# Buying useful old planes on EBay



## Neil (22 Jul 2004)

Some of you (i.e. Alf :wink may remember that I inherited some planes (along with some other items) which Alf very kindly advised me on in this thread . I'm ashamed to admit that these planes (Stanley-Bailey #7, Record #77 and Record #405) represent my entire collection apart from the usual doorstop new Stanley which everyone seems to mistakenly buy when they first start butchering wood.

I would like to expand this collection a bit (for use, not for c*ll*cting) so I have something more suitable for smoothing, a jack and one or two block planes. My rough shopping list is:

#4
#4 1/2 (maybe)
#5

#60 1/2 block
#220 block

#20 Compass Plane (because I've wanted one since I was a kid, although I might have to wait until I have that miraculous dream find at a car boot sale )

Having lurked on ebay in the Tools Hardware, Collectables section I've noticed that the planes I'm interested in seem to go for not much money - about 5-10% of the price of the equivalent L-N. My question is, how do you tell a good Stanley from a rubbish one? I can recognise the really new Stanleys, but when did they mutate from something useful into the modern junk? For instance, here is a typical ebay Stanley #4 - is it possible to tell from this as to whether this will tune up into a useful plane?

I realise I'm probably asking the impossible here - maybe I should just send my shopping list & a blank cheque to Alf! In case anyone wants to suggest it, I can't just go for L-N/Veritas/Clifton instead at the moment - it is a case of either getting old Stanleys/Records, or not getting anything  

Thanks!

NeilCFD


----------



## Anonymous (22 Jul 2004)

You could always go to Ray Iles - probably more expensive than what you get off eBay, but well reconditioned kit, and cheaper than new Records or Stanleys.


----------



## ike (22 Jul 2004)

> apart from the usual doorstop new Stanley which everyone seems to mistakenly buy when they first start butchering wood.



Why do you say this? What is about the modern Stanley plane that is so bad? I'm really interested to know why it was a mistake for me to buy a Stanley No.5. I can't compare judge it against a comparable plane of another make as I don't know anyone personally who has a LN for example. I keep the blade as sharp as I can with my 1200 waterstone and leather strop and it seems to do the job to me. Is there a significant and obvious difference between plane makes, only to be seem when working figured hardwoods for example? Or is it a more touchy, feely "I can't really describe why I like it so much, but I just want one" sort of difference? (oh yes!, I do admit to certain tool cravings!). 

Please, I'm genuinely intrigued by the discussions about what planes to buy (or what not to buy as the case may be). Perhaps this could form another topic with the emphasis towards educating plane numpties like me.

So, come on fellow forumeers - blind me!

Ike


----------



## Alf (22 Jul 2004)

Neil":zv44uh8g said:


> I'm ashamed to admit that these planes (Stanley-Bailey #7, Record #77 and Record #405) represent my entire collection apart from the usual doorstop new Stanley which everyone seems to mistakenly buy when they first start butchering wood.


Everyone has to start somewhere. You wouldn't believe how long I went with just _one plane_.



Lamb to the Slaughter":zv44uh8g said:


> I would like to expand this collection a bit (for use, not for c*ll*cting) so I have something more suitable for smoothing, a jack and one or two block planes. My rough shopping list is:
> 
> #4
> #4 1/2 (maybe)
> ...


Just for the record, so as you can't say I didn't warn ya - 
Step Away From The Edge While You Can, Neil!

Having said which, for the starter on The Slope, I'd cut that back to one block (60 1/2), one smoother (I like the 4 1/2's extra mass, but it's a personal thing. Anyone near you who can let you have a try, like Waka did?) and the jack... Well let's be a bit controversial here. You're doing all your stock prep by hand? Get a jack. You're not? Don't bother just at the moment. The compass plane is outside the parameters of this answer - I can't advise on long-wished for plane wants. :wink: 



Seasick voyager adrift on the 'Bay":zv44uh8g said:


> Having lurked on ebay in the Tools Hardware, Collectables section I've noticed that the planes I'm interested in seem to go for not much money - about 5-10% of the price of the equivalent L-N. My question is, how do you tell a good Stanley from a rubbish one?


