# Entry-level hand plane?



## JakeS (7 Dec 2011)

For a long time I've been of the opinion that hand planes are the tools of the devil, so to speak - horrible to use, hard to get a good result with, etc., and I've been using power tools for all the things people might use a plane for - mostly a random-orbit sander and a router, occasionally even an electric planer (which I hate).

Recently I've been more and more getting the opinion that it's partly because all the planes I've used over the years have been badly set up and/or not sharp enough, and there's still the odd task I'd like to be able to avoid power-tools and the associated noise and dust for. So I recently bit the bullet, did some research and waste... uh, _spent_ an evening sharpening a cheap smoothing plane, then grinding and filing bits of it so that the bottom is vaguely flat and the frog holds the blade half-decently and the chip-breaker doesn't catch everything that comes through the mouth and jam full of shavings all the time, and so on. (And what did I get for my trouble? It bit me, which was new.)

The result is that I still think it's a tool of the devil, but I'm coming around to the idea that it may just be because I'm using a crappy cheap plane which was put together by brain-damaged rhesus monkeys using ancient, worn tooling and the worst steel they could lay their hands on. I'm interested in trying a better-quality plane, but I don't want to spend the silly money I see a lot of quality planes going for, because I'm still wary I may not use it that much, and I'd like to go for as generally-useful non-specialised a tool as possible, but since I've been avoiding hand-planing I don't really know what that might be.

To round off an unnecessarily-long story, can anyone suggest a good-enough-to-not-put-me-right-off-again-but-reasonably-priced-enough-to-not-put-me-off-before-I-even-start plane that a hand-planing novice like myself isn't going to kill themselves trying to set up properly? I'm deliberately not stating an outright budget 'cause I'd like to know what the price of a decent-enough tool is, not what the best thing I could get for £X is...


----------



## RogerP (7 Dec 2011)

Have a look at the Quangsheng range.


----------



## Jacob (7 Dec 2011)

QS are good. So are most Stanleys/Records, if sharp and set up. If they don't work it's usually the man, not the tool!
You might have overdone it with your fettling. Best avoided IMHO unless you really know your way around. Most of them just need sharpening and setting, though it also helps to scrape rust off the sole and apply candle wax.
NB applying candle wax is the single most dramatic and effective way of improving a plane's performance - just a quick squiggle like writing a hasty signature, is all it takes.


----------



## dh7892 (7 Dec 2011)

I used to be of the same opinion about planes before I knew how to set up/use them properly. Something that would have saved me a lot of trouble would have been if I could have had a go with a good one (by which I mean well set up rather then expensive) so that I could understand what the tool was really capable of. I think I had unrealistic expectations on how much you could take off in one cut didn't know how to get a sharp edge properly. 

If you can find anyone near you that would be willing to let you use one of their planes (perhaps even under supervision) you might save yourself some time and expense.

I'm sure you are very capable of working it all out for yourself but I know that I would have befitted from knowing this kind of stuff before I started fiddling around.

Now that I'm happy using/setting up planes, I find planing to be one of the most pleasurable woodworking tasks. You can't beat the swish of plane on wood and the smell of rosewood shavings!

And no dust!


----------



## JakeS (7 Dec 2011)

Jacob":1yl9hhd8 said:


> You might have overdone it with your fettling. Best avoided IMHO unless you really know your way around. Most of them just need sharpening and setting, though it also helps to scrape rust off the sole and apply candle wax.



You say that 'cause you didn't see the thing before I started - without the grinding and filing, it was impossible to get the blade to sit flat in the mouth, one side would always be about 1-1.5mm higher. When I first got it out the box one end of the blade was touching the back side of the mouth and the other end the front side! After an evening's work it cuts fairly even shavings off of oak, walnut and palm flesh _fairly_ happily. (One of my motivations to try and fix it up now was that I wanted some nice attractive oak shavings to pack a gift box with.)

It was a new plane, just a really cheap one - the hardware & tool shop across the road from where I work seems to have decided that the easiest way to compete on price with the Internet is to sell near-exclusively Silverline stuff, which in my experience is 50% decent-for-the-price and 50% absolutely-atrocious!

I'll definitely try candle-wax, though - thanks for the tip. Presumably it needs buffing in, to avoid too much of it coming off on the wood and potentially getting in the way of the finish?


----------



## Jacob (7 Dec 2011)

JakeS":1de5hpew said:


> ...
> It was a new plane, just a really cheap one -


Sounds not worth the attempt. There is a limit on how far down market you can go! I'd go for 2nd hand older Stanley/Records from £10 upwards on ebay Then just sharpen and set, for starters at least.


> I'll definitely try candle-wax, though - thanks for the tip. Presumably it needs buffing in, to avoid too much of it coming off on the wood and potentially getting in the way of the finish?


Nope just a quick squiggle. If you are worried about finish just don't do it when you are at the final smoothing stage.


----------



## Fromey (7 Dec 2011)

It might also be useful to have more details on what is going wrong for you while planing. Can you describe what the issues are? Tear-out? Plane tracks? Plane juddering? Plane sticking? Unable to get a surface flat and square? etc. I ask because it's also possible the plane is fine, but your technique is what's at fault. Are you confident you're reading the grain direction correctly? That was my first lesson in hand planing. Are you putting a bit of wax on the sole of your plane? Are you trying to plane a piece of curly maple with a No. 5? Are you setting the blade too deep? Does your blade have a camber to it or is it straights across the whole length?


