately but don't have the budget for a good metal plane why not consider wooden ones? Old or new, they are comparatively affordable, easy to tune, and work beautifully.


----------



## Mike Wingate (24 Aug 2013)

There is a difference between having a usable plane and one that really works well and will continue to work well. As a tech teacher, I could set up a No.5 plane, check it, let a student use it only to find that it does not work for him. Check, readjust, test...There is a technique to everything. You have to read the timber and know how to adjust and why. All my own personal hand planes will plane really well, and continue to do so in my workshop. They are mostly old Stanley/Records with better blades and chipbreakers and yolks. There is a satisfaction to using them. Back to tuning my compound bow with it's new string and cables.


----------



## Graham Orm (24 Aug 2013)

Reggie":vexfyys6 said:


> Thanks for all your opinions on why you wouldn't buy cheap planes or buying old planes off ebay but that's not what this thread is about, it's about the experiences people have had when they have bought cheap planes and how they fixed any issues. There are threads for fettling old tools, threads to look at the shiny shiny new things, I can start another thread if you'd like to do 20 pages of the merits of each type of plane :-D
> 
> *If you can't bear your hands touching anything but a > £150 plane, this thread probably isn't for you :-D*
> 
> The thread is somewhere for people to come who have made a choice to buy a new cheap plane and see if they can make it usable, whether they've had experience with customer support etc.



Reggie,
I saw a very clean old Stanley No 4 go for £7 plus £7 postage earlier in the week. With the greatest respect to Axi far better than anything new for £30. There are lots like this. Your question is directed at people who buy the cheapest planes available. You're on the wrong forum I'm afraid. You need a DIY forum. This is the reason that you have had a different answer than you were hoping for.
Regards Graham :wink:


----------



## Vann (24 Aug 2013)

Reggie":1ynb9vus said:


> Thanks for all your opinions on why you wouldn't buy cheap planes or buying old planes off ebay but that's not what this thread is about, it's about the experiences people have had when they have bought cheap planes and how they fixed any issues...
> 
> The thread is somewhere for people to come who have made a choice to buy a new cheap plane and see if they can make it usable, whether they've had experience with customer support etc.


Oops, sorry #-o . I'll take my soapbox to another thread :mrgreen: .

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Dangermouse (24 Aug 2013)

Reggie, I think you have not quite got how people on here use and buy tools. We would not buy a cheap bottom end plane, because we know what rubbish they are and 99% are useless. I echo the thoughts here that you should either save up and buy a good premium plane or go the good second-hand route. But there are good new premium quality planes to be had for not too much money. I have a set of the new Stanley Sweet Heart planes, the most expensive was the 62 low angle jack which I got on-line for £70.00. The no4 for £50 and the 60 1/2 for £30. They do the job just as well as the ultra expensive planes, just the enamel paint and handles are maybe a few per cent less well done. I have heard, from Jacob, that his no4 plane has a very sloppy adjuster, but I must say mine is fine and I would have returned it if it had one. So if you want to buy cheap, but have a top quality plane, go for the Sweet Heart range from Stanley. But don't touch any other Stanley ( made in China ) rubbish or Record ( Irwin ). Christopher Schwarz has said in his blog the same things about the Stanley Sweet Hearts as I have, so its good he agrees with me


----------



## Mr_P (24 Aug 2013)

> Oops, sorry #-o . I'll take my soapbox to another thread :mrgreen: .



Yes I think you should especially as your old soapbox is clearly over engineered unlike todays modern cardboard ones which might be fit for purpose but wouldn't even take the weight of a child let alone a fully grown man carrying a few old stanleys with wooden handles.

Some folk on here are indeed into the expensive end of things, just as some are adverse to second hand.

As I said earlier never used a new cheap or even new expensive plane, one day I might buy an expensive one but can't see any good reason to buy a cheap new one.


----------



## Reggie (24 Aug 2013)

It's a forum for people to share woodworking experiences, nothing more nothing less, I don't need a diy forum, I'm trying to make a helpful thread, perhaps one that people can find that will help them not be put off by their limited experience in buying and using tools. The idea for me to get one of the cheap planes originally came from another forum member who had good experiences.

I don't disagree that you can buy planes from ebay, you'll still end up fettling, if you know what you're doing and know what to look for, you could get lucky and pick up a bargain the same day, or you could spend time searching and still buy junk and as mentioned, you'll still have to fettle it, why is that, why shouldn't it be working properly when it turns up? :-D

Either way the thread isn't about what you should buy, it's about what you can do if you have made a 'mistake' and bought a cheap new plane to mitigate any issues. Personally, I didn't see my choice as a mistake, I didn't have to clean any rust off anything, I had to squeeze a yoke, that was the only thing that I had to do and took all of 10 seconds. Sharpening the blade and putting the correct angle on the chipbreaker would be something you'd do anyway.

I don't have issues with 2nd hand either, 90% of my tools are second hand.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Aug 2013)

I'm not sure I agree with the general run of comments. I think Reggie's original question was a perfectly valid one.

To set yourself up with a set of premium bench planes (jack, try and smooth) will take the thick end of £1000. Add on premium saws, chisels, marking-out tools, cramps and all the other bits and bats without which you can't do much serious woodworking, and you have the price of a family car. For someone on a good salary with the mortgage paid down and their kids off their hands, spreading purchases over a few years, that's realistic, but for someone on a more modest salary with mortgage/rent, a couple of young children and all the bills to pay - well, forget it. How can Mr or Mrs Average get a start in proper woodworking? The budget tools offer one way of putting some sort of toolkit together. Sure - I know that good secondhand kit can be had (for very little if you're prepared to be patient and trawl the bootfairs) but not always; the going rate on Ebay for a decent try plane seems to be about £100 or so, with postage on top. But what if you don't want spend time waiting for good cheap stuff to come up? 

I know that the budget tools should come with a prominent health warning. They should be regarded as a kit of parts from which somebody with a bit of time and knowledge can assemble a reasonable working tool (most of the time). Isn't that what forums such as this are about - disseminating the required knowledge? Can not somebody relatively new to the craft read up on how to make something half useful out of an unpromising budget offering, and give themselves a set of bench planes for (say) £100 or so, allowing a bit for abrasive papers, a piece of float glass and a file or two? That at least gets them a start in the craft.

Back in the 1980s when I started, I bought a Record 04. It was a clunker, and since the only sources of information I had were a few books (none of which mentioned tuning planes at all) and the Woodworker magazine, I couldn't sort out the problems. It wasn't until a couple of years later that an article about plane tuning appeared in the Woodworker that I gained the knowledge to diagnose the problems and solve them. Nowadays, a few minutes Googling and I'd be well on the way to being clued up.

So in summary, for someone on a tight budget, cheap brand tools plus a bit of knowledge of how to fettle them is a perfectly valid approach to getting together the basis of a toolkit. Sure, the cognoscenti will go for older or pricier, but it's not the only way, is it? And what about the chap who's bought one in all innocence, found it's a clunker, and wants to fix it? Are we just going to say, "Fool - should have bought a LN", or are we going to try and help him make the best of what he has?


----------



## Graham Orm (24 Aug 2013)

Cheshirechappie":1rsw89t7 said:


> I'm not sure I agree with the general run of comments. I think Reggie's original question was a perfectly valid one.
> 
> To set yourself up with a set of premium bench planes (jack, try and smooth) will take the thick end of £1000. Add on premium saws, chisels, marking-out tools, cramps and all the other bits and bats without which you can't do much serious woodworking, and you have the price of a family car. For someone on a good salary with the mortgage paid down and their kids off their hands, spreading purchases over a few years, that's realistic, but for someone on a more modest salary with mortgage/rent, a couple of young children and all the bills to pay - well, forget it. How can Mr or Mrs Average get a start in proper woodworking? The budget tools offer one way of putting some sort of toolkit together. Sure - I know that good secondhand kit can be had (for very little if you're prepared to be patient and trawl the bootfairs) but not always; the going rate on Ebay for a decent try plane seems to be about £100 or so, with postage on top. But what if you don't want spend time waiting for good cheap stuff to come up?
> 
> ...



I'd say fool for buying the cheapest item he could find without doing any research, when, if he'd asked on here for advice, he could have bought ten times the tool for *UNDER £50* on Ebay. 
No 4 mint £28 http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/151058376083?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649
No 5 excellent nick *buy it now £30* (wont sell for more than £40) http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/400548777368?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649
I'm a tradesman, I buy and use tools until they wear out week to week. The cheapest is ALWAYS without exception junk.

Good luck to the OP if he got a good one, he's done well.


----------



## paul saunders (24 Aug 2013)

Cheshirechappie":2o9hktnc said:


> I'm not sure I agree with the general run of comments. I think Reggie's original question was a perfectly valid one.
> 
> To set yourself up with a set of premium bench planes (jack, try and smooth) will take the thick end of £1000. Add on premium saws, chisels, marking-out tools, cramps and all the other bits and bats without which you can't do much serious woodworking, and you have the price of a family car. For someone on a good salary with the mortgage paid down and their kids off their hands, spreading purchases over a few years, that's realistic, but for someone on a more modest salary with mortgage/rent, a couple of young children and all the bills to pay - well, forget it. How can Mr or Mrs Average get a start in proper woodworking? The budget tools offer one way of putting some sort of toolkit together. Sure - I know that good secondhand kit can be had (for very little if you're prepared to be patient and trawl the bootfairs) but not always; the going rate on Ebay for a decent try plane seems to be about £100 or so, with postage on top. But what if you don't want spend time waiting for good cheap stuff to come up?
> 
> ...





=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Aug 2013)

Grayorm - a tradesman's approach has to be different, though, doesn't it? Time is money, so three hours fettling a plane is three hours not earning. It's a different matter for the hobbyist.

See if you can find a decent try Bailey style try plane for £50 including postage. My (admittedly fairly cursory) researches suggested about £100 plus postage.

By the way - you're a bit quicker to call someone I didn't know and had never met a fool than I would be. Different people, different ways I suppose.


----------



## Dangermouse (24 Aug 2013)

Ok, the only experience I have of buying a really naff cheap plane was many years ago when I started out on this very long learning curve. It was an Anant no4, I think I got it for around a fiver. I tried to use it and found it wasn't fit for purpose. The blade was made out of toffee, the cap iron didn't fit the blade much and the casting was a laugh. So I used it as best I could for a while until I found an old Record no 4 1/2. Cant remember what I paid for it, not much more than the Anant I expect and I still have it now. Planes like a dream, just used it yesterday to plane a bit of cross grain mahogany and was a joy to use. The only other low end plane I have purchased is a Faithful no 10 carriage plane for £28 on-line. Now I needed this for a job I was doing and didn't think I'd need to use it much again, so didn't want to spend mega bucks on either a new premium or vintage model from e-bay which were making big money. So I saw this new Faithfull plane on ebay and got it. Now I was expecting a real piece of junk, but not so it turned up and looked really good. I had to flatten the sole a bit, nothing more than I have done on vintage planes. The blade was as blunt as a chickens ass and needed flattening, grinding and honing. This made it a really good plane and I still have it and use it a lot. But I have had a look at their other planes and they do not appear to be made as well, must be from another Chinese producer maybe. but I can recommend their no10. So all in all I think you can get a usable really cheap plane, but not very often.


----------



## Graham Orm (24 Aug 2013)

CC Any plane has to be fettled, and maintained if you want consistency from it so part of being a tradesman is fettling and sharpening regardless of time taken. The majority of my hand planing takes place in my workshop not on site. I have an electric plane for that with a smoother and a block in the van, that see occasional use. My point was merely that there are plenty of second hand tools that are far better than cheap new stuff. If someone new to woodwork buys a cheap plane and can't get it to work and doesn't know why then he'll soon become disillusioned. Advising a newbie to buy a cheap and cheerful tool because he can't afford better is a mistake in my book. When I was apprentice we were told what tools to save for, not to go out and buy the cheapest we could find.