Ahh, the $64,000 question. After about 2 or 3 years of solid and consistant reasearch and reading up, learning to operate a good image programme to inhance the frequently useless Ebay pics, learning all 307 questions you need to ask any seller to have a remote idea if the plane is even in one piece, accumulating a large number of duds and generally wasting a lot of time and money; well, you may get as good as only buying 3 or 4 duff tools a month... I've managed to buy useless planes in the flesh; I've never even bothered to get in the quagmire that is buying sight unseen. Save yourself.



Neil then":zv44uh8g said:


> I can recognise the really new Stanleys, but when did they mutate from something useful into the modern junk? For instance, here is a typical ebay Stanley #4 - is it possible to tell from this as to whether this will tune up into a useful plane?


Could be. But what about that crack through the cheek on the other side? <_What crack through the cheek on the other side?_> The one the seller's not showing you, for all you know.  Anyway it's a Made In England, stained beech handles, could be anytime from 50s to the 80s I think. Earlier _maybe_, 'cos the rear tote's quite shapely. Might be a great plane, might be a stinker. Who knows?



Impossible question asker":zv44uh8g said:


> I realise I'm probably asking the impossible here - maybe I should just send my shopping list & a blank cheque to Alf!


Now you're talking... :twisted: 

Esp speaks wisely; Ray Iles' reconditioned are worth a look if they're not out of your budget. Old block planes are considerably harder to come by in this country, so you could be out of luck there unless you go to a dealer. A list of same in the UK is on my website, "How much is that tool chest in the window?".

Ike, there's lots of things really. The castings aren't allowed to season and do any of their movement thing before machining, the machining itself is much rougher and less well done than times past, the blades are pretty ghastly, the cap iron often needs fettling to stop the plane choking, the handles are gawd awful plastic, the adjustments are sloppy and unresponsive... That's a few of them anyway. If truth be told, if you're happy with it then no worries. Just don't pick up a c.1930s US Stanley with shapely rosewood totes, that's all. It's what did for me... :roll: Although you're right; if you're using softwood all the time then a modern Stanley can just about cope. Start in on pickier hardwoods and suddenly your life's quest is to find the Ultimate Smoother, which eventually always seems to turn out to be an infill, and then you've had it. :wink: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Adam (22 Jul 2004)

Espedair Street":2qxiwiso said:



> You could always go to Ray Iles - probably more expensive than what you get off eBay, but well reconditioned kit, and cheaper than new Records or Stanleys.



Actually I lost out on three auctions for a Bullnose #90, each time I bottled about £50-£53 pounds, and mine would be the 2nd to last bid, so they invariably went for £50.01 to £53.01 - just my luck  

Anyway, I couldn't be bothered in the end, and rang Ray Iles, and got one for £55. So their wasn't much in it.

I did however, pick up this bargain, but that must have been beginners luck!

https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1915

I'd certainly recommend a Ray Iles, - doesn't he surface grind them - so you don't have to do loads of fettling when you get them?

Adam


----------



## ike (22 Jul 2004)

Er, what's an infill?


----------



## Adam (22 Jul 2004)

ike":31enoapp said:


> Er, what's an infill?



http://www.holteyplanes.com/planes.htm

A snip at £3800.

Adam


----------



## ike (22 Jul 2004)

Oooooooooohaaaaahhahhaaa!


----------



## Adam (22 Jul 2004)

I'd say a 4.5, rather than a 4, its a bit quicker.

60 1/2 I got recently, and it's already been in use - not sure why you need two of them for?

I've had a Marples #5 sitting in a drawer for several years now, I've never quite got around to finding a use for it.

Perhaps it's time I flogged in on ebay, as I'm normally ruthless about chucking out junk, which is defined in my workshop as anything I don't use for any extended period of time, as I can't afford the space.....

I do like, however my #7 jointer (which I also replaced recently) and have now given the #7 with ray iles blade away, and have kept a #6 for when I'm working on reconditioned stuff (very rare, but it's a nice security not to have to run your best plane through something.......)

Adam


----------



## Neil (22 Jul 2004)

Esp - good suggestion, thanks. I might see what he has now that my wishlist has shrunk a bit. And thanks for seconding the suggestion, Adam.