----------



## bosshogg (7 Dec 2011)

JakeS":3q6lm8ag said:


> For a long time I've been of the opinion that hand planes are the tools of the devil, so to speak - horrible to use, hard to get a good result with, etc., and I've been using power tools for all the things people might use a plane for - mostly a random-orbit sander and a router, occasionally even an electric planer (which I hate).
> 
> Recently I've been more and more getting the opinion that it's partly because all the planes I've used over the years have been badly set up and/or not sharp enough, and there's still the odd task I'd like to be able to avoid power-tools and the associated noise and dust for. So I recently bit the bullet, did some research and waste... uh, _spent_ an evening sharpening a cheap smoothing plane, then grinding and filing bits of it so that the bottom is vaguely flat and the frog holds the blade half-decently and the chip-breaker doesn't catch everything that comes through the mouth and jam full of shavings all the time, and so on. (And what did I get for my trouble? It bit me, which was new.)
> 
> ...



Jake...please tell us what plane invokes such a profound put down as "_I'm using a crappy cheap plane which was put together by brain-damaged rhesus monkeys using ancient, worn tooling and the worst steel they could lay their hands on. "_ 
to any plane. It just might help, because if it's not the plane that's at fault other areas could be explored...bosshogg 





> I never teach my pupils. I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn.
> Albert Einstein (hammer)



P.S. just saw the other reply asking similar, +1


----------



## bugbear (7 Dec 2011)

JakeS":2vdpqwm0 said:


> You say that 'cause you didn't see the thing before I started - without the grinding and filing, it was impossible to get the blade to sit flat in the mouth, one side would always be about 1-1.5mm higher. When I first got it out the box one end of the blade was touching the back side of the mouth and the other end the front side! After an evening's work it cuts fairly even shavings off of oak, walnut and palm flesh _fairly_ happily. (One of my motivations to try and fix it up now was that I wanted some nice attractive oak shavings to pack a gift box with.)
> 
> It was a new plane, just a really cheap one - the hardware & tool shop across the road from where I work seems to have decided that the easiest way to compete on price with the Internet is to sell near-exclusively Silverline stuff, which in my experience is 50% decent-for-the-price and 50% absolutely-atrocious!



Ooh - if you'd asked earlier, those kind of planes come (literally) at the bottom of the list of recommendations. They're not only bad (as purchased), they don't even have potential (when fettled). Yech.

QS are good (or similar, the factory in China seems to be supplying several retailers, and the quality level set by the retailer varies with what the retailer thinks their customers will pay for).

The obvious alternative (if you fancy learning by tuning) is to buy a good/old Record or Stanley. The ball park to get quality is pre 1970. These will not (neccessarily) work well as purchased, but should be made of good materials, and repay your effort.

My own preference is Record, because they're normally slightly better than their date-equivalent Stanley, and they're more British.

BugBear


----------



## JakeS (7 Dec 2011)

As previously hinted at, the atrociously-bad tool in question is a Silverline No. 5. And I meant every word I said - I just wonder how they managed to keep the monkeys from setting fire to the factory when casting the base and the frog.



Fromey":d6cec94s said:


> It might also be useful to have more details on what is going wrong for you while planing. Can you describe what the issues are? Tear-out? Plane tracks? Plane juddering? Plane sticking? Unable to get a surface flat and square? etc.



At the moment, juddering and occasionally sticking, and giving an only-vaguely-flat surface. But as noted, the plane really _is_ crappy, so while I'd gratefully accept technique advice, I expect the plane is probably at fault _as well!_ ;-)



Fromey":d6cec94s said:


> Are you confident you're reading the grain direction correctly? That was my first lesson in hand planing. Are you putting a bit of wax on the sole of your plane? Are you trying to plane a piece of curly maple with a No. 5? Are you setting the blade too deep? Does your blade have a camber to it or is it straights across the whole length?



I'm fairly confident in the grain-direction, presuming that you plane in the direction that the grain rises, to avoid the edge cutting into and splitting down the grain, which has always been OK for me with mechanical planing (I always presumed it was to avoid the blade biting into the grain and splitting down it). Since fixing it up a bit I've mostly been trying it out on oak and walnut, but I've previously tried on old fence posts, ash and pine as well. I definitely had the blade set too deep at first, and I've certainly now improved that, but one of the reasons I'd like a better-put-together plane is that I get the distinct impression that the blade-adjustment mechanism is one of the worse parts of this plane and it's beyond my ability to improve it much. No bit of wax, but I'll give it a go this evening and see how it helps.





bugbear":d6cec94s said:


> Ooh - if you'd asked earlier, those kind of planes come (literally) at the bottom of the list of recommendations. They're not only bad (as purchased), they don't even have potential (when fettled). Yech.



Oh, I was under no illusion as to it being a quality tool - I expected it to be rubbish, but I figured that it would be good practice fixing it up a bit and if I could make it cut remotely well then I'd stand more of a chance with a decent tool. On the other hand, I still wasn't expecting it to be so bad as it was - had it not been for the desire to practice I would have taken it back as not-fit-for-purpose!

That said, it didn't occur to me in the least to look around eBay for second-hand decent-brand planes, and I have no idea why! I've now got a watch on a couple of Records, I'll look forward to giving one a go...