Scroll down. £39 buy it now....it didn't sell. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Stanley-N...T%2F5GSI2GuKxOVWDZAAM%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Aug 2013)

Grayorm":26mkhere said:


> CC Any plane has to be fettled, and maintained if you want consistency from it so part of being a tradesman is fettling and sharpening regardless of time taken. The majority of my hand planing takes place in my workshop not on site. I have an electric plane for that with a smoother and a block in the van, that see occasional use. My point was merely that there are plenty of second hand tools that are far better than cheap new stuff. If someone new to woodwork buys a cheap plane and can't get it to work and doesn't know why then he'll soon become disillusioned. Advising a newbie to buy a cheap and cheerful tool because he can't afford better is a mistake in my book. When I was apprentice we were told what tools to save for, not to go out and buy the cheapest we could find.
> 
> Scroll down. £39 buy it now....it didn't sell. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Stanley-N...T%2F5GSI2GuKxOVWDZAAM%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc




Well done for finding a Bailey try plane for £50. It's pretty neglected and there's not much blade left, so we could debate whether it's "decent" or not. Presumably that (and the fact that everybody's on holiday) is why it didn't sell.

I make a distinction between sharpening and normal maintenance (which you quite rightly say is a normal part of plane use), and the fettling required to make a plane perform reasonably in the first place.

I don't disagree that there are plenty of decent secondhand tools about, if you know what you're looking at (and how would a newbie know?). However, the subject of the thread is specifically, budget tools. Would I recommend a beginner to buy budget tools? Probably not as first choice, but I say again, when the available cash is limited, budget planes can be an option provided you're prepared to fettle them up. Part of the service that fora such as this can offer to newbies is explaining how to fettle them up. 

It's one option. Not necessarily the best option, but nonetheless it's an option open to the person that's strapped for cash but wants to get involved. That's all.


----------



## Reggie (24 Aug 2013)

Thank you ChesireChappie, that's exactly it, it's for those people that have bought themselves a cheap new branded plane wilfully, we're beyond chastising anyone for poor decisions, lets just help them make things right  A forum member had a cheap plane and said he wasn't having any issues with it at all, so I wilfully bought one of those planes, I specifically bought one to find out really how bad they actually were according to most compared to the experience of someone that actually owned one :-D they're not bad at all, no worse than the 2nd hand no.4 record I had to fettle for myself a few weeks back.


----------



## Graham Orm (24 Aug 2013)

Tell you what guys, you stick with, your chinese cheapies and I'll stick with my old second hand stuff. :roll:


----------



## lurcher (24 Aug 2013)

i buy planes and chisels at the boot sales this week on ebay i sold a stnanley no4 and a 5.1/2 for £17 plus [email protected] i have 100% feedback all my tools are honest ones just have a look at tiffney1142 at the moment i have tools listed and if people are not happy i will gladly refund there money todays tools are noware as good as 40 yr ago unless you got alot of spare cash old tools are still a very good investment of money


----------



## G S Haydon (24 Aug 2013)

Reggie,

I look forward to seeing how the £22.00 brand new bailey style plane works out for you. Please keep us updated on pros and cons, pictures would be very nice too if you have the time.
I hope I can also encourage you to stay here on UKWS and not to seek out a DIY forum that has been suggested. Looking at your old posts on other topics a DIY forum would not help you very much. In a short time you have got to grips with preparing chisels, morticing by hand, tuning bench planes and building a decent bench =D> 

Welcome to the world of woodworking (hammer).

I have decided to join you on your journey. My recently tuned Record #4 will be be returned to the tool chest and I shall dust of my Faithfull #4. We can then both share our experiences with these budget offerings. I personally was very curious about the #4 as it was so cheap.

In the photo below I have the Faithfull #4, My Tuned Up Record #4 and a 1970's Stanley #4. The Stanley is owned by the most all round talented woodworker I have ever met (not me I hasten to add). The condition of the Stanley would raise eyebrows!







My initial observations were satisfactory bearing in mind a price less than £30.00 delivered to my door. It came in a wooden box with green felt inside too, classy :lol: It was rust free, unused and able to be returned to the seller if I found it to be faulty. It also has a warranty for 1 year so should the casting be on the move I have plenty of time to find out and make a claim (whether that claim would find traction who knows)
The plane is heavier than a vintage Stanley or Record. This is due to the thicker castings. Measuring with calipers the casting is more or less 1mm thicker. It has generic hardwood handles with a thick gloopy finish. Although not as pleasing to hold as oiled timber they functioned very well and with enough meat in them that if a user wanted to they could adapt the shape. The only gripe I had was the brass screw on the knob sits rather high, like a tumor or cyst. This is something I aim to address to aid comfort.
The blade has significant milling marks, although by using the ruler trick (rightly or wrongly), these did not cause a problem creating a sharp enough edge. I chose to remove the sharp edges on the blade to aid comfort when the index finger finds it's perch.
The yoke/Y lever is very impressive. It is a solid and heavy weight rather than pressed two part item and engages very nicely with the cap iron. It has plenty of length too so if a thicker blade was used it might not need changing. In this aspect it trumps the Stanley and the Record.
The sole seems flat enough for the current project http://gshaydon.co.uk/blog/the-workbench/.
I will keep you updated on how and when the Faithful lets me down.

In addition I decided to find out what this would be like http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Faithfull-No- ... 2c70aa05c9 . Bearing in mind if I don't like the look of it I will return it.


----------



## jim_hanna (24 Aug 2013)

When I started out in woodworking I bought one of the B&Q yellow handled no 4s and began to learn. At that stage I wouldn’t have known how to sharpen or use a high quality plane and any investment would have been pointless.

I’ve now got a vintage Stanley 5 ½ and a new Quangsheng 62 LA Jack (from workshop heaven) but, with a Stanley cutter, the B&Q is still a workhorse I use all the time. The old saying about buying the best you can afford is fine for anyone who knows what they need and can use what they buy but cheaper tools have their place for a beginner.

Mind you I also bought a Rolson 3C, brand new in a box, for £5. It was absolute rubbish and taught me a lot about what to look for in a plane, machining on both sides of the frog would have been useful.


----------



## Reggie (25 Aug 2013)

Thanks GS, I look forward to seeing how you get on with the 2 faithfulls, it's an interesting subject that I don't think anyone has approached with objectivity judging by the polarised comments about the various ways of purchasing a plane :-D

Grayorm, I don't know about GS's faithfull planes but mine was made in India, by a company called 'SOBA' not China, the thread was never about the merits of one plane over another and always about what to do if you'd bought one of these planes. Ultimately, I hope that everyone is happy with their plane, wherever it came from


----------



## Graham Orm (25 Aug 2013)

Reggie":2o1riuh2 said:


> Thanks GS, I look forward to seeing how you get on with the 2 faithfulls, it's an interesting subject that I don't think anyone has approached with objectivity judging by the polarised comments about the various ways of purchasing a plane :-D
> 
> Grayorm, I don't know about GS's faithfull planes but mine was made in India, by a company called 'SOBA' not China, the thread was never about the merits of one plane over another and always about what to do if you'd bought one of these planes. Ultimately, I hope that everyone is happy with their plane, wherever it came from



Reggie. It was not my intention to have an argument with anyone, there's too much of that here as it is. (My silly person reference was not aimed at you but was in response to CC's generalisation, I'm afraid I rose to his bait). I enjoy your posts and would not suggest that you leave this forum for a minute. 

I stand by my point that cheap tools (in my experience) are seldom worth the effort. Good luck with your planes and also to GS. I'll be interested to read your follow ups, and to see pictures if possible....maybe you can change my thinking. :wink:


----------



## Reggie (25 Aug 2013)

No worries guys, I've been around the web for some time, I wouldn't just go to another forum because someone suggested I was in the wrong place, especially when I know I'm not 

I really do appreciate the individual positions that everyone has on their tools, each one is a unique perspective on their uses. My other hobbies include electronics, not just using them but hacking them to make them better than they were, for instance, we hacked a digital photoframe to take our own version of linux (which we compiled from scratch) opening the device up to do what we wanted it to do. I also need to stress that when I say hacking, I'm not talking about anything nefarious, I really am talking about DIY for electronics software/hardware in much the same way as woodworking, you see a problem, you work out a fix, you make it better than it was.

clearly I don't expect to turn a plane into a lathe but I do expect to use aspects of my hacking skills when doing woodwork, logic is one aspect, relationships between sub-components that go to make up a whole thing is another and (my favourite) poking things with a big stick until they do as they're told :-D


----------



## Jacob (25 Aug 2013)

A lot of people can't afford expensive tools (as Cheshirechappie pointed out above) so there's no option. But cheap tools are a good staring point anyway - you can make all your mistakes at low cost and learn a good deal about the tools in the process. 
And they are never as bad as they say!
I bought a cheap axminster set of chisels. They are perfectly OK but just look a bit horrid, two tone handle reminiscent of a shell suit. They do the job, the wood can't tell the difference.


----------



## Corneel (25 Aug 2013)

My only new, cheap plane is a Stanley Handyman. Not a good plane. I tried all the tuning tricks on it, but never got it to work very well. Pine wasn't too problematic, but anything harder induced terrible chatter. One of the problems is the frog. In a Bailey design the frog steps down near the mouth, to support the blade as deep as possible. Not in the Handyman. The thin blade flaps around in the breeze, so to speak.

After that experience I went with vintage planes. Stanleys, mostly the UK build ones, which can be very good. Minimal tuning needed. I never had money for the LN or LV ones, so I argued, if I have to tune anyway I'd better start with a solid basis that looks good and is a lot cheaper then a new Stanley.

At the other hand I know some professional guys who are very happy with Anant planes. They tuned the snot out of them though.

By far the cheapest way to assemble a kit of planes is woodies. They do have a longer learning curve, but when you master them, they are sweet!


----------



## heimlaga (25 Aug 2013)

I bought a cheap block plane (modern Stanley) once. For many years I thought that block planes are awkward creatures suitable only for carpentry until I learned restoring old planes and bought an old one and fixed it up and learned how useful a block plane is. I could have fettled the cheap one but it would still have been inferrior to the old one. It was not worth the effort so I use the cheap one as my on site block plane when doing carpentry. It is good enough for that.

I bought a cheap ship plane secondhand once. It looked unused and I thought I could fettle it. I could have fettled it but that fettling process would have included making a pattern for a properly designed new frog and sending it off to a foundry to have it cast. It would also have included making a new depth adjustment yoke. I figured the plane wasn't worth the effort and sold it on a flea maket for the same sum that I had paid. 

Nothing can cure a casting that does not have proper allowances for machining.


----------



## Vann (25 Aug 2013)

I'm intrigued that a number of people have found "Faithful" brand planes to be fettle-able, in this and other threads. Maybe Faithful are a little better than the rest.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 Aug 2013)

Vann":2m9omwoa said:


> I'm intrigued that a number of people have found "Faithful" brand planes to be fettle-able, in this and other threads. Maybe Faithful are a little better than the rest.
> 
> Cheers, Vann.



That's interesting. I'd vaguely registered that trend too; your post suggests that I'm not just imagining it.

Looking on the Faithfull website, the prices for a try plane, jack plane and smoothing plane are No.7 - £62-65, No.5 - £50.80, and No. 4 - £35-24. Those are the full recommended retail prices including VAT at 20%, so it may well be possible to find discounts by rootling around. That gives you a set of brand new bench planes (which may need a bit of fettling to set them up) for just under £150. By later adding thicker after-market irons and thicker cap-irons, it may be possible to own a set of planes with very satisfactory performance for about £300 or less - about the price of a single new premium plane. By the time you've fettled and added upgraded bits, you're in the same general league as decent vintage secondhand off Ebay, though the assiduous and lucky boot-fair scourers may well end up at a lower spend.

The prices of new Stanley and Record Irwin offerings (which don't seem to get very positive reports) are significantly more than the Faithfull prices. It seems that they are overpriced for what they are. Stanley Sweetheart, on the other hand, get generally positive reports.

The other 'vibe' I've picked up is that the really budget (£5-99 for a new plane) items really are too good to be true. It seems that most of their victims regard them as absolute junk.

Between the junk and the Faithfull, there seem to be a number of makers (or brand names, anyway) such as Anant, Brook, Silverline, Axminster own brand and maybe one or two others. Reports of these are mixed, but generally not very positive. They can often be made into reasonable planes, but need more fettling than the Faithfulls seem to (and more after-market bits like better blades), and some specimens are beyond redemption. The biggest drawback of these seems to be that you take a chance as to whether you get a good, easily fettle-able specimen, or a virtually irredeemable 'Friday afternoon special'.

That seems to be the 'state of play' at the moment, but the more input and experience people can offer, the clearer the picture will become.


----------



## Reggie (26 Aug 2013)

Axminster haven't got an own brand, I think that's a mistake people make, they're sold as axminster brand but neither of the items I've purchased from them arrived in an axminster box, the plane was made by soba, which is indian, and a 9" bench vice that was made in eastern europe.