Ike - I'll defer to Alf's technical reasons. Mine is just horrible, horrible, horrible compared to the old #7. It doesn't even say Stanley on mine (maybe they were too embarrassed) but I'm sure it said Stanley on the nasty plastic packaging it came in. It was much cheaper (new) than the Stanley #4 in the Axminster catalogue which is a bit puzzling, so maybe it is much lower quality than your #5 - Do they have different versions of the same plane I wonder? Admittedly, it had about 10 years of dust on the packaging when I got it from a local Irish hardware store - cost 20 punts if I remember rightly.

Alf - ROTFL as usual :lol: Thanks for all the advice - I'm suffering from shock that you actually encouraged me to reduce my plane wishlist :shock: . I'll avoid the temptations of ebay unless something irresistible appears at a price I am prepared to pay if it turns out to be a duff one.

So - please would you bear me in mind if a nice 4 1/2 or 60 1/2 finds its way into Alf's Tool Emporium? When is you next sale, BTW?

I guess the alternative is for me to come up with a nice box :wink: although this could be hampered by a lack of skill and equipment  

Thanks again,

NeilCFD


----------



## Neil (22 Jul 2004)

Adam":3d69ou4z said:


> 60 1/2 I got recently, and it's already been in use - not sure why you need two of them for?


The idea was to get a 60 1/2 for fine work, and a 220 (which there seems to be a lot of on Ebay, going for between £8 and £12) for abusing when I'm doing stuff which wouldn't exactly be described as 'fine furniture making'  For the abusive work, I wouldn't need an adjustable mouth so the 220 would be fine...

I might just end up getting the same 60 1/2 as you did - got to try an L-N at some point, haven't I? :wink: 

NeilCFD


----------



## Chris Knight (22 Jul 2004)

Neil,

I will certainly defer to Alf's no doubt greater experience with eBay and maybe I have just been very lucky but apart from a grotty transitional I bought (and my fault really - I should have learnt more about transitionals before buying it) I have always been happy with eBay purchases.

I do tend to buy from folk that sound as if they know what they are selling and I always ask a couple of questions. I then bid the max I am prepared to go and wait till I get an email - If I win fine, if I don't also fine.

The tools I have acquired this way have all been accurately described and I have never felt ripped off. None of which says that I necessarily had a bargain of course!


----------



## mudman (22 Jul 2004)

Neil":etstcjin said:


> My question is, how do you tell a good Stanley from a rubbish one? I can recognise the really new Stanleys, but when did they mutate from something useful into the modern junk? For instance, here is a typical ebay Stanley #4 - is it possible to tell from this as to whether this will tune up into a useful plane?



I don't think you can ever be certain of what you're getting from eBay, especially if they are old planes. I just go by 'blue paint bad, balck paint good' although of course not always true.
I think you can be taking a bit of a risk, that #4 for example, it does look nice and if I was looking for one, I'd bid on it. But, the sole may be awful, or as Alf said, there may be a crack somewhere. However, #4s don't go for very much, probably because there are so many out there, so this one will probably be very reasonable and quite likely a good buy. Just be prepared to do a bit of fettling.

Don't discount the tatty looking planes though. Mint examples will go for a lot of money but the nastier looking ones will go for less and if you're willing to do some work on them, then it can be a good bargain.

Sometimes though, you can't tell either way and you have to ask yourself if you want to risk it.
I was looking for a #5 1/2 and bid on one that had minimal description and a really bad dark picture. Bit of a risk, and when I received it, it was the rustiest plane I had ever seen. :shock: Terrible. I was surprised to find though that the sole was absolutely flat and the sides absolutely square to the sole. Took a while but I cleaned it all up. Tried it on a piece of ash with some wild grain that I was having problems with using my new #6 doorstop. I was amazed at the difference. Loverly, no tear out, smooth, wafer thin shavings. It probably cost me more in time than it was worth. But to me it is was well worth it in the end and I have a really nice user.