----------



## Corneel (7 Dec 2011)

Apart from the quality of the plane, you should also look at the quality of the wood. For learning an easy wood helps to get some initial succes. Spruce is very tearprone around the knots. I've always had lots of pleasure with good quality pine. Oak isn't too bad, as long as it isn't full of knots with the squirily grain around it. Alder is very nice wood to work with. Airdried stuff, around 10-12% or so is also a lot nicer to plane then killn dried and very dry wood. Avoid anything tropical for now.

You should also learn that a plane doesn't give flat wood automatically. It's not a machine. Check where the wood is high and remove that. Use winding sticks. wobble the plank on your (flat) bench to see where you need to remove more. Most people create convex planks first, taking of way too much at the end of their stroke.

Maybe you can convert your silverline into a roughing tool? Put a fat camber on the blade, 8-10" radius or so. Use it across the grain to get at the worst uneveness, before you use your smoother. 

I think you will be looking for a jointer plane sooner then later. Here it pays to go for a decend brand, because I have seen too many Stanley #7's with very concave soles. I have a Stanley #7 now with a very flat sole, so they do exist.


----------



## Fromey (7 Dec 2011)

+1 for buying an old second-hand plane. I cut my teeth on a 1950's No. 5 after my only experience being a Faithful No. 4 (probably as bad as a Silverline).

Here is a good compilation of UK second-hand tool sellers. You might find one local so you can visit and look at the planes first hand.

http://www.cornishworkshop.co.uk/tooldealers.html

By the way, pine (or what passes as pine in B&Q and such places) is a complete pain to plane unless you are well fettled and sharp. Not a good wood to practice on.


----------



## Fat ferret (7 Dec 2011)

I used a silverline no 4 at college and it wasn't actually that bad :shock: . Ok it was but with a sharp blade it would cut fairly well. Are you sure your blade is sharp? Maybe your blade is set too deep.


----------



## Corneel (8 Dec 2011)

FromeyBy the way said:


> Aha, so your pine is just like our spruce. But finding good wood in such places is a pain anyway.


----------



## JakeS (8 Dec 2011)

Yes, I'm sure it's as sharp as it's going to be (I managed to cut myself with it with an accidental gentle pass over the palm while set too deep) and the blade is set at a reasonable depth (if I wind it in much more, it doesn't cut at all). The oak I'm mostly testing out on is an offcut from some nice straight-grained knot-free boards.



Corneel":2l5813q4 said:


> Aha, so your pine is just like our spruce. But finding good wood in such places is a pain anyway.



I don't even know if the stuff they sell in big DIY shops is even pine at all, to be honest. I'm sure it used to say 'pine', but our local B&Q and Wickes have both got sections labelled "Softwood" or "Redwood" or something now. It's certainly rubbish, that much is for sure. I find it useful for sticking between clamp faces and workpieces, for standing things on while they're being painted or stained, and if I'm careful about which bit I use, providing temporary fences to rout along... and that's about it.

(The only pine I've tried planing was some decent-quality stuff from a local independent supplier, and the difference between that and the stuff from B&Q is like night and day. But mostly I've been sticking to the oak.)

Anyway - thanks for all the advice - I'm looking out for a decent-looking second-hand Record at the moment, hopefully I'll appreciate the difference. ;-)


----------



## jimi43 (8 Dec 2011)

One of the nicest Bailey style planes I own is an old No.4c (corrugated sole) bought at a local bootfair in the summer for £2







These old babies are really beautifully made...generally flatter in sole and square in sides...because that's how they made them way back then.

It needed no sole fettling and just an iron regrind and hone.






They have this old frog style....






...which is acres of support compared with newer models...

...and it whizzes though wood with that "whoosh" sound...






...creating lovely smooth surfaces...






...clean even and thin...(when needed!)






I am not allowed to talk about the shavings being gossamer thin...floating through the air like snowflakes on Mount Fuji with delicate, silk-like texture of the finest denier stockings....................................................................

So I won't.....but the surface of the wood is like the skin of an 18 year old Bridget Bardot.....

OK OK...enough! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: 

It shaves wood well....so you can get a bargain both at bootfairs...or on FleaBay where they appear quite often...just keep your eyes open and your bidding finger on hair-trigger mode!

UPDATE

This is a fairly old one but I can't quite see the iron which looks like a replacement...

CLICKITY CLICK

But for a tenner it's worth a punt!

Cheers!

Jim


----------



## Corneel (9 Dec 2011)

Yeah, my #7 is also very old. Low knob, 3 patent dates and all that. It came very flat indeed. And it is somewhat lighter then the post war ones. I like lighter planes. And somehow it looks a lot nicer, simpler, better made then my other Stanleys, made in the UK.


----------



## whiskywill (9 Dec 2011)

jimi43":1d2muyef said:


> the surface of the wood is like the skin of an 18 year old Bridget Bardot.....



And the shavings are like the skin of an 81 year old Brigitte Bardot.


----------



## woodbloke (9 Dec 2011)

whiskywill":tc0xbcz3 said:


> jimi43":tc0xbcz3 said:
> 
> 
> > the surface of the wood is like the skin of an 18 year old Bridget Bardot.....
> ...