I've noticed that axminster have soba as their cheap brand supplier, rutlands on the other hand favour the anant range. As said though, the only issue I had with my no.5 was the yoke ends not riding the groove properly in the adjuster wheel, something that might happen on an old plane if the adjuster has been handled by a gorilla.

I think the other thing to remember about these planes is if it doesn't do the job properly and you don't want to / can't fettle it enough to be usable, send it back, give bad feedback on the item in the store and get onto customer services about it, the more complaints they receive, the more likely they are to do something about it, never settle for broken kit. Especially as axminster are well known for having good customer service. 

We seriously do not complain enough in this country, if we don't complain, people will keep selling the same junk, either through ignorance or wilfully.


----------



## G S Haydon (26 Aug 2013)

The faithfull site is not the place for pricing. Simply copy and paste the tool name into ebay and hey presto! #7 on order for £40.00 delivered. If it's junk I will send it back. I have some pictures on the #4 Faithful to upload later.


----------



## Vann (26 Aug 2013)

Reggie":24c7n1ok said:


> We seriously do not complain enough in this country...


You should complain about that...

I'll get my coat... :mrgreen: 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## custard (26 Aug 2013)

Sheffield Tony":1gih87nd said:


> If you consider the cheapest of power tools - drills for £7.50 and other impossibly cheap offerings - these have a working lifespan counted in minutes.



I seem to remember reading about some research conducted by Black & Decker that said the average domestic electric drill is used for 7 seconds a year. That's about a shelf every two or three years; based on most of my family and friends that sounds about right. In which case that £7.50 drill might last them a lifetime!


----------



## Graham Orm (27 Aug 2013)

G S Haydon":3le7t9g2 said:


> The faithfull site is not the place for pricing. Simply copy and paste the tool name into ebay and hey presto! #7 on order for £40.00 delivered. If it's junk I will send it back. I have some pictures on the #4 Faithful to upload later.



I will read your review of the No 7 with great interest GS. :wink:


----------



## G S Haydon (29 Aug 2013)

So a little more on the Faithfull #4

Firstly a picture of the nice hefty Y lever engaging with the cap iron which I mentioned last time, something the Faithfull trumps the Record on.






The frog adjustment is done in the same fashion as the Record from 1976>. The following description of the Record frog and the image are basically the same for the faithfull

_"Frog Pattern #4
The fourth pattern, a modification to the frog adjusting mechanism saw a milled slot introduced to the rear underside of the frog casting to accommodate the redesigned frog adjusting screw, from August 1976. This replaced the previously used captive head adjusting screw and fork. This pattern of frog had the solid disc pattern #5 lateral lever to 1st October 1988 and then the Lateral lever #6 pressed steel type onwards."_





The one area I have noticed so far that really lets down the faithfull is the quality of the screws and washers that hold down the frog and also the screw that holds the lever cap. They all feel a bit like very cheap gutter bolt quality. The washers may even look like they are deflecting a bit. I'm on the look out for some appropriate replacements, should I find some I will post a link. The Record on the other hand has very nice ones. The lateral adjustment lever on the Faithfull is more basic too, although it still feels robust.





I have also been using the plane too :shock: . The Faithfull is straight from the box, only the blade has been sharpened on an india oil stone, noting else has been touched, nothing. The Record on the other hand has been treated to my take on David Charlesworth's Popular Woodworking article for tuning up hand planes. The blade on the Record was refined further than the India oilstone sharpening of the faithfull and also it has a Stay Set cap iron too. Needless to say the Record works very nicely indeed. 
So far on Redwood it's just fine (no surprise there). I also did a test on a 25mm piece of Euro oak, again, nothing to testing (see below). I am used to my Record so the extra mass of the Faithfull took a bit of getting used too, apart from that, IMO it did a good job.
So far the only flaw I feel I have found is the quality of the screws and washers retaining the frog. 

http://youtu.be/nroLYYuF2vg

I will dig deeper next time and see if I can find more issues.


----------



## Reggie (30 Aug 2013)

That's a cracking review so far GS and if a couple of washers is all it takes to keep that thing ticking over nicely, I'd say you've got a real winner, the proof being in those wispy shavings you got from it


----------



## bugbear (30 Aug 2013)

G S Haydon":xg1jwyo6 said:


> The frog adjustment is done in the same fashion as the Record from 1976>. The following description of the Record frog and the image are basically the same for the faithfull
> 
> _"Frog Pattern #4
> The fourth pattern, a modification to the frog adjusting mechanism saw a milled slot introduced to the rear underside of the frog casting to accommodate the redesigned frog adjusting screw, from August 1976. This replaced the previously used captive head adjusting screw and fork. This pattern of frog had the solid disc pattern #5 lateral lever to 1st October 1988 and then the Lateral lever #6 pressed steel type onwards."_



Yeah - because cast iron works SO WELL in thin section.

Not. :lol: :lol: 

I've seen one of those Records - terrifying.

BugBear


----------



## G S Haydon (30 Aug 2013)

"terrifying" Really :? ? Is there a history of these failing or is it the movement of the older type is more satisfying/easier?


----------



## chipmunk (3 Sep 2013)

I didn't realize until today but Axminster are now selling Faithfull brand tools at reasonable prices.

http://www.axminster.co.uk/page/find/?name=faithfull plane

Jon


----------



## Dangermouse (3 Sep 2013)

I agree about Anant planes, unless you get one and put hours and hours of work into it and then the material quality isn't good. If your looking for a decent new plane at a cheap price I'd advise Faithfull too, they do a series of planes at reasonable prices. I purchased a no10 carriage plane new, as it was on offer and ultra cheap, expecting it to be rubbish. But on taking a straight edge to it found that it was within British standard of 3 thou and the sides within a few thou too. So after a bit of fettling of about an hour it became a very good plane. The blade sharpened up well and cuts fine, although its not up to LN quality, and I'm thinking of putting in a thick blade from Ray Iles, the Replacement Carriage Maker Plane Cutter Ref: RI001, costs around £18 to £20. 

After a bit of fettling


----------



## G S Haydon (3 Sep 2013)

That's a beauty DM

Well my #7 arrived and it's on it's way back, the sole was bowed by about 1.5mm #-o. Sad really as the knob and tote were much improved over my #4 and it was nicely weighted and finished bearing in mind the price. I think to sum up on faithfulls if you want a roughing jack #5 or the smaller sizes they are just fine. Refining them seems to take all the steps needed when improving a vintage item anyway. Sadly the larger castings seem a bridge too far for them.
I'm going to ebay a few unwanted items and then contact Matthew at WSH and invest in a QS #7. Hope my experiment has been useful to some, or a "I told you so moment for others". Either way I'm happy to of been the Guinea Pig.


----------



## Jacob (4 Sep 2013)

I don't know if the cheap ones are cast iron or not but the expensive ones are all made of "ductile (cast?) steel" it seems. 
This is promoted as an advantage but it isn't, it's just cheaper and more profitable for them.
It's very inferior to the cast iron on my old Records, Stanleys etc and scratches very easily. Just noticed a big scratch on my Clifton where it caught a bit of grit. LV and QS were the same (I don't have them any more). This wouldn't happen with cast iron - all my old planes have shiny soles more or less scratch free after many years of use.
So it might be worth the bother of flattening a cheapo, if it is cast. Unfortunately cast iron also means it's much harder to flatten!


----------



## Racers (4 Sep 2013)

Cast Iron develops a hard skin after a few years making them more scratch resistant, and harder to start lapping as I have found out.

Ductile cast iron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ductile_iron 

Pete


----------



## Cheshirechappie (4 Sep 2013)

Jacob":1x0vwnht said:


> I don't know if the cheap ones are cast iron or not but the expensive ones are all made of "ductile (cast?) steel" it seems.
> This is promoted as an advantage but it isn't, it's just cheaper and more profitable for them.
> It's very inferior to the cast iron on my old Records, Stanleys etc and scratches very easily. Just noticed a big scratch on my Clifton where it caught a bit of grit. LV and QS were the same (I don't have them any more). This wouldn't happen with cast iron - all my old planes have shiny soles more or less scratch free after many years of use.
> So it might be worth the bother of flattening a cheapo, if it is cast. Unfortunately cast iron also means it's much harder to flatten!



That's not quite correct.

Most plane bodies are made of cast iron - iron with a carbon content of 3% to 4% (roughly). Some are heat treated after casting, some are not. If the casting is used straight from the mould - usually called 'grey cast iron' or similar - there will be cooling stresses locked up in the casting, which can release themselves slowly over time, resulting in some distortion of the casting. The old procedure was to 'season' castings after they had been made, by stacking them in the yard for 12 months or so, thus allowing the stresses time to settle. The old Stanleys and Records were made this way. Clearly, this tied up capital, so the cheaper way is to machine and finish the casting straight from the mould, and hope that it doesn't settle and distort later. Some do, some don't. I suspect that this is the method used by the budget manufacturers.

Another way to release the cooling stresses is to heat-treat the casting to 'anneal' it. This also has the advantage that, if the right grade of cast iron is chosen to start with. the heat-treated casting becomes less brittle, and the resulting material is known as 'ductile iron'. This is the process that Clifton, LN and presumably Veritas use. Clearly, the heat treatment is an extra manufacturing procedure, and will add to the final cost of the plane. It will also add a lot to the quality.

As far as I'm aware, nobody casts plane bodies from steel (steel is iron with a carbon content of between abaout 0.05% - dead mild steel - and 1.4% - high carbon file steel - with the bulk of mild steel being about 0.2% carbon, and then there are many grades of alloy steel.). Steel is tricky stuff to cast, as it tends to be less fluid than cast iron when molten, so it's very difficult to cast thin sections in steel - it solidifies before it fills the whole mould, if you're too ambitious. Steel castings behave similarly to iron ones in that they have residual stresses in them post-casting, so the annealing/seasoning techniques are required here, too. Being a metallurgically different material to cast iron, steels will respond differently to heat treatments, and the appropriate treatment will depend on the grade of steel and the duty of the object being treated.

By the way - cast iron, even old cast iron, is relatively soft, and will scratch. The soles of your old Record and Stanley planes wiill scratch if they catch the same grit that your Clifton did.


----------



## potteringpotter (4 Sep 2013)

I've owned one and it was indeed a little bit hit and miss


----------



## Jacob (4 Sep 2013)

Cheshirechappie":6kztt5kl said:


> .....
> ..... The soles of your old Record and Stanley planes wiill scratch if they catch the same grit that your Clifton did.


No they won't. That's my point. I should know by now. They are without a doubt much harder and do not scratch in normal use even if they hit a nail. And in turn they are much harder to flatten. For whatever reason - I don't know much about steel, I'm just telling of my experience.
The softies in my experience are Clifton, LV, QS and a rubbish Indian thing called Ess Vee. I don't know about Faithful, Anant, LN etc.


----------



## Racers (4 Sep 2013)

So the newer ones are softer and the old ones are harder, if only some one could provide an answer.....


Pete


----------



## Cheshirechappie (4 Sep 2013)

Jacob":k6x2l05g said:


> I don't know much about steel.



That, Jacob, is blindingly obvious!

If your assertion that older plane soles are harder is true, all you have to do with your Clifton is use it for twenty years or whatever, and it will be just as hard as your old Record.

From experience elsewhere with older cast iron, I'm a tad sceptical about this claim. I think older plane soles may be more polished with use, but I rather doubt that hardness changes significantly with either time or use. Without undertaking some metallurgical and mechanical tests of comparative hardness, chemical analysis and metallurgical structure, I doubt we'd settle the matter, so if you want to believe that your old planes are as hard as nails, you carry on. As far as I'm concerned, as long as a cast iron plane sole casting is flat enough to do what's expected of it (and stays flat enough!), it's good enough, be it old or new.


----------



## Jacob (4 Sep 2013)

You can be as sceptical as you like but I'm telling you of what I have experienced. Records and Stanleys bought by me new in the 80s, and various ditto 2nd hand, have conspicuously harder iron than the newer ones I noted above, and were harder from new. They still show the original machine marks in spite of 30+ years of misuse and are much more scratch resistant (and harder to flatten if needed). The also seem to have less friction but this is bit subjective - I wouldn't swear to it.
No need to settle the matter- it's settled - the new ones (ductile?) of which I've had hands-on experience of are all relatively soft and pick up scratches more easily. I noticed it immediately the first time with a LV la smoother - it lost it's perfect finish in no time! 
I also have a new SW Stanley which looks relatively unscathed but I haven't used it a lot so the verdict is pending on that one.
NB I work in a scratchy environment - there's been a lot of building work going on, otherwise the difference might not have shown itself - and I really don't need to know anything about iron or steel to see the evidence.