Like Chris, I set a limit and won't go beyond this and I always take the cost of postage into account in this limit. 
I won't bid on an item where the seller is obviously trying to make money with extortionate postal rates. I also won't bid on an item where the seller wants to pass on paypal charges. I'm also wary of those who don't put on postal charges. I can't be bothered to chase with questions so if I do bid, it will be a very low limit I set for myself.

Saying all that though, it can be great fun. :lol:

Cheers,
Barry


----------



## Anonymous (22 Jul 2004)

The planes you mention are common and it is relatively easy to find these in GOOD or better condition fairly inexpensively. The #20 might not fit that bill and the #4 1/2 is usually around twice the price of a #4.

Buying on eBay can be a gamble. It is best if you can find someone who deals in tools and is knowledgeable. I used to sell quite a few tools on eBay and my policy is always that a person can return a tool for any reason for a full refund of the auction price and a full refund including shipping if there were any problems I failed to point out. I never had a tool returned or a negative feedback. I got above average prices which I believe were because the buyers felt less risk.

The most sought after Stanley planes were made between 1907 and WWII. Before 1907 the frog design left a little of the blade unsupported and there was no frog adjusting screw. These weren't bad planes but after 1907 they planes were more user friendly. During WWII, planes were made a little more crudely and materials varied, often the totes were made of an unspecified hardwood and painted black. Some people like these planes because the castings were a little heavier. The early Stanley blades were laminated with a thin piece of hard steel bonded to softer steel. The hard steel would take and hold a keen edge and was easy to sharpen.

My first real plane was a modern, made in England, Stanley #7. I could do good work with it but would not buy another. First, they cost more than a good vintage plane. Second, those plastic totes will blister your hands after a couple of hours. Third, the blade will sharpen OK but it won't hold an edge for long. You can tune a modern Stanley or Record, replace the totes and add an aftermarket blade and have a decent plane but you could have had a nice set of vintage planes for the same price.


----------



## Alf (22 Jul 2004)

Neil":2r7krmap said:


> So - please would you bear me in mind if a nice 4 1/2 or 60 1/2 finds its way into Alf's Tool Emporium? When is you next sale, BTW?


When I get round to cleaning up enough stuff to make a decent list. :roll: I might well have a #4 1/2 in fact - there was one in the tool chest, and as I already have "a number of them" (number unspecified for reasons of I can't remember :roll: ) there may be re-adjustments in the plane arsenal. You might have to bear with me though; I'm currently in the midsts of a workshop reorganisation. :x 



Neil":2r7krmap said:


> I guess the alternative is for me to come up with a nice box :wink: although this could be hampered by a lack of skill and equipment


Ah go on, take a shot at it. You never know, do you? And you've got to be in it to win it. :wink: 

Chris, I've never _tried_ Ebay. I just know I'd unerringly pick the duds every time. :roll: You need to be lucky, and after all I _am_ the person who bought the bandsaw that literally fell off the back of the lorry...  

Barry, you're quite right about tatty-looking planes. Some of my favourites wouldn't even turn up to compete at a beauty contest. 



Roger":2r7krmap said:


> You can tune a modern Stanley or Record, replace the totes and add an aftermarket blade and have a decent plane but you could have had a nice set of vintage planes for the same price.


Thanks, Roger. That was the clinching argument I'd forgotten until I'd logged off. I always feel Axminster (UK tool emporium, Roger) miss a real marketing opportunity in not doing a favourable rate on a Clifton iron, cap iron and set of Crown replacement rosewood totes as a "souped up plane customisation kit". Maybe Stanley would sue them for honesty...

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Neil (22 Jul 2004)

Thanks Chris, Barry & Roger. Maybe I will dip a toe into the water, just for something cheap like a #4.

It was very interesting to see the auction picture of your 5 1/2, Barry - in that dim light it didn't look too bad. I'll also take on board your comments re: postage bandits.

NeilCFD


----------



## Neil (22 Jul 2004)

Alf":3jp6ymcx said:


> I might well have a #4 1/2 in fact - there was one in the tool chest


Well, keep me in mind, Alf, after your 'workshop reorganisation' - why do I get the feeling I'll be waiting a long time? :lol: 

NeilCFD


----------



## Alf (22 Jul 2004)

Neil":1b5y1g2m said:


> Alf":1b5y1g2m said:
> 
> 
> > I might well have a #4 1/2 in fact - there was one in the tool chest
> ...