 :-& - Rob


----------



## Crooked Tree (9 Dec 2011)

I have said this somewhere before, but my 2p worth of advice:

Get a No 5 plane (short enough to be weildy, long enough for straightening reasonably sized edges), Stanley or Record. A No 4 will do if you prefer a smaller and lighter plane.
Make sure that the "Y" lever that advances the blade is cast iron, not pressed steel (you have already found this, by the sound of it).
2nd hand from a 2nd hand tool shop or the interweb or similar is probably the way unless you want to pay out for a nice new plane.
Many (most?) planing difficulties can be fixed by sharpening the blade.
Hone the front edge of the chip breaker if shavings jam between it and the blade.


----------



## Jacob (9 Dec 2011)

Crooked Tree":344ehw0g said:


> I have said this somewhere before, but my 2p worth of advice:
> 
> Get a No 5 plane (short enough to be weildy, long enough for straightening reasonably sized edges), Stanley or Record. A No 4 will do if you prefer a smaller and lighter plane.
> Make sure that the "Y" lever that advances the blade is cast iron, not pressed steel (you have already found this, by the sound of it).
> ...


I'd add - make sure the frog face is dead in line with the back of the mouth so that the blade gets maximum support, and forget about "adjusting the mouth" - it's a bit of a myth.
PS and the only bit worth polishing is the top of the cap iron, just the first 1/4" behind the edge, as this could help shavings slip up and over. But it'd polish itself if you used it much.


----------



## condeesteso (9 Dec 2011)

My two bobs worth (old money = 10p now). Second hand. Many say be wary of ebay, but I have had nearly 100% success. With a budget of say £25 - 30 you will get a real cracker, be it a No4, 4 1/2, 5. But there are so many around that you need to be a fussy buyer. The first is often not the best. Go for pre-70s Record, or an early U.S. Stanley*. And don't be convinced they need loads of expert tuning, because they almost always don't, noting that lower priced new ones need at least as much, often more anyway.
There are so many good mid-20th C planes about, and there aren't enough of us to buy them all. (Sorry, been admonished for this before, but I do not rate UK Stanley one bit.)


----------



## Racers (9 Dec 2011)

Hi, Jacob

Measure the lenght of the beval then measure the thickness of the sole, then tell me how the sole can support the blade, comming up with your own myths there Jacob.

Pete


----------



## condeesteso (9 Dec 2011)

Shock of the week from me - Jacob is bang on (sorry Pete, didn't get your point). There is only one worthwhile place for the frog, where blade support is flush with the sole. The second you move the frog forward to close the mouth the blade assembly becomes sadly unsupported just where it needs support the most. And I have not been at all convinced (over years) that tightening the mouth achieves anything good - it does not beat tear out, it does choke.
Damn it Jacob, the candle signature... I've been doing that for years too. Please revert to normal asap.

edit - sorry Pete, get it now. I think the geometry is a bit more complex than bevel length. I grind 30 primary, 35 hone anyway, and I am pretty sure the bevel of sole is actively supporting when frog is aligned. Very happy to be told wrong, but I keep playing with this and have given up closing mouths on Baileys, Bedrock or otherwise.


----------



## Jacob (9 Dec 2011)

Racers":v9gizvg0 said:


> Hi, Jacob
> 
> Measure the lenght of the beval then measure the thickness of the sole, then tell me how the sole can support the blade, comming up with your own myths there Jacob.
> 
> Pete


I suggest you have a close look at your plane (assuming conventional Bailey pattern). You obviously never have!



> Shock of the week from me - Jacob is bang on


I could get a bit p|ssed off with this phrase as it has been repeated so many times (with variations) by so many people. I ought to keep a count. But I bite my lip and say nowt. :roll: 
So many people are so very slow on the uptake. 
Over the years I've just got used to it, after all it's not my fault and they often get there in the end! :lol: :lol:


----------



## condeesteso (9 Dec 2011)

Ah, that's better. Jacob's back to normal.


----------



## Mike Wingate (9 Dec 2011)

I have a few late 60's Records and Stanley planes that I bought as a student and then as a Handicraft teacher. I have kept them in good condition and equiped them with IBC, QS and Smoothcut blades and QS chipbreakers. A few hours spent fettling them up over the last few years has turned them into quality tools. I have also bought 2 Quangsheng planes. They are great straight out of the box (they come in a wooden box) with just a hone. If I was starting out I would buy the QS planes. Clifton planes are great, but far too expensive for me as are Veritas and Lie-Nielson.


----------



## Alf (10 Dec 2011)

Racers":1w1ut431 said:


> Measure the lenght of the beval then measure the thickness of the sole, then tell me how the sole can support the blade, comming up with your own myths there Jacob.



I'm assuming Pete refers to this effect:







It's a combi plane and cutter with 25° bevel, but the essentials are just the same as a Bailey. As a comparison to illustrate how the length of the bevel makes a difference, here's a cutter with a steeper 35° bevel angle; notice how much nearer the edge the support is.






Seems to me to be all very dependent on how thick the sole is, how rank the iron is set, bevel angle and so forth, as to whether the sole supports or not. Reckon both POVs have a shot at being correct on this one - which leads me to suppose it probably doesn't matter either way.