----------



## Graham Orm (4 Sep 2013)

G S Haydon":1vo4r5jy said:


> That's a beauty DM
> 
> Well my #7 arrived and it's on it's way back, the sole was bowed by about 1.5mm #-o. Sad really as the knob and tote were much improved over my #4 and it was nicely weighted and finished bearing in mind the price. I think to sum up on faithfulls if you want a roughing jack #5 or the smaller sizes they are just fine. Refining them seems to take all the steps needed when improving a vintage item anyway. Sadly the larger castings seem a bridge too far for them.
> I'm going to ebay a few unwanted items and then contact Matthew at WSH and invest in a QS #7. Hope my experiment has been useful to some, or a "I told you so moment for others". Either way I'm happy to of been the Guinea Pig.



Nice one G. Thanks :wink:


----------



## Cheshirechappie (4 Sep 2013)

Jacob":77lhzitm said:


> You can be as sceptical as you like but I'm telling you of what I have experienced. Records and Stanleys bought by me new in the 80s, and various ditto 2nd hand, have conspicuously harder iron than the newer ones I noted above, and were harder from new. They still show the original machine marks in spite of 30+ years of misuse and are much more scratch resistant (and harder to flatten if needed).
> No need to settle the matter- it's settled - the new ones (ductile?) of which I've had hands-on experience of are all relatively soft and pick up scratches more easily. I noticed it immediately the first time with a LV la smoother - it lost it's perfect finish in no time!
> I also have a new SW Stanley which looks relatively unscathed but I haven't used it a lot so the verdict is pending on that one.
> NB I work in a scratchy environment - there's been a lot of building work going on, otherwise the difference might not have shown itself.



So all the planes you praise and advocate are amazingly hard, and the ones you constantly decry are soft.

Remarkable....one would almost think there's a hint of wishful thinking going on....or possibly a hint of exaggeration.

On a more sensible note, it is possible to harden some grades of cast iron, by electrical induction hardening. The technique is used in the machine tool industry on slideways and machine beds. As far as I'm aware, nobody has ever done this with woodworking planes, and the technique was not developed during the golden years of Record and Stanley plane manufacture anyway. The only other explanations I can think of is that constant work polishes the surface of well-used planes, or that the grade of cast iron used in the old days differed slightly in chemical composition to modern ones. The difference won't be that great - it's still grey cast iron, as you'll find out if you drop one. A Clifton or LN will survive a bit of a drop (being of ductile iron), the old ones won't.


----------



## bugbear (4 Sep 2013)

I wonder if scratches show up more on a nicely surface ground plane than a battered old one with "patina" ? :roll: :roll: 

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (4 Sep 2013)

Cheshirechappie":l1pcoyr2 said:


> .......... or that the grade of cast iron used in the old days differed slightly in chemical composition to modern ones.


 Seems so - and it wouldn't be distinguished as "ductile" iron if it was exactly the same as the non ductile stuff.


> The difference won't be that great - it's still grey cast iron, as you'll find out if you drop one. A Clifton or LN will survive a bit of a drop (being of ductile iron), the old ones won't.


But it _is_ great. And yes old cast iron ones _are_ more brittle - haven't broken one myself but have seen it done. So the iron is different in that respect - why should it not be different with respect to surface hardness, as I have experienced?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (4 Sep 2013)

Jacob":1mmljzi9 said:


> But it _is_ great. And yes old cast iron ones _are_ more brittle - haven't broken one myself but have seen it done. So the iron is different in that respect - why should it not be different with respect to surface hardness, as I have experienced?



Sorry, Jacob, but the metallurgical nature of cast iron is that it is a soft(ish) metal, whatever it's chemical composition. Some castings have a hard skin (the bane of old-time machinists before the days of carbide tooling), but that's because of flash chilling as the molten metal hit the mould, and that skin would be removed by the machining process of the plane sole. That's why the machine tool boys found it necessary to develop a process to induction harden cast iron - wear on machine tool slideways was fast enough to be a problem, as anybody who has operated old and well-used machine tools will readily attest. That technique has, to my knowledege, never been used on hand plane castings.

I will accept that older planes may have a polished and worn surface, and that there may be minor differences in surface hardness depending on the exact specification of cast iron. I can't accept that they are significantly harder; the metallurgical facts of life just don't support that assertion.


----------



## iNewbie (4 Sep 2013)

Ductile Iron PDF


----------



## Jacob (4 Sep 2013)

Cheshirechappie":2yrglgld said:


> .......I can't accept that they are significantly harder; the metallurgical facts of life just don't support that assertion.


Armchair theorising again! It seems unlikely to me that all cast iron, new or old, ductile or otherwise, has exactly the same surface hardness. 

I just did a scratch test. Good job I'm not precious about my tools! Corner of a chisel and a little squiggle shows Clifton soft, Stanley SW (new) slightly harder, old Record 4 much harder. You will have to add that to your collection of metallurgical facts of life.
Better still - get out of the armchair and have scratch on your own!

NB I got rid of my LV la smoother partly because it was so scratchy - it was very noticeable - I thought if I used it for much longer it'd be a bit of a mess


----------



## woodbrains (4 Sep 2013)

Hello,

It seems the service wear resistance data here



iNewbie":dsz44c1h said:


> Ductile Iron PDF




Tells us ductile iron is in fact hard.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (4 Sep 2013)

woodbrains":jzcqhyvu said:


> Hello,
> 
> It seems the service wear resistance data here
> 
> ...


_Service data indicate that the wear resistance of ductile iron is equivalent to some
of the best grades of cast gray iron._ Which clearly implies that it is inferior to others. And also that there are grades of hardness.
Should be no surprise - ductile more or less means soft, don't know why I'm having to argue about it.
Anyway - scratch yer tools and see what happens.


----------



## woodbrains (4 Sep 2013)

Hello,

Ductile doesn't mean soft at all. And if ductile iron has enough wear resistance to make cylender bore liners, I think a pane body would be well within parameters.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (4 Sep 2013)

Look it up in a dictionary. And I didn't say it was unsuitable I just said it was scratchy.


----------



## iNewbie (4 Sep 2013)

Jacob":26x6rsfp said:


> Should be no surprise - *ductile more or less means soft*, don't know why I'm having to argue about it.
> Anyway - scratch yer tools and see what happens.



Or does it relate to Ductile meaning: not Brittle - while Cast Iron is brittle.


----------



## woodbrains (4 Sep 2013)

Hello,

Ductility is the ability for a material to be put under a deforming stress or strain load, without breaking or losing hardness. Not brittle. Malleable.

I have had LV planes for over 10 years and find them comparable to the vintage Record ones I have had along side. Cannot say I notice much difference if any. Never dropped any of them, so I suppose the ductility is redundant, but one day!! :shock: 

Never bought any plane for it's droppable nature, I like LV planes because they are superb and I think value for money, considering how well they perform versus the price. I must repeat as I said before, the best Stanley vintage cost more in relative terms than LV planes do now, and even these are not as well made, though good enough and make good used bargains.

Mike.


----------



## G S Haydon (4 Sep 2013)

Grayorm":akz0pqrw said:


> G S Haydon":akz0pqrw said:
> 
> 
> > That's a beauty DM
> ...



My pleasure . I was really hoping for a serviceable tool. I though about taking the same route as you did on the modern Stanley you were gifted but with so little time for hobby woodworking I could not face it. I did buy a vintage Record #7 a while back and that was bowed too #-o. I have decided to retain a wooden jack, my Record #5 for a shooting board, my tuned up Record #4 and purchase a QS #7 after I have ebayed some bits and pieces to fund it. I will keep the faithfull #4 too as I got lucky with that and it's nice to remind yourself you can do good stuff with humble tools.


----------



## Corneel (4 Sep 2013)

Hmm, some literature references and someone who actually scratched his planes. Who to believe? Anyone with a hardness tester available? That would settle the argument for good.


----------



## Graham Orm (4 Sep 2013)

G S Haydon":vkzxqh4w said:


> My pleasure . I was really hoping for a serviceable tool. I though about taking the same route as you did on the modern Stanley you were gifted but with so little time for hobby woodworking I could not face it. I did buy a vintage Record #7 a while back and that was bowed too #-o. I have decided to retain a wooden jack, my Record #5 for a shooting board, my tuned up Record #4 and purchase a QS #7 after I have ebayed some bits and pieces to fund it. I will keep the faithfull #4 too as I got lucky with that and it's nice to remind yourself you can do good stuff with humble tools.



Glad you're happy with the #4. You may remember I picked up a very old #7. It was sold as an 1888, but I've pinned it down to between 1898 and 1901. I've 75% refurbished it, the sole was a job taking about 3 hours in 20 minute sessions to flatten starting with 40 grit. I'll put some piccy's up when it's done. I've also bought a 1929 #5 which is sat patiently in the queue. 

There's a pre lateral lever #5 on Ebay at the moment currently with 10 hours left and with a buy it now price of £160. Not much use as a user as it looks very tired as well as no lateral lever. If I had the dosh spare I might be tempted to stick it on a shelf and look at it now and again. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-ANTI...4-/111137734737?ssPageName=ADME:B:WNA:GB:3160


----------



## matthewwh (4 Sep 2013)

Definitions of ductile:

1: capable of being drawn out into wire or thread <ductile iron>
2: easily led or influenced
3: capable of being fashioned into a new form 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ductile

There is nothing ductile about a Clifton, they use grey iron and heat treat it with the specific intent of keeping it in exactly the same form that it was made in - i.e flat, square and true. 

The heat treatment does indeed soften the iron slightly, but also makes it tougher (less brittle) and more rigid (less ductile). As others have observed, if you just cast grey iron and machine it without the heat treatment, it will be brittle, stressed and prone to warp. 

We repeated the LN test of dropping a plane nose first onto concrete (the one with the rebating block plane where it only bent a trifle). Clifton don't do a rebating block plane so we used a No.7 instead. The plane was checked for straightness and flatness before and after and not only was it still in one piece, but the before and after readings were less than a thou apart and it was still within tolerance. 

Quangsheng use chromium steel which is both unbreakable and more wear resistant than either grey or ductile.


----------



## G S Haydon (4 Sep 2013)

Grayorm":2enf3qm9 said:


> G S Haydon":2enf3qm9 said:
> 
> 
> > My pleasure . I was really hoping for a serviceable tool. I though about taking the same route as you did on the modern Stanley you were gifted but with so little time for hobby woodworking I could not face it. I did buy a vintage Record #7 a while back and that was bowed too #-o. I have decided to retain a wooden jack, my Record #5 for a shooting board, my tuned up Record #4 and purchase a QS #7 after I have ebayed some bits and pieces to fund it. I will keep the faithfull #4 too as I got lucky with that and it's nice to remind yourself you can do good stuff with humble tools.
> ...



You are dedicated man G. I like to think you are earning good karma by refining these old tools. That no lat lever is interesting, I had assumed they always had them. Just a light tap with a hammer to adjust I assume?


----------



## Graham Orm (4 Sep 2013)

G S Haydon":2xunk6r0 said:


> You are dedicated man G. I like to think you are earning good karma by refining these old tools. That no lat lever is interesting, I had assumed they always had them. Just a light tap with a hammer to adjust I assume?



It could quite easily turn into a hobby....already too much on the go, I'l sort the #7 & #5 for my own use and try not to buy any more :lol:


----------



## Vann (5 Sep 2013)

Cheshirechappie":13mxhckn said:


> Jacob":13mxhckn said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if the cheap ones are cast iron or not but the expensive ones are all made of "ductile (cast?) steel" it seems.
> ...


Not quite correct. Lie-Nielsen and Veritas use ductile iron. Clifton use grey cast iron (like Stanley & Record did), which Matthew says is heat treated (unlike Stanley & Record).



Cheshirechappie":13mxhckn said:


> As far as I'm aware, nobody casts plane bodies from steel (steel is iron with a carbon content of between abaout 0.05% - dead mild steel - and 1.4% - high carbon file steel - with the bulk of mild steel being about 0.2% carbon, and then there are many grades of alloy steel.). Steel is tricky stuff to cast, as it tends to be less fluid than cast iron when molten, so it's very difficult to cast thin sections in steel - it solidifies before it fills the whole mould, if you're too ambitious. Steel castings behave similarly to iron ones in that they have residual stresses in them post-casting, so the annealing/seasoning techniques are required here, too. Being a metallurgically different material to cast iron, steels will respond differently to heat treatments, and the appropriate treatment will depend on the grade of steel and the duty of the object being treated.