----------



## Jacob (10 Dec 2011)

Makes more sense to look at the plane in question i.e. a typical Bailey pattern. This is the frog assembly from a good Record 5 1/2 with the blade in the position as for a very fine cut. 
4 to 5 mm of the blade back is showing - which will sit tight against the back of the mouth (if the frog is set in line). (NB that's sawdust, not rust).
This is with an approx. full 30º bevel (no primary bevel etc). Honing to 25º as in Alf's example is pointless and also reduces the amount of blade supported. Grinding at 25º and honing at 30º is better. Full 30º best. Worst of all is hollow ground which reduces the support _and_ the stiffness of the blade edge.
If you close the mouth by cranking the assembly forwards then a lot of support is lost.
If you deepen the cut then more of the blade get supported.


----------



## Jacob (10 Dec 2011)

You can see it here too. The back of the blade is clearly resting against the back of the mouth (or would be if the frog was cranked back a touch). The blade looks slightly retracted so there would be even more support in actual use.


----------



## Racers (10 Dec 2011)

Hi, Jacob

That picture is wrong the blade is miles to high up to cut.

Loogs like it was staged to prove a point.


Pete


----------



## Jacob (10 Dec 2011)

Racers":2ua7exk0 said:


> Hi, Jacob
> 
> That picture is wrong the blade is miles to high up to cut.
> 
> ...


Yes it was staged. They don't come apart like that without a lot of preparation! But I don't see any point being made particularly.
Yes - I said it was too high. If it was down it'd bear on the back of the mouth even more.


----------



## Harbo (10 Dec 2011)

Stop all this tooly faffing about - buy a QS or a liethisandleethat if you can afford it?


----------



## condeesteso (10 Dec 2011)

Alf's pics show exactly what I have been aiming for. By reducing the blade angle there is more support, and I have been messing with angles getting closer to nil clearance (a 45 secondary on a standard being nil). I am personally happy that going to say 32 + 37 is totally safe, works nice etc, and gives very good blade support. If I move the frog forward the whole thing tends to disappoint, especially on tricky stock.
But I may be moving over to woodies & infills now anyway  #-o =D>  ... choose one of those that suits your own view! Mathieson, Spiers etc... here we may be coming.


----------



## jimi43 (10 Dec 2011)

I think you're all too busy faffing about and missing the point!

Grind as many bevels as you like...wipe in on a lump of old rock with any old dip in it...coated with Diesel and avoid dropping it in the pond!

How long is it going to take before you get the point! :roll: 

Are you all a bunch of morons like he says you are? :mrgreen: 

Personally...I'm so slow on the uptake...I think I will give up trying to understand what this polite, modest, genius is saying and give up and totally ignore it...I am not worthy! #-o 

Jim


----------



## studders (10 Dec 2011)

So.....

What's the best hand plane for a beginner who doesn't want to spend a fortune?

Anyone??


Hello!!!


----------



## Fromey (10 Dec 2011)

studders":mdoaw87b said:


> So.....
> 
> What's the best hand plane for a beginner who doesn't want to spend a fortune?
> 
> ...



The operative word is "fortune". That could vary greatly depending on your credit rating/social standing/etc.

Cheapest that's any good would be an old second hand Stanley/Record that's in good nick.
Next step up would be a QS from Workshop Heaven
Next step up might be the planes DICTUM sell (I say "may be" because I've never read a review for one, but they look nice. Perhaps they are equivalent to QS).
From then on up, (Veritas, Clifton, Lie Neilsen, etc.), you're into the region of "fortune" for most.


----------



## Jacob (10 Dec 2011)

studders":3ofmwrtg said:


> So.....
> 
> What's the best hand plane for a beginner who doesn't want to spend a fortune?
> 
> ...


Old Stanley or Record as everybody seems to agree. No 5s are cheap for some reason. Good handy size.


----------



## Allylearm (10 Dec 2011)

Never liked the 5 Jack I preferred the 5 1/2. But Jacob and opinion spot on with the old Stanley or Record around 70's or earlier and in good state without bad pitting. So 4 or 4 1/2 or a 5 or 5 1/2 seems to be the conclusion or short plane longer plane, your choice now and what you be doing with it 

So I will see you on flea bay soon then :lol: I never see good stuff at boot sales, the magpies beat me everytime or I go to the wrong ones.


----------



## mtr1 (10 Dec 2011)

I would say record/stanley, and No 5 for me  never could get on with the 1/2 sizes. If you have a bit more money, then the low angle QS is nice, well I'm loving the T10 steel anyhow.


----------



## Alf (11 Dec 2011)

studders":1lamedbl said:


> What's the best hand plane for a beginner who doesn't want to spend a fortune?



D'you know, I'd be tempted to say "old wooden jack"? Certainly cheap enough, and no frog or adjustments to stress over. Oh, except folks often seem to worry about setting wedged planes correctly. But there is advice knocking about on how to do that nowadays (Philly did a vid, iirc?), so yup. Wooden jack. How's that for a daring suggestion?  

Of course the real answer is there isn't any plane suitable if you don't want to spend a fortune. Oh, you may not spend a fortune on the _first one_, but after that...


----------



## studders (11 Dec 2011)

Alf":1slno5r7 said:


> studders":1slno5r7 said:
> 
> 
> > What's the best hand plane for a beginner who doesn't want to spend a fortune?
> ...



Well now, I did buy one of these, the larger one. Guess what.... I spend so much time trying to set the blade to the cut I want, just too far out, not quite far enough, tappety tap, tappety tap... but.... when I do get it right it's lovely to use, as is this one.
So, a good suggestion I say. Just need to 'hone' my adjustment skills a tad.