 The US manufacturer of "VB" planes use steel, but drop forged rather than cast.

I've previously seen Quangsheng described as "steel" but assumed that was a translation error, however...


matthewwh":13mxhckn said:


> Quangsheng use chromium steel which is both unbreakable and more wear resistant than either grey or ductile.



As for Jacob's opinions - well, he proved in another thread that he WILL NOT admit when he's wrong, so you're wasting your time arguing with him (hammer) 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2013)

matthewwh":dcgyo7oo said:


> ........
> There is nothing ductile about a Clifton, they use grey iron and heat treat it with the specific intent of keeping it in exactly the same form that it was made in - i.e flat, square and true.
> 
> The heat treatment does indeed soften the iron slightly, but also makes it tougher (less brittle) and more rigid (less ductile). As others have observed, if you just cast grey iron and machine it without the heat treatment, it will be brittle, stressed and prone to warp. ........


So the process _does indeed soften the iron slightly_ then? Quelle surprise!
It is as I have observed - having only yesterday picked up a scratch on the bottom of my Clifton, which isn't wearing well in an admittedly hostile environment. Neither did the LVla smoother I owned briefly. I included a QS in my list but TBH I can't remember so I could be wrong.
It's only the Clifton, the LV and a rubbish Ess Vee (Indian plane) which are noticeably scratch prone in my limited experience, whatever the other advantages of their steel.
In comparison the older Stanleys and Records appear to have very hard surfaces and are much less scratch prone, though I accept they may well be _brittle, stressed and prone to warp_. 
I'm just stating what I've seen - no amount of armchair theorising will make any difference!

But there is a second detail - the old harder steels also give an impression of less friction in use. Not as easy to demonstrate so it remains just an impression.


----------



## Graham Orm (5 Sep 2013)

G S Haydon":2t17knh9 said:


> There's a pre lateral lever #5 on Ebay at the moment currently with 10 hours left and with a buy it now price of £160. Not much use as a user as it looks very tired as well as no lateral lever. If I had the dosh spare I might be tempted to stick it on a shelf and look at it now and again. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-ANTI...4-/111137734737?ssPageName=ADME:B:WNA:GB:3160
> 
> That no lat lever is interesting, I had assumed they always had them. Just a light tap with a hammer to adjust I assume?



It didn't sell! Just shows how really un-collectable they are. The only ones with any real value are pre 1880 #1 & #2 I think. I saw a 1910 #7 not sell a couple of weeks ago, I think that was on about £60 buy it now. 
It's the provenance that fascinates me. An old working tool isn't like anything else, it's been used to create things by many skilled (or not) craftsmen. I think the value in these old ones is in restoring them to a pleasing condition and using them.

EDIT: From what I can gather the lateral lever made it's debut in 1885.


----------



## iNewbie (5 Sep 2013)

Jacob":107giltr said:


> It is as I have observed - having only yesterday picked up a scratch on the bottom of my Clifton, which isn't wearing well in an admittedly hostile environment. Neither did the LVla smoother I owned briefly. I included a QS in my list but TBH I can't remember so I could be wrong.
> It's only the Clifton, the LV and a rubbish Ess Vee (Indian plane) which are noticeably scratch prone in my limited experience, whatever the other advantages of their steel.
> In comparison the older Stanleys and Records appear to have very hard surfaces and are much less scratch prone, though I accept they may well be _brittle, stressed and prone to warp_.
> I'm just stating what I've seen - no amount of armchair theorising will make any difference!



The problem -for me- with your deduction is: you didn't notice_ how_ the scratch came about and that you hadn't ran the other plane through the same (whatever) that caused that scratch to happen. How about hammering a nail through your work bench and riding all your planes across it? Sounds more scientific to me. :mrgreen: 

NB: one scratch on a clifton doesn't mean they're all scratch prone - in fact, you could have an anomaly... Just a thought.


----------



## Corneel (5 Sep 2013)

I'm not surpised that the 160 pound prelateral #5 didn''t sell. That's a lot of money for a # 5.

I think I've been lucky with my #7. First I had a UK made model with a similar bow in the sole. I sold that one at a loss (did disclose the condition to the buyer!), because I didn't have the courage to flatten it. Then I bought a type 11 #7 and it is totally flat, can't see any light when meassureing with a true straight edge. I think when you want to invest in a new plane, a jointer would be a good choice.

Still noone with a hardness tester? Only armchair theories? I would be tempted to ask around at the lab overhere, but I don't have any new planes, only old ones.


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2013)

Corneel":1u5f00i8 said:


> ...
> Still noone with a hardness tester? Only armchair theories? I would be tempted to ask around at the lab overhere, but I don't have any new planes, only old ones.


You don't need a laboratory to do a comparative scratch test with a corner of a chisel, as I did, or with a nail, as I did accidentally.
You might need a lab to test relative friction between different planes however - the main problem being how to simulate real working conditions and measure at the same time. Could be interesting (if you are in to that sort of thing!).


----------



## Corneel (5 Sep 2013)

The advantage of using a harness tester would be that you come up with a definitive number, while the scratch test is more or less subjective. Each one of the participants in this thread would have to scratch some of their tools to see for themselves. i kind of doubt that's going to happen. :mrgreen:


----------



## Kalimna (5 Sep 2013)

Actually, you do need a lab, or similar, to do a worthwhile comparative scratch test. The reason being that you need to eliminate as many confounding factors as possible. For instance, the hardness of the edge used to test the scratch, the angle applied to the surface to be scratched, the pressure applied, etc. The end result may very well be the same, but only rigorous experiments lead to meaningful results.

Adam


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2013)

So my scratches might be imaginary then? Or should I simply believe the evidence of my eyes?

Lost the plot here, what with all these armchair theorists burbling on.
My original suggestion was that the cheap planes, for all their defects, might have the advantage of the harder surface apparent in older Stanleys and Records. It is quite a significant advantage and part of the reason there are so many old planes about in very good nick (until they are dropped of course).
I might just buy a Faithful 10 and see for myself.


----------



## Racers (5 Sep 2013)

The plural of anecdote isn't fact!


Pete


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2013)

But nobody has come up with a "fact" to contradict my experience. Matthew said the Clifton process "does indeed soften the iron slightly" so there you go!


----------



## Racers (5 Sep 2013)

Your self included


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2013)

So are you saying that my old planes are *not* harder and more scratch resistant?
Or are you just saying *nothing at all* - which is what you usually do, very monotonously too. :roll:


----------



## Racers (5 Sep 2013)

I stated my observations a few pages back.

My thoughts are formed by empirical evidence, yours seem to be stated as fact and then you admit you don't know much about the subject a couple of posts later.

I don't post lots of contradictory posts or misleading quotes so may be I don't say much, I would prefer to keep things short and to the point.

Pete


----------



## Dangermouse (5 Sep 2013)

Now now girls, lets not get all overheated or it will be handbags at dawn all over again ! [-X


----------



## Reggie (5 Sep 2013)

G S Haydon":327tfre8 said:


> Grayorm":327tfre8 said:
> 
> 
> > G S Haydon":327tfre8 said:
> ...



Hi Graham, I think you nailed it when you said the smaller 4s and 5s are useful in the faithfull range, I used my record no.4 and the axminster no.5 on some 3/4" pine endgrain the other evening, it was an absolute pleasure to use both planes, there was no discernible difference between the 2 with regard to finish/ease of use. the axi made short work of removing the cupping on a pine board too, with or across the grain was no issue at all, all in all I'm very pleased with my cheap no.5.

I'm going to look at the axi/faithfull block planes, I get the feeling you can go particularly wrong with something that size, again, with your comments, I wonder if the length/weight of the plane has more to do with the errors you saw than the actual castings? 1.5mm bow is a lot, from what I've seen of the record no.4 and the axminster no.5 there's no discernible error in the sole, if there is it's negligible, either that or I just wouldn't know a decent planed bit of board if it jumped up and smacked me in the face.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (5 Sep 2013)

Some hardness figures for different metals, taken from several sources (Matweb, Butterworth's Mechanical Engineer's Reference Book 11th edition 1981, Macready's Orange Book and others). All figures are quoted in Brinell 'b' scale. Jacob may be interested to note that none of the sources was found in an armchair.

BS1400 LB4 leaded bronze, sand cast - 55 to 75
BS1400 LG4 leaded gunmetal, sand cast - 70 to 85
Mild Steel (EN3, 0.2%C) - annealed 120, workhardened 180
O1 Tool Steel - 229 annealed, 550 to 680 hardened and tempered, depending on temper
Malleable Iron - 130 approx
Grey Cast Iron - 156 to 302 depending on grade
Ductile Iron - 143 to 187 depending on grade.

We can thus deduce that even annealed grey cast iron (approximating to malleable iron) is of comparable hardness to mild steel, and notably harder than cast bronze, another material used for fine plane bodies. The hardness of iron will depend on grade, and varies considerably, but even the hardest are not greatly better than annealed tool steel, and in nowhere near hardened and tempered tool steel.

This is somewhat comparative, and figures should not be taken as absolute. There are something like 4000 grades of steel commercially available in Britain, and perhaps several hundred grades of cast iron. The exact hardness of any given grade will depend on the conditions of manufacture and any subsequent working, so absolute figures can only be given in very tight specified circumstances.

This indicates that there may be some truth in Jacob's assertion that some older planes are harder than some newer ones. However, it also indicates that any plane of cast iron, irrespective of it's vintage, is unlikely to be significantly harder than a modern one of ductile iron, or of a dovetailed mild steel plane, and planes with bronze or gunmetal cast bodies will be noticably softer. It's also worth noting that beechwood (among others) works perfectly well as a plane body (there are several centuries of evidence to support that point), and beech is a lot softer than even the softest bronze.

I'm not really sure that this proves anything we hadn't already worked out from long experience. Planes of whatever iron - seasoned, annealed, ductile - work perfectly satisfactorily, as do dovetailed mild steel and cast bronze and gunmetal ones. If they are used in a hostile environment, they are likely to suffer more than if used in a relatively controlled one; hence the reason that many carpenters and joiners prefer not to take their best tools on site.

Thanks to Matthewwh and Vann for correcting my mistake in asserting that Clifton use a ductile iron. It would seem that they end up with an annealed grey cast iron, a material in a condition in which I have (so far) been unable to find any hardness data.

I hope this satisfies Jacob's wish for hard data rather than armchair theories. I now feel that I've wasted quite enough time on a matter of not much importance. No doubt our friend will have much to say about it, and will find holes to pick in it all. I rather suspect the majority of readers will yawn, wander out to the workshop, and get on with planing without worrying about the exact Brinell hardness figure of their plane body.


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2013)

Cheshirechappie":14s2z7rb said:


> .....
> This indicates that there may be some truth in Jacob's assertion that some older planes are harder than some newer ones.


No really? Well blow me down what a surprise! So I was right!


> .....
> I hope this satisfies Jacob's wish for hard data rather than armchair theories. ....


I had the hard data in front of me (scratched plane) so I wasn't looking any further, but you have backed this up with references, in the armchair fashion, to your own satisfaction I hope. Well done!


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2013)

Racers":1spda71y said:


> I stated my observations a few pages back.
> 
> My thoughts are formed by empirical evidence, yours seem to be stated as fact and then you admit you don't know much about the subject a couple of posts later.
> 
> ...


You need to look up the definition of "empirical evidence": as you clearly don't understand the meaning. In fact I seem to have been the only person offering empirical evidence on this particular issue.
Pete it's best not to say anything if you have nothing to say!


----------



## Paul Chapman (5 Sep 2013)

Mind you, if Jacob had simply brushed the grit off the wood before planing it, we could have avoided all this twaddle. But I suppose that would have been too simple :? 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Cheshirechappie (5 Sep 2013)

Jacob":3twiq0np said:


> Cheshirechappie":3twiq0np said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



Well, that reply certainly says a great deal about you.

Had you bothered to read my long, boring missive a little more carefully, you would have deduced that it didn't prove anything one way or another. We do not know from what grade of cast iron your vintage planes are made, nor, indeed, do we know for sure which of the several grades of ductile iron LN or LV use, nor do we know what grade of grey cast iron Clifton start with before their annealing process. We cannot, therefore, prove anything one way or the other. We can only make the generalised comments I did in my post.