----------



## woodbloke (11 Dec 2011)

studders":1zf5y80o said:


> So.....
> 
> What's the best hand plane for a beginner who doesn't want to spend a fortune?
> 
> ...


A QS of some denomination from Workshop Heaven...it ain't rocket wotsits - Rob


----------



## AndyT (11 Dec 2011)

Alf":3ufd9724 said:


> studders":3ufd9724 said:
> 
> 
> > What's the best hand plane for a beginner who doesn't want to spend a fortune?
> ...



Good point. That was a perfectly good choice when I was at school in the 70s - each boy had a basic set of tools which included a wooden jack which was used to establish a face side and edge and bring the supplied wood to size. Steel smoother planes were kept in the cupboard and only handed out when strictly necessary.


----------



## studders (11 Dec 2011)

woodbloke":2j8m866z said:


> A QS of some denomination from Workshop Heaven...it ain't rocket wotsits - Rob



I'm fairly sorted myself Plane wise, though still tempted from time to time. I was trying to bring the thread back to the OPs question but.... was interested in the answer myself as I don't think there really is one single answer?

Re QS Planes, I only have the block and going by that I wish I could justify buying more. I'm seriously tempted by this onethough.


----------



## Alf (11 Dec 2011)

Ooo, I'd forgotten the Mujifang ones, Studders. They're a bit of a bargain really, for a new plane.

Oh, and honestly HNT Gordon's advice for setting up a woodie using a "blade setting block" (what we lesser mortals might refer to as "a flat piece of wood"  ) is as good as any for removing the fuss and element of mystique. Try it, you might like it.


----------



## studders (11 Dec 2011)

Ta for the link. That's 'sort of' what I've been doing, albeit I use the bench and not a hard block, which may be where my problem lies. Will try again with some very hard Beech that I've got.
The Mujithings are superb value for money, esp the half price ones. A blade alone would cost as much.


----------



## Jacob (11 Dec 2011)

Good idea the wooden plane. 
Except that they are so much harder to set up than a steel one. And harder to adjust in use. And harder to keep in trim unless you use them very regularly in a dry and even temperatured workshop. And harder to sharpen (thick blades and fiddly setting up).
These being the basic reasons why they have been dumped by the ton, in favour of steel.
They are picturesque and cheap however. Nobody wants them so you can get a good one for £1 or so on ebay.

Record 5 1/2 best of all.


----------



## woodbloke (11 Dec 2011)

Jacob":mzzbmpyr said:


> Good idea the wooden plane.
> Except that they are so much harder to set up than a steel one. And harder to adjust in use. And harder to keep in trim unless you use them very regularly in a dry and even temperatured workshop. And harder to sharpen (thick blades and fiddly setting up).
> These being the basic reasons why they have been dumped by the ton, in favour of steel.
> They are picturesque and cheap however. Nobody wants them so you can get a good one for £1 or so on ebay.
> ...


Only in the West...try that argument with our Japanese brethren and you'll have a very different response. As an entry level plane though, which was the whole point of the OP's question, I agree...woodies aren't the easiest things to use or set up, until you know how but a decent wooden jack plane, with a cambered blade is a 'must have'. Because it's designed to take off thick_ish_ shavings and generally has a fairly wide mouth, it's quite easy to set up, but it's probably not the plane you'd go for first. My money is still on a QS No 4 or 5 from WH - Rob


----------



## Alf (11 Dec 2011)

What's up, Jacob? Not enough brass knobs and shiny bits for you? 

I'm not a member of the Campaign for Wooden Planes (Is there one? Why not?) but apparently I'm in a mood to play Devil's Advocate...

- Except that they are so much harder to set up than a steel one.

Um, well yes and no. There's a learning curve with both, and a lot more that can be wrong and effect the plane's use with a metal plane. Dubious frog bedding, plain (or plane) wrong frog setting, and let's not even go into the threads there have been with folks having trouble retracting the iron enough because the adjuster slot in the cap iron is wrong for that plane.

- And harder to adjust in use.

Well, yes; when you're learning. But then actually, how often does one do that? Really? Once you're set for the cut you want.

-And harder to keep in trim unless you use them very regularly in a dry and even temperatured workshop.

I absolutely hate this argument. No, really, I do. That'd be a workshop in which I wouldn't want to make furniture - or at least, not keep the stuff I'm working on in. So what do you do as an amateur with irregular w'shop time? Me, I'd take the work in the house between w'shop sessions. Not impossible to do that with the tools either, as necessary. And it's made of wood - which is a material a woodworker should have a slightly better grasp of fettling than, say, cast iron.

As to Rob, the thickish shavings argument - a radical notion, but where does it say that the beginner's plane has to take thin shavings? Maybe that's one of the mistakes we all make? Is the whispy shaving the place to start? Is the first joint you make best served by the dovetail? I dunno, I'm just throwing this stuff out there. If whispy shavings are the goal, then I'd go bevel up, and the cheapest way to do that is a low angle block plane.

Seriously, I don't know why I'm arguing this one, except because of my general contrariness and feeling that we throw out so many obstacles in the neophyte's way with cataloguing all the things that can go wrong, maybe occasionally we need to advocate a little more "Jump in and give it a try". For a £1 a pop (apparently).


----------



## condeesteso (11 Dec 2011)

It may be that Andy T and me went to the same school. I grew up on woodie Jacks in particular.
Studders - it's been said already but mid 20th C English is my idea of THE BEST for value and performance. (And R comes before S remember.)
Anyway, have a woodie Jack on the way... let's see if it's only half as good as I remember. If it turns out really good I will share, if not I'll go hide and think again.


----------



## Harbo (11 Dec 2011)

I think you should all go back to the OP last paragraph and the first reply from RogerP is the correct one!


----------



## condeesteso (11 Dec 2011)

Bang on Rod, I do like threads to stay on-thread. But surely mine (last one above) was on? Basically, to be blunt, Record: size to suit, ebay, max £30. And you get told 'Oh no, far too hard to get back, i.e. tune. Nonsense I feel. I have had new planes out of boxes far worse.

(edit) and further proof maybe. Just got a U.S.Stanley 4 1/2 for under £20 incl shipping. (Sorry if I outbid someone here). It looks very promising, knob & tote look very original, loads of blade left, generally very clean. we will see, but I am optimistic. Where else can one find a really good Bailey plane for such a modest amount. It will need a tune for sure, but I expect max 1 hr. But that was an aberration honest... woodies is goodies.


----------



## woodbloke (11 Dec 2011)

Alf":i8vjuqv6 said:


> As to Rob, the thickish shavings argument - a radical notion, but where does it say that the beginner's plane has to take thin shavings? Maybe that's one of the mistakes we all make? Is the whispy shaving the place to start? Is the first joint you make best served by the dovetail? I dunno, I'm just throwing this stuff out there. If whispy shavings are the goal, then I'd go bevel up, and the cheapest way to do that is a low angle block plane.


Ooo-er Al, steady on...it'll No4's, 25 paces apart at dawn next :lol: I agree, the standard woodie is one of those planes that I reckon we all need (at least I do) and I only mention it as being a desirable plane, but not the first one...even the first one shouldn't be aiming to take those whispy, gossamer thin shavings, but a No5 (say) correctly set up to take those '_run of the mill_' sort of shavings that a metal jack will do is the sort of thing I was thinking of...either a QS from WH or if the spondulicks don't go that far, then a well sorted out Record..£25_ish_? - Rob


----------



## DTR (11 Dec 2011)

studders":3dl1xqaq said:


> Ta for the link. That's 'sort of' what I've been doing, albeit I use the bench and not a hard block



I've been setting my skew rebate and plough the same way. It's nice to know my incompetent fumblings are actually a recommended technique :mrgreen:. Thanks for the link Alf


----------



## Alf (11 Dec 2011)

Harbo":uv6ompa3 said:


> I think you should all go back to the OP last paragraph and the first reply from RogerP is the correct one!


Awww, where's the fun in that?  But if it's necessary to pick an answer within the first page, I'd go with dh7892's suggestion, akshully - find a hand plane-using forum member in your locale who'd be willing to give you half an hour or so of their time and planes. A considerable saving of time spent on the learning curve right there.



woodbloke":uv6ompa3 said:


> Ooo-er Al, steady on...it'll No4's, 25 paces apart at dawn next :lol:


#4s?! I pack fully loaded combination planes and am not afraid to use 'em.  (If the thread police weren't patrolling, I'd ask for clarification on metal jack plane shavings vs. wooden jack ones, but I fear their on-topic truncheons and will have to remain in ignorance. I fear we may have to agree to differ. Hey, we've done it before. :lol: )


----------



## Jacob (11 Dec 2011)

Alf":22r3es54 said:


> ....... maybe occasionally we need to advocate a little more "Jump in and give it a try". For a £1 a pop (apparently).


Yes I agree with that. Have a go by all means. Wouldn't want to discourage anybody!
BTW I've bought several cheapos on ebay, down to 99p. £3 more typical I suppose.
The woody which really is worth having is the skew rebate, of which there are 100s on ebay. £3 ish plus or minus. They are all "skew" as far as I can see. I don't think I've seen a straight one. Do they exist? If so, why?


----------



## AndyT (11 Dec 2011)

Jacob":1a13kiib said:


> Alf":1a13kiib said:
> 
> 
> > ....... maybe occasionally we need to advocate a little more "Jump in and give it a try". For a £1 a pop (apparently).
> ...



+1 

A long time ago, being unable to afford a metal shoulder plane, I bought my first wooden rebate plane. I now seem to have about eight, six of which are skew. One of the straight ones is French; the other is only 3/8" wide. But both straight and skew were offered; the old Melhuish catalogue shows them in sizes from 1/4" at 2s 4d to 1 3/4" at 3s - but skew blades were consistently 2d extra. 
From our random sample it seems that for once our forbears had the sense to pay the extra for the superior item!


----------



## Corneel (11 Dec 2011)

I have something like 5 wooden rebate planes. All are straight. All are Dutch. So maybe it's a regional thing?
I understand from the molding plane professors in the States that straight ones are really easier to use. But I have no experience with the skewed ones, so I can't compare.

Personally I would vote for a metal plane as a first plane. I am in serious love with the woodies now, but still find them finicky to use.


----------



## jimi43 (12 Dec 2011)

Are woodies or steel planes best for a beginner?

There's only one way to find out..........................................


INFILL!!!