Now, for the benefit of all, how about a return to some semblance of woodworking sanity?


----------



## Corneel (5 Sep 2013)

Jacob reports about hisexperience with softish new planes. A bunch of armchair theorists try to prove him wrong. So he takes a chisel to scratch his own old and new planes to prove his point. But the bunch is not impressed. 

And now you must conclude that you just don't know?

Just a question. To get a clear understanding of the situation.


----------



## iNewbie (5 Sep 2013)

Corneel":2mb4mzoo said:


> Jacob reports about hisexperience with softish new planes. A bunch of armchair theorists try to prove him wrong. So he takes a chisel to scratch his own old and new planes to prove his point. But the bunch is not impressed.
> 
> And now you must conclude that you just don't know?
> 
> Just a question. To get a clear understanding of the situation.



Its _his_ opinion they're softish or say they are soft -and he's entitled to his opinion. Doesn't meant they're soft though, when the data presented isn't in a scientific manner. Like...._I gave'em all a scratch and this confirmed it_. 

I sometimes scratch my nads One ends up redder than the other though. Must be the angle of attack and the pressure applied. :roll: 

BTW - this all Jacob's armchair theory and presented like its objective. Thought I'd bring _reality _in, there.


----------



## Paul Chapman (5 Sep 2013)

Corneel":2n78cl5v said:


> So he takes a chisel to scratch his own old and new planes to prove his point.



The only thing that's been proved is that if you plane wood that has grit or nails in it you are going to scratch the sole of your plane. But we knew that already, so what's everyone getting worked up about. Move on....... :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Corneel (5 Sep 2013)

That's why I asked for a hardness tester. Arm chair theories are never conclusive. You have to go out in the field to do meassurements. Otherwise you won't know if your theory is relevant. 

A punch and a meassured drop with a big hammer is also good. Then meassure the diameter of the indent.


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2013)

Cheshirechappie":2ofnwcug said:


> ...
> Had you bothered to read my long, boring missive a little more carefully, you would have deduced that it didn't prove anything one way or another. We do not know from what grade of cast iron your vintage planes are made, nor, indeed, do we know for sure which of the several grades of ductile iron LN or LV use, nor do we know what grade of grey cast iron Clifton start with before their annealing process. We cannot, therefore, prove anything one way or the other. We can only make the generalised comments I did in my post.......


Yes it was rather boring. But what I have proved beyond a shadow of doubt is that my Clifton plane is more scratchable..etc...etc.. see above, which isn't generalised at all - is in fact a very specific piece of empirical evidence, gathered in the field in a real world working situation and hence more relevant than any possible experiment or armchair theory. I don't know why you keep going on about it.


----------



## Paul Chapman (5 Sep 2013)

Jacob":3mju2lv3 said:


> But what I have proved beyond a shadow of doubt is that my Clifton plane is more scratchable..etc...etc..



All you've proved is that you didn't brush the grit off your piece of wood before planing it (or maybe there were some nails you didn't pull out) :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2013)

iNewbie":u04de42g said:


> ......
> Its _his_ opinion they're softish or say they are soft -and he's entitled to his opinion. Doesn't meant they're soft though, when the data presented isn't in a scientific manner. Like...._I gave'em all a scratch and this confirmed it_. ......


It's not an opinion it's a fact - in the case of my planes etc etc..


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2013)

Paul Chapman":30huwaub said:


> Jacob":30huwaub said:
> 
> 
> > But what I have proved beyond a shadow of doubt is that my Clifton plane is more scratchable..etc...etc..
> ...


And that too. No scientific proof needed at all.


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2013)

Corneel":3ul0ng37 said:


> .....
> A punch and a meassured drop with a big hammer is also good. Then meassure the diameter of the indent.


Not as good a test of the scratchablity of a sole with a nail, as scratching it with a nail.


----------



## Graham Orm (5 Sep 2013)

Is this the right room for an argument?


----------



## G S Haydon (5 Sep 2013)

Jacob":3mg11lil said:


> So my scratches might be imaginary then? Or should I simply believe the evidence of my eyes?
> 
> Lost the plot here, what with all these armchair theorists burbling on.
> My original suggestion was that the cheap planes, for all their defects, might have the advantage of the harder surface apparent in older Stanleys and Records. It is quite a significant advantage and part of the reason there are so many old planes about in very good nick (until they are dropped of course).
> I might just buy a Faithful 10 and see for myself.



I think this would be a nice idea. It would be good to have another opinion on them.


----------



## G S Haydon (5 Sep 2013)

Reggie":2em30t73 said:


> Hi Graham, I think you nailed it when you said the smaller 4s and 5s are useful in the faithfull range, I used my record no.4 and the axminster no.5 on some 3/4" pine endgrain the other evening, it was an absolute pleasure to use both planes, there was no discernible difference between the 2 with regard to finish/ease of use. the axi made short work of removing the cupping on a pine board too, with or across the grain was no issue at all, all in all I'm very pleased with my cheap no.5.
> 
> I'm going to look at the axi/faithfull block planes, I get the feeling you can go particularly wrong with something that size, again, with your comments, I wonder if the length/weight of the plane has more to do with the errors you saw than the actual castings? 1.5mm bow is a lot, from what I've seen of the record no.4 and the axminster no.5 there's no discernible error in the sole, if there is it's negligible, either that or I just wouldn't know a decent planed bit of board if it jumped up and smacked me in the face.



I think they could be worth a go. They do a #4 and a block plane for less than £30 on the bay I think.


----------



## Spindle (5 Sep 2013)

Let's be honest - if someone were to scratch a few plane soles with a nail by way of an experiment you can guarantee that the nail will have been sharpened incorrectly :roll:


----------



## iNewbie (5 Sep 2013)

Jacob":l0wqpd5p said:


> iNewbie":l0wqpd5p said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



Um, no. See, each item would need to be tested via a fair system - like the Janka scale. You could be pressing harder and at a different angle and achieve a different result for each item. Its not rocket science.


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2013)

iNewbie":hnca6djj said:


> Jacob":hnca6djj said:
> 
> 
> > iNewbie":hnca6djj said:
> ...


Q. How do you tell the difference between a soft and a hard boiled egg?
A. Send them off to a laboratory for testing and properly presented scientific data quantified on the Janka scale.
Otherwise, you know, you could be just so utterly wrong. :roll:

Interesting thread - not least because it demonstrates how little people understand of scientific method and why they are so enthralled by microns, bevels, thous, pseudo science and jargon in general.

PS I've ordered a Faithful 10 as I've never had one (Amazon cheapest). I'm looking forwards to giving it a good scratch and will report back.


----------



## Vann (5 Sep 2013)

iNewbie":301gjbza said:


> I sometimes scratch my nads One ends up redder than the other though. Must be the angle of attack and the pressure applied. :roll:


So you're obviously doing it wrong. You should get Jacob to do that for you - he'll know how. Trouble is, he'd probably get stuck into them with an oilstone (hammer) :shock: :shock: .

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## t8hants (5 Sep 2013)

:roll: new balls please!


----------



## iNewbie (5 Sep 2013)

Jacob":34u9gda6 said:



> Q. How do you tell the difference between a soft and a hard boiled egg?
> A. Send them off to a laboratory for testing and properly presented scientific data quantified on the Janka scale.
> Otherwise, you know, you could be just so utterly wrong. :roll:



We're not talking about soft/hard boiled eggs though - which are easily verifiable. Ones going to be very hard while the other is going to be very soft. Your comparison is more like a wood plane to a cast plane. Your subjective test/assumption of scratching, isn't. Get it?


----------



## iNewbie (5 Sep 2013)

Vann":22hp6jlh said:


> iNewbie":22hp6jlh said:
> 
> 
> > I sometimes scratch my nads One ends up redder than the other though. Must be the angle of attack and the pressure applied. :roll:
> ...



I'm doing it Freehand, no guide. :mrgreen:


----------



## graduate_owner (5 Sep 2013)

I remember as a teenager trying to plane wood with my Dad's plane. It was a none-too-sharp block plane. It made me think that planing was some sort of black art, and that continued until about 5 years ago (I'm 63) when a friend sharpened a Bailey plane properly for me. What a revelation. Perhaps cheap planes might put inexperienced users off planing, just like it did for me - for over 40 years!!

K


----------



## G S Haydon (5 Sep 2013)

Jacob":2bauqd27 said:


> PS I've ordered a Faithful 10 as I've never had one (Amazon cheapest). I'm looking forwards to giving it a good scratch and will report back.



Excellent. Looking forward too it. It looks to be ok and due to its short length if refinement is required it's not like having to take loads of material off.


----------



## Vann (5 Sep 2013)

graduate_owner":1wfdauk9 said:


> I remember as a teenager trying to plane wood with my Dad's plane. It was a none-too-sharp block plane. It made me think that planing was some sort of black art, and that continued until about 5 years ago (I'm 63) when a friend sharpened a Bailey plane properly for me. What a revelation. Perhaps cheap planes might put inexperienced users off planing, just like it did for me - for over 40 years!!


I had a similar experience - except my "cheap plane" was a Stanley No.4 I bought new in 1973. I guess I got a Friday afternoon job, as I believe some useable planes were still slipping through at that time. It wasn't until this century that I found I could plane - when I bought a brand new quality plane (a Veritas LAJ). Now I have rehabed a few old Records and Stanleys, that work well for me.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## G S Haydon (5 Sep 2013)

Grayorm":cc29b8xn said:


> G S Haydon":cc29b8xn said:
> 
> 
> > There's a pre lateral lever #5 on Ebay at the moment currently with 10 hours left and with a buy it now price of £160. Not much use as a user as it looks very tired as well as no lateral lever. If I had the dosh spare I might be tempted to stick it on a shelf and look at it now and again. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-ANTI...4-/111137734737?ssPageName=ADME:B:WNA:GB:3160
> ...



+1 on providence. Especially with woodies with various name stamps, some tools go on quite a journey while others gather dust. Right stop myself, becoming poetic and romantic .


----------



## Richard T (5 Sep 2013)

Graham wrote "Is this the right room for an argument?"

No, sorry Graham, this is 'abuse'. If you want an argument it's the next thread to the left. c Monty Python.

Edited to say : If 'it's not about the tools' ..... why the pineappleing hell does he keep banging on about them?


----------



## Reggie (6 Sep 2013)

graduate_owner":1vu3nks8 said:


> I remember as a teenager trying to plane wood with my Dad's plane. It was a none-too-sharp block plane. It made me think that planing was some sort of black art, and that continued until about 5 years ago (I'm 63) when a friend sharpened a Bailey plane properly for me. What a revelation. Perhaps cheap planes might put inexperienced users off planing, just like it did for me - for over 40 years!!
> 
> K



But that wasn't because it was cheap, it was because it was poorly maintained or you didn't bother to ask your dad why you were struggling. Perhaps a set of instructions in a plane box might help new users? It's not like you just place it on a piece of wood and push, there are plenty of semi-complex parts and things that need tweaking no matter what.


----------



## Jacob (6 Sep 2013)

Richard T":1ritxw04 said:


> Graham wrote "Is this the right room for an argument?"
> 
> No, sorry Graham, this is 'abuse'. If you want an argument it's the next thread to the left. c Monty Python.
> 
> Edited to say : If 'it's not about the tools' ..... why the pineappleing hell does he keep banging on about them?


It's about _using_ them, and, as in this thread, about what happens when you use them. 
Perhaps a vague distinction but you get the impression that a lot of the tool talk is just theoretical, as in this thread.


----------



## Jacob (6 Sep 2013)

Reggie":186u2s33 said:


> graduate_owner":186u2s33 said:
> 
> 
> > I remember as a teenager trying to plane wood with my Dad's plane. It was a none-too-sharp block plane. It made me think that planing was some sort of black art, and that continued until about 5 years ago (I'm 63) when a friend sharpened a Bailey plane properly for me. What a revelation. Perhaps cheap planes might put inexperienced users off planing, just like it did for me - for over 40 years!!
> ...


Yes, if only he'd sharpened it! :lol: NB You still have to sharpen expensive planes BTW.


----------



## bugbear (6 Sep 2013)

Jacob":390n6x0d said:


> PS I've ordered a Faithful 10 as I've never had one (Amazon cheapest). I'm looking forwards to giving it a good scratch and will report back.



You know, for someone who loudly states that he doesn't care about tools, only woodwork, you do put a LOT of time money and effort into blathering on about tools.