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: 

Jim


----------



## JakeS (12 Dec 2011)

Alf":u8gwjowt said:


> (If the thread police weren't patrolling, I'd ask for clarification on metal jack plane shavings vs. wooden jack ones, but I fear their on-topic truncheons and will have to remain in ignorance. I fear we may have to agree to differ. Hey, we've done it before. :lol: )



For what it's worth, speaking as the OP; I got my advice pages ago, so far as I'm concerned you can take the topic where you like. 

I managed to get a pile of attractive-enough-to-a-layman shavings out of the cheap plane I started with, in the end:




(Excuse the tape; it's where I do my gluing.)

My original motivation to fettle the damn thing into working order was to get some nice curly oak shavings to pack a gift box with, and now I'm reading articles on making my own wooden planes...! For what it's worth, I'm looking out for a decent-looking second-hand plane on eBay - like that I don't have to worry about getting my money's worth from the tool, and it's probably better practice setting it up. Thanks for all the advice!


----------



## Jacob (12 Dec 2011)

JakeS":3u4zy8ft said:


> Alf":3u4zy8ft said:
> 
> 
> > (If the thread police weren't patrolling, I'd ask for clarification on metal jack plane shavings vs. wooden jack ones, but I fear their on-topic truncheons and will have to remain in ignorance. I fear we may have to agree to differ. Hey, we've done it before. :lol: )
> ...


Ah-ha! So you don't want a planed piece of wood you just want shavings. :lol: Why didn't you say?
Actually you are not alone as there are quite a few on here who regard the quality of the shavings as the whole point of the operation. :roll: 

The answer is - any old plane will do it, but get your shavings from the *edge* of a thin board not from the face. As you get better at it you can try it on a thicker board.
NB the board needs to be solidly supported in a vice. A workmate is not good enough but there are various fixes. How are you holding your wood?



condeesteso":3u4zy8ft said:


> .... I do like threads to stay on-thread. ...


Why? How boring. I do like them to wander off in all directions, you never know where you might end up.


----------



## dddd (12 Dec 2011)

Hi Jake,

I think you're spot on there, I went through exactly the same process as you a few years ago; I bought a horrible cheap B&Q plane, read lots, played with it, filed it, flattened it, threw it at the wall and generally tinkered with it, after some serious playing it sort of worked but never quite how I wanted it. 

Then I moved on to the ebay Records and Stanleys, took what I'd learnt from the first plane on to them, bought new blades/chip breaker etc and got them working real nice then finally I ending up with some rather tasty LN's, not sure what it is planes just sort of get in your blood  

The main thing is to keep learning, plane as much much wood as you can and eventually it will come and the rewards are fantastic. 

Neill


----------



## RogerP (12 Dec 2011)

Jacob":yx2vuh0u said:


> Ah-ha! So you don't want a planed piece of wood you just want shavings. :lol: Why didn't you say?
> Actually you are not alone as there are quite a few on here who regard the quality of the shavings as the whole point of the operation. :roll:


For really nice shavings you need a Spill Plane .... the very last paragraph says it all!


----------



## bugbear (12 Dec 2011)

Jacob":5pnhb1i5 said:


> The woody which really is worth having is the skew rebate, of which there are 100s on ebay. £3 ish plus or minus. They are all "skew" as far as I can see. I don't think I've seen a straight one. Do they exist? If so, why?



Yes, straight across wooden rebates were made. They sold for less, being easier to make, and some people were poor.

Craftsman presumably bought the skew version because they though it was worth the extra. Skew blades work well across grain, and also give the tool a pleasing tendancy to pull itself into the cut.

BugBear


----------



## JakeS (12 Dec 2011)

Jacob":3fdxmgcg said:


> Ah-ha! So you don't want a planed piece of wood you just want shavings. :lol: Why didn't you say?



Not quite!

A while ago, I wanted to be able to plane things inside the house, or without making a lot of noise, or with a bit more control than the electric planer gives me. I bought a cheap hand-plane to see if I could fiddle it into functionality. I had a bit of a fiddle, gave up on it and went back to sanding and other methods.

Then recently, I needed some nice-looking shavings for packing in a gift box, and it motivated me to have another go at fettling this crappy plane; I got my shavings, but it also reinforced the idea I'd been getting that planes aren't necessarily so horrible as all the planes I've had the misfortune to use have been, and that it might be worth getting a better one so that I can plane things inside the house, or without making a lot of noise, or with a bit more control than the electric planer gives me.

I've got my shavings, but I'm still interested in getting a better plane. ;-)



(And as it goes, I did take them from the thin edge of the short board in the picture.)


----------



## Mike Wingate (18 Dec 2011)

I have just recieved 2 QS blades, 3 QS chipbreakers and 2 yokes from Matthew at Workshop Heaven. Great service and quality products. I have just lapped the back of one blade and sharpened it. Attached the chipbreaker and tried it in a nice No.5. Fit first time, no messing about, even the original yoke works. Shavings on maple are sublime. A happy woodworker. Outstanding perfection at minimal cost.


----------



## Benchwayze (12 Feb 2012)

A good number 5 is a nice plane. Record or Stanley. (Not to mention the high-end No 5s.) 
But for some reason I find a No. 5 a bit light and also, while it doesn't really wobble, when I use mine I always feel that it's going to tip over. So for the longer planes I prefer the 1/2 sizes. 

For a smoother, I don't mind which!

It must be me. :mrgreen:


----------