Your "_test_" will prove nothing, since we know you're going to say your test supports your conclusion, what ever happens; your history of selectiveness, over statement, careful omissions, and over generalisation destroyed your credibility years ago.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (6 Sep 2013)

BB trolling away for the armchair theorists, as usual!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
You ought to have a go at woodwork one day BB, you might enjoy it and it could make your contributions more meaningful instead of predictable re-hashed bits n bobs you have picked up from magazines. Mind you you'd have to be less sceptical about all these things you don't understand or haven't previously read about in a crummy mag. :lol:


----------



## Corneel (6 Sep 2013)

BB, I think it's time you quit nitpicking everything Jacob writes. 

Some ten years ago the internet was populated by engineers, software programmers, database analysts etc. Nowadays normal people are using the Internet too. Especially with a subject like handtool woodworking this is very valuable. When people, who learned the trade when there was still a trade to learn, share their experience on a forum like this, it's time to start to listen. 

It was all very interesting in the engineers days. But it was also the time of the infill hysteria, the flat bottom theorists, the polishing apostels, the reverence to the ultimate sharpening jig, the chipbreaker demonizers, etc. Nowadays a lot of common sence has come to the forums, luckily. It's not about the tools, it's about how to use them.

I have no idea if Jacob is right about the soft modern planes. And I don't really care because I don't own any modern planes. But the oposition against his experience in this regard, strikes me as very peculiar. Nothing but vague armchair theorising, nobody who counters with some real world experiments.


----------



## Richard T (6 Sep 2013)

If 'cheap' = the cost to buy the plane, it's very variable ( second hand market etc.) But if 'cheap' = the cost of making the plane it can be more likely that the plane won't work well.

Trouble is that new planes appear to be both. Some are cheap to make and expensive to buy ... but none are expensive to make and cheap to buy. 

Expense usually equals time. Casting is time - cheap, finishing is time - expensive. Most new planes are very poorly finished from what I can see. 

Mild steel is dirt cheap but Karl H spends _quite_ a lot of time on it and the end result is _quite_ expensive. 

Roll - on 3D printing with metal. 


What would be in your list of instructions Reggie?  I think that between us we could come up with a very comprehensive list of things to do .... might be a bit long though .....

(Edited for illiteracy.)


----------



## AndyT (6 Sep 2013)

Does anyone else remember, back in the distant past, when Reggie, a new member of this forum, bought a cheap plane from Axminster and was quite pleased with it?

He thought that it would be a useful bit of information to share - we don't all have lots of cash to spend on tools so if there are bargains out there it would be good to know. 

Since then this thread has wandered a long way off that useful point but not really got very far. 

To try and keep this forum the helpful and welcoming place that, at its best, it still can be, could I just ask everyone to talk about woodwork tools, not about how we imagine other members of the forum to be. 

We all know some things but none of us knows everything.


----------



## G S Haydon (6 Sep 2013)

> Does anyone else remember, back in the distant past, when Reggie, a new member of this forum, bought a cheap plane from Axminster and was quite pleased with it?
> 
> He thought that it would be a useful bit of information to share - we don't all have lots of cash to spend on tools so if there are bargains out there it would be good to know.



I do, and I'm enjoying the feedback good & bad from those who have actually purchased and used them. I look forward to Jacob's feedback on the #10 Faithfull. I hope the thread can stay on track so it can offer some real perspective to those thinking about buying cheaper planes so they can avoid lemons (my Faithfull #7) or quite serviceable tools (my Faithfull #4 or Reggies Axminster #5)


----------



## Vann (6 Sep 2013)

G S Haydon":2aedmzkf said:


> ...I'm enjoying the feedback good & bad from those who have actually purchased and used them. I look forward to Jacob's feedback on the #10 Faithfull. I hope the thread can stay on track so it can offer some real perspective to those thinking about buying cheaper planes so they can avoid lemons (my Faithfull #7) or quite serviceable tools (my Faithfull #4 or Reggies Axminster #5)


Or it maybe that Faithfull and Axminster have their QC standards sufficiently low that say 50% are serviceable, while the other 50% are dogs - in which case it will *always* be a lottery (like Stanley in the 1970s when I bought mine).

But I'm looking forward to reading of others experiences.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## G S Haydon (6 Sep 2013)

Tis true I fear although as long as the plane sole is not too long flattening is not a huge issue and the rest of the parts seem adequate to perform well as a Bailey Plane.


----------



## Reggie (7 Sep 2013)

Richard T":2dmzkxt2 said:


> If 'cheap' = the cost to buy the plane, it's very variable ( second hand market etc.) But if 'cheap' = the cost of making the plane it can be more likely that the plane won't work well.
> 
> Trouble is that new planes appear to be both. Some are cheap to make and expensive to buy ... but none are expensive to make and cheap to buy.
> 
> ...



Lets see:

1. a guide to sharpening by hand or jig (whatever gets you there the quickest)
2. how to adjust the angle of the end of the chipbreaker so that it meets the back of the blade at the breakers front edge
3. how to adjust the chipbreaker to blade end distance
4. fettling the frog, lapping the frog base if necessary, adjusting the frog so that you set the correct blade to mouth distance
5. how to use the adjuster wheel, bearing backlash in mind and final approach direction, checking yoke for tightness and how it rides the adjuster wheel groove
6. adjusting the blade laterally
7. checking sole and cheeks? are flat and square, lapping if necessary
8. exercising your right to send junk back and have it replaced :-D

That should just about cover it


----------



## Corneel (8 Sep 2013)

Today I was cleaning out a bit and encountered my Quengsheng blockplane. I knew I had this plane, it had just slowly shifted out of my consiousness. Anyway, I immediately thought about this thread. I also have some old UK made Stanleys, waiting for repair.

So I got a punch and an 800 gr hammer. The punch has a tapered point. It penetrates easier into metal when it is softer, so the indent will be larger. You can then meassure the circumferance of the indent to get an idea about the hardness of the material. I didnt do anything special with the hammer, just letting it drop down from shoulder height without putting extra handpressure into the swing. I hit the topside of the casting, in a spot which isn't right in sight. Two punches on each plane.

Result: The Stanley got holes almost 1mm wide. The Quengsheng around 1.5mm. The difference is quite obvious.

Conclusion: The Stanley is quite a bit harder.

To give this experiment more substance, everybody should now rush out to their shop and do similar on their old planes, LV's, LN's, QS's, Faithfulls, whatever, and report back. I can't compare with other new planes because I am now pretty sure I don't have any more.


----------



## iNewbie (8 Sep 2013)

Corneel":2kgpfbex said:


> Conclusion: The Stanley is quite a bit harder.
> 
> To give this experiment more substance, everybody should now rush out to their shop and do similar on their old planes, LV's, LN's, QS's, Faithfulls, whatever, and report back. I can't compare with other new planes because I am now pretty sure I don't have any more.



Only one conclusion? I could also conclude the Quengsheng you have maybe softer than another one. Just an armchair theory, though... :wink:


----------



## Jacob (8 Sep 2013)

I can hear the armchairs creaking! :lol:


----------



## Corneel (8 Sep 2013)

iNewbie":3idrwa5m said:


> Corneel":3idrwa5m said:
> 
> 
> > Conclusion: The Stanley is quite a bit harder.
> ...



Of course. So what are you waiting for? We need more data!


----------



## Jacob (8 Sep 2013)

iNewbie":2toliqse said:


> Corneel":2toliqse said:
> 
> 
> > Conclusion: The Stanley is quite a bit harder.
> ...


No you could not. 
You could idly speculate but you couldn't infer, deduce or conclude this - it might even be harder than another one.
When you _can _conclude is A is harder than B, by the standards of this test. This indicates the possibility that all As are harder than all Bs, which a larger sample would go some way to proving. 
It begs a question about the adequacy of the test itself - personally I'd go for the "planing of an unseen nail" test!

More data! Get out of the armchair and start scratching!


----------



## iNewbie (8 Sep 2013)

On no I can conclude: arrive at a judgment or opinion by reasoning


----------



## Jacob (8 Sep 2013)

iNewbie":vnu6y223 said:


> On no I can conclude: arrive at a judgment or opinion by reasoning


But it would contradict the only bit of evidence so it would not be "by reasoning" as reasoning would tell you the opposite. You could hold the opinion but in the absence of evidence this would be just stupid.


----------



## iNewbie (8 Sep 2013)

Is that so.


----------



## Corneel (8 Sep 2013)

I am trying to flatten another chisel, in light of another thread on this forum, but I gave up. Too cumbersome, even with wet and dry paper. To kill the time until I have to start preparing dinner (home made pizza's!), I did another punch and hammer test. I wasn't very happy with the distance meassurement of the hammer. Shoulderheight is quite arbitrary. So I rigged a bar about 0.5 m above the bench and did the same test with another Stanley. Holding the hammer just under the bar and then letting it drop on the punch with as little input from my arm as possible.

Same result. Stanley was harder then the Quengsheng, about 50%.

And of course, a real hardness tester would be much more precise then this little test. It was kind of fun though.


----------



## Jacob (8 Sep 2013)

iNewbie":19r0u91y said:


> Is that so.


Yes it is.


----------



## iNewbie (8 Sep 2013)

Is that so.


----------



## woodbrains (8 Sep 2013)

Hello,

The QS block plane is made from cast steel, so has little to do with the cast iron that has been discussed; not hardened steel and obviously less carbon content than iron.

Scratch testing on hidden nails..... By the logic that plane bodies hardens varies from plane to plane, could the same thing be said about nail harness? Therefore this test would be even less valid and even more ludicrous than it sounds. For pity's sake, all plane bodies are more than hard enough to do the job they are required to do. Even bronze ones are harder than required. Conclusion: this debate is insane.

Mike


----------



## Jacob (8 Sep 2013)

woodbrains":3jx9afmj said:


> Hello,
> 
> The QS block plane is made from cast steel, so has little to do with the cast iron that has been discussed; not hardened steel and obviously less carbon content than iron.
> 
> ...


A voice from the armchair!
What if it's the same nail? And anyway why are you bothering to argue about some observations made by other people? Do you suggest we are making it up? 
Nobody is saying they are not hard enough but I am suggesting that the distinct hardness of some older planes is an advantage - they are scratch resistant. With use this leaves them with a nice shiny sole which I believe might also reduces friction. Just a passing thought, but has sent the armchair lot off into a tizzy! :lol:


----------



## Corneel (9 Sep 2013)

Of course it makes a difference! For example when you are working in an environment like Jacob's. It's a tiny little detail, and for most of us not very important. Just something to keep in the back of your head. 

It's also one of these examples that Jacob's musings are not entirely full of rubbish. Occasionaly there's a bit of wisdom. :lol: 

And having a bit of fun with them who spend their last money on shiny new tools, isn't bad either. Yes, put your 300 pound plane in a velvet sock, so it won't get scratched! :twisted:


----------



## Vann (9 Sep 2013)

woodbrains":wvg6gqe8 said:


> Conclusion: this debate is insane.


Never a truer word...

Cheers, Vann.
Typed from a computer chair, as I can't reach the keyboard from my armchair :!:


----------



## Jacob (9 Sep 2013)

Corneel":cxzzc8zd said:


> Of course it makes a difference! For example when you are working in an environment like Jacob's. It's a tiny little detail, and for most of us not very important. Just something to keep in the back of your head. .....


It's not only the environment (lot of building going on around me here) - you find bits of metal in virgin new wood, usually (but not always) harmless lead shot. Also if you do repair and restoration, or recycle old wood, the scratch possibilities go up and up.
But the main point for me was being disappointed to find a big scratch on the sole of my shiny newish Clifton, knowing that if I'd used an older plane it wouldn't have happened. I just have to remind myself that I'm not too bothered about tool shine!

PS the LV la smoother I had, was also scratch prone - I thought the Clifton would be better.


----------



## Corneel (9 Sep 2013)

Here's a tip. When you buy a nice, expensive, shiny new plane, also get an old one at the same time. Then, always plane the wood straight and smooth with the old one first. Only then you take the new plane out of its sock and make some nice whispy shavings without any risc to scratch it.


----------



## Jacob (9 Sep 2013)

I think that's it. If your plane is safe in a sock - just leave it there and use another one instead.


----------



## iNewbie (9 Sep 2013)

Put a sock in it lads. :mrgreen:


----------



## Jacob (9 Sep 2013)

Faithful 10 has arrived. Looks OK for the money. 
Will it work outa the box? No chance. Some problem with getting blade assembly lined up. Metal work required. 
No doubt it can be pressed into use but may have permanent inaccuracies which will make all future adjustments a PITA. Not sure if it's worth the bother I might send it back. I'll have a closer look first.


----------



## Sawyer (9 Sep 2013)

Perhaps the way forward with this argument is to collect empirical evidence - as much as possible, then compare?
So, my personal experience of two smoothing planes. 1, a Footprint no. 4 (let us not forget that someone was asking about cheaper planes, 11 pages ago). 2, a Clifton 4.1/2.
The Footprint is 28 years old and has seen lots of action, yet still retains many of its original machining marks.
The Clifton is a couple of years old, but the sole, having done only a fraction of the work, already looks more worn than the Footprint.
Thus my conclusion from practical observation that Clifton soles seem to be softer. More rust-prone too, I suspect.
Jacob's practical observation/comparisons, we already have - how about some other people's too?


----------



## Sawyer (9 Sep 2013)

Returning to the OP by the way, the inexpensive Footprint and its no. 5 stable mate bought the same year, have both given 28 years' excellent service and despite sharing cupboard space with a number of posher planes, still get used almost every day.


----------



## Jacob (9 Sep 2013)

I've had a good look. It's rubbish. Machining inaccuracies all over which make it impossible to use without a lot of reworking first:-
The frog sits off centre, this sets everything else off of course. 
Frog screws are very flimsy and wouldn't last long. 
Frog adjuster doesn't quite engage - it gets in the way, better to remove it altogether. 
Blade looks OK. 
Cap iron is machined off centre by about 2mm. 
Lever cap is too short and misshapen. 
Blade slot is too wide for the cap iron screw - it'll only just engage if exactly dead central but the hole is off centre anyway!
These features are enough to make it unusable. Didn't bother with checking for flat/square/hard etc.
Pity really cos all the bits look good enough it's just so badly machined in too many places. Some of the machining looks fine - the frog face and back of mouth are perfect, but the frog is offset sideways.

Sod this it's going back, I'm not a metal worker!


----------



## G S Haydon (9 Sep 2013)

Excellent and honest review, thanks for taking the time. Similar reasons as to why I had to return the #7, many good aspects but the key issues would require too much time.


----------



## Graham Orm (9 Sep 2013)

So when a newbie buys one of these (thanks for the reviews guys BTW), and for all he is worth can't get the thing to work he will quickly stick it under the stairs and start thinking about golf. This was my point on page 2 of this and was shouted down by CC who insisted that these tools were right for novices. I can't imagine a worse option for a beginner.


----------



## G S Haydon (9 Sep 2013)

I think that's nearly the whole picture Grayorm although my Faithfull #4 does work well, as did Reggie's #5 Axminster. On Reggies #5, if it is used as a true Jack for rough stock removal then perhaps it's just fine.
To in brief, if a newbie wants performance with no risk then vintage offering from a reputable dealer (or with advice from a woodworker) or QS and more expensive are the only way to be sure of a plane that is up to the job.


----------



## Jacob (9 Sep 2013)

I've always been an advocate of cheap tools but there is obviously a limit! Cheapo saws or chisels generally OK as not much can go wrong but planes too complex. But there are good cheapies - 2nd hand Stanleys, Records etc often dirt cheap I've never paid more than about £30, usually a lot less. And woodies more less give away prices £2 each.
But it's a learning curve wherever you start and it's those with a bit of persistence who will get themselves sorted in the end. Buying a rubbish plane is a least a little lesson if nothing else!

PS and the real (relative) cost of good 2nd hand stuff is probably lower than it ever was so the outlook is good for any beginners.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (9 Sep 2013)

I've been watching this thread with interest and at this point, I thought I would add to the discussion. About 4 or 5 years ago, here in the States, there was much discussion about a "Harbor Freight" diamond in the rough plane. Cost of the plane was about $8.00 US. As I own a manufacturing plant, with in-house tool making and a complete machine shop, I thought it might be interesting to pick up one of these planes and track costs to make it take .001" to .002" shavings.

I began by ordering a new blade from a guy who was doing "custom" plane blades. Next, I had the blade bedding checked (good) and sole checked for flatness & square (not so good). Keeping the sole co-planar to the blade bedding, the bottom was ground to flat with the sides square. Next was grinding of the blade contact area of the cap iron and finally an optional refinishing of the tote & handle. The plane easily met the goals of .001" to .002" shavings repeatedly. I forgot to mention this was a #3 size plane.

Total cost, accounting for my machinist and equipment burden, as well are plane blade & original plane costs was around $80.00 US, with performance excellent.

Cheap planes can be made to perform, but for my money, I like a more traditional, vintage plane or a modern LN, Clifton or LV (I can afford the "dosh" as Jacob likes to say!).


----------



## Cheshirechappie (9 Sep 2013)

Grayorm":n28ekfni said:


> So when a newbie buys one of these (thanks for the reviews guys BTW), and for all he is worth can't get the thing to work he will quickly stick it under the stairs and start thinking about golf. This was my point on page 2 of this and was shouted down by CC who insisted that these tools were right for novices. I can't imagine a worse option for a beginner.




Erm - that's a bit of a misrepresentation of my posts. I was not (and I'm still not) interested in shouting anybody down. The original question was about the merits or otherwise of the cheaper new planes, but the thread diverged a bit with people stating their preference for older planes. That's a perfectly valid opinion, but not really the subject of the thread. (Sadly, the thread later became derailed in another direction, and I do have to take some of the blame for that - believe me, I wish I hadn't got involved in that 'discussion' - it really did turn out to be pretty much pointless).

Neither did I "insist that these tools were right for novices". Indeed, I made the point that the cheaper tools should come with a "health warning" - that they may need fettling to give satisfactory performance.

Look - I really do not come here to have a go at anybody. I want to gain from others experience, and hope I can contribute a bit from my varied experiences (some of that through knowledge gained in my work as a mechanical design engineer, some from my experience restoring and operating older engineering equipment, and some from my hobby woodworking).

That's all I want to say on this. I have no argument with Grayorm, and don't look for one. 

This last line is NOT aimed at anybody in particular. It's a general comment. By all means discuss, debate and criticise things I say, but please, don't have a go at me (or anybody else) for things I (or they) DIDN'T say.


----------



## Corneel (10 Sep 2013)

A discussion isn't pointless, only because you don't favor the conclusion. We did learn a little bit about the materials used in planes. 

Regarding the original question, i think it boils down to what do we advice beginners?


----------



## Jacob (10 Sep 2013)

Cheshirechappie":2895lamc said:


> .... I was not (and I'm still not) interested in shouting anybody down. .......


You were (and continue to be) fairly sarcastic and dismissive about my observation re Clifton planes even though you had to concede that I was right. 
And it was not "pointless" at all - could be relevant to the cheap plane issue - i.e. the possibility that in spite of everything else the cheapos might have harder surface (better wearing and lower friction) as found on older planes. Still don't know the answer - I didn't want to scratch the Faithful 10 as I'm sending it back.
Incidentally - Amazon's return system is very good - you just print out the label and either wait for a pick up or drop it off at a Call4 centre (which for me happens to be the Coop just down the road).
I suggest that everybody buys a cheap tool and if no good to send it back until they've got the idea!


----------



## Sawyer (18 Sep 2013)

Jacob":23i7wfto said:


> I've had a good look. It's rubbish. Machining inaccuracies all over which make it impossible to use without a lot of reworking first:-
> The frog sits off centre, this sets everything else off of course.
> Frog screws are very flimsy and wouldn't last long.
> Frog adjuster doesn't quite engage - it gets in the way, better to remove it altogether.
> ...


 
Thanks for that Jacob, it confirms what I'd suspected. I keep needing a bench rebate plane: looked at the high 2nd hand prices, then the Faithfull, which just seemed too cheap to be any good. The only other choice was a Lie Nielsen; probably very good, but just too expensive for the use it will get.
Eventually, I found a mid-'50s Record 10. 1/2. Scruffy, but a good price (even then, more than a new Faithfull). 
Following a minimal amount of work, mostly cosmetic, I finally have a good bench rebate plane.


----------



## bugbear (18 Sep 2013)

Sawyer":2lbh3qrs said:


> I keep needing a bench rebate plane.



Might I ask why/what for?

I'm intrigued. :? 

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (18 Sep 2013)

bugbear":1tvq48jj said:


> Sawyer":1tvq48jj said:
> 
> 
> > I keep needing a bench rebate plane.
> ...


I think you'll find they are used for rebates. There is a clue in the name. 
There are alternatives of course but for bigger rebates a 10 would be handy. 
I've never bought one as they seem a bit pricey but if the right one comes along I'l have it.


----------



## Graham Orm (18 Sep 2013)

Did you buy the hammer Jacob?


----------



## bugbear (18 Sep 2013)

Jacob":37ovn5ov said:


> I think you'll find they are used for rebates. There is a clue in the name.



You are an silly person, deliberately misunderstanding for supposedly comic effect.

As most woodworkers are aware, rebates of that size are unusual, and in any case, in the modern age
are achieved through other means, hence my question.

Now buugger off back under your bridge, and let the adults talk.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (18 Sep 2013)

bugbear":jt54437a said:


> ....
> As most woodworkers are aware, rebates of that size are unusual, and in any case, in the modern age
> are achieved through other means, hence my question.......


Rebates of that size are very common. As an unobservant* non-woodworker you wouldn't know this! :lol: You will find them in door and window frames. Have a look, or have you gone all plastic?
You can do smaller rebates with a carriage plane (they don't have to be the full width) so one would be quite handy on the bench for all manner of jobs. Less fiddly than a 78 and more precision and capacity than a wooden rebate plane.
In theory at any rate - I haven't got one yet.

* people just don't _look_ at things enough! They see them but they don't look.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (18 Sep 2013)

BB - I think you accidentally thanked Jacob!


----------



## bugbear (19 Sep 2013)

Jacob":maljaew4 said:


> bugbear":maljaew4 said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Indeed; this _theory_ seems not to stand in the face of the evidence. Plain rebate, skew rebate, standing and moving fillisters, and metal rebate planes (including the #78) are all far commoner in the s/h market place than bench rebate planes, which are rather rare and hence expensive.

It appears that though they perhaps _could_ have been used to form wide rebates, practically speaking they _weren't_.

My question - to Sawyer - stands.

BugBear


----------



## Sawyer (19 Sep 2013)

bugbear":32ujqf1r said:


> Sawyer":32ujqf1r said:
> 
> 
> > I keep needing a bench rebate plane.
> ...


Quite a few things, really, cleaning up or adjusting the large-ish rebates in door & window frames. My spindle moulder, an Axi. WS1000TA is not the world's best and I sometimes have to do extra work on rebates.
Sometimes, rebates on large framework members too large to get onto the spindle moulder, which can be cut easily with a portable circular saw, but then need cleaning up.

I've also found that a carriage plane is decidedly nifty for working on raised & fielded panels, including the cross-grain parts. 
Now it's finally been added to the tool cupboard, I will probably continue to find further uses for it too. 

Only one gripe with the 10.1/2: it being fairly short, my knuckle presses uncomfortably on the adjuster nut.


----------



## Jacob (19 Sep 2013)

Grayorm":85goyi49 said:


> Did you buy the hammer Jacob?


It's on the way. Thor 412 (I think). I'm going to whack out some spoons and stop getting porridge all down my front.


----------



## Graham Orm (19 Sep 2013)

Jacob":2ftagq6a said:


> Grayorm":2ftagq6a said:
> 
> 
> > Did you buy the hammer Jacob?
> ...



:lol:


----------



## Racers (19 Sep 2013)

Jacob":3cylzi7x said:


> Grayorm":3cylzi7x said:
> 
> 
> > Did you buy the hammer Jacob?
> ...



I thought your Derbyshire neck would have done that :shock: 

Pete


----------



## Jacob (19 Sep 2013)

Pete said:


> Pete, Mad Bad and Dangerous to Know
> It doesn't have to scream to cut wood
> 
> I killed my dinner with karate
> ...



Very witty Pete!


----------



## Graham Orm (25 Sep 2013)

Jacob":2ta2xgmj said:


> Grayorm":2ta2xgmj said:
> 
> 
> > Did you buy the hammer Jacob?
> ...



The wheel gauge has arrived Jacob. It's excellent, dead straight lines with and across the grain. ideal for intricate stuff.


----------