Why, you cheeky...  

Cheers, Alf


----------



## mudman (22 Jul 2004)

Neil,

Well, that #4 does look quite nice. Check out the completed items as well to get an idea what they are worth. Probably about a tenner with the £5 p&p on top.

By the way, there's a #4 1/2 on there at the moment, may take a bit of work though. :wink: 

Alf,

ROTFLMAO

Cheers,
Barry


----------



## Anonymous (22 Jul 2004)

Neil

I bought one plane from ebay - once. It was the low angle Stanley block that I sold on here asap at a loss to myself in money terms but a gain in experience. I don't look at ebay any more.

However, I know loads of poeple who have bought stuff from ebay and been chuffed to bits - look at Adam's recent plane acquisiition.

I think several people here have offered sage advice. You may win, you may lose but that's what auctions are about.


Ike
I too was concerned about buying LN when my tuned Stanley with new Hock blade and Clifton chip breaker seemed so good. 
Well after 5 seconds with the LN 4.5 I knew that the stanley could never be tuned enough. Chalk and cheese. 
The LN is smooth, cuts full width shavings more cleanly (leaving a glowing surface) it 'feels' better in the hand, is better balanced, and it's extra weight makes planing an easier and more enjoyable experience. I made a shooting board yesterday and used the old stanley to plane man made boards - it felt flimsey and inaccurate.

Ditto for my Clifton number 5 - I would not be able to choose between an LN and a Clifton when it comes to performance.


----------



## Anonymous (22 Jul 2004)

Tony wrote:


> I too was concerned about buying LN when my tuned Stanley with new Hock blade and Clifton chip breaker seemed so good.
> Well after 5 seconds with the LN 4.5 I knew that the stanley could never be tuned enough. Chalk and cheese.
> The LN is smooth, cuts full width shavings more cleanly (leaving a glowing surface) it 'feels' better in the hand, is better balanced, and it's extra weight makes planing an easier and more enjoyable experience. I made a shooting board yesterday and used the old stanley to plane man made boards - it felt flimsey and inaccurate.
> 
> Ditto for my Clifton number 5 - I would not be able to choose between an LN and a Clifton when it comes to performance.



I agree with you that a Stanley Bailey can not be tuned to match an LN in smoothing performance. My Knight coffin smoother will also outperform my Stanleys and serves as my polishing plane.
For the other 95+% of my planing chores, my Stanleys (and similar) suit my needs.


----------



## Midnight (22 Jul 2004)

*Ike wrote*



> Please, I'm genuinely intrigued by the discussions about what planes to buy (or what not to buy as the case may be). Perhaps this could form another topic with the emphasis towards educating plane numpties like me.



First point Ike... owning one new Stanley doesn't qualify you as numpty; that's reserved for the likes of me... 3 Stanleys and a Record..

First up, the finish quality of the casting is borderline "fit for purpose" at best; check it out with a straight edge, you'll see what I mean. Secondly, as Alf pointed out, the quality of their blade steel is dubious; ideal stuff to teach you how to sharpen properly as you'll get plenty practice in a hurry.

For me, the worst aspects with the bench planes happened when I tried to close their mouths; moving the iron off the rearmost face of the throat meant that the iron had less support; it totally refused to cut. Even when set fine, it would catch, deflect rearward, digging-in in the process, rip massive chunks out the board before chattering through the rest of the stroke. Back the adjuster off 1/8th of a turn and it wouldn't cut at all. It struck me as pointless having an adjustable frog at all when that happens when you try to use it. 
For me, the single worst aspect was when I was physically able to deflect the body of the #7 so far that the blade caught and dug into the bottom of a hollow (I'd only just started trying to straighten the board after planing cross grain with the jack), the tear out in the hollow had me stumped till I sat and figured out exactly what had to have happened. Bearing in mind, I'm no Geoff Capes, I found it utterly ridiculous. 

I still use the Stanley #5, and will have to continue to do so until I can afford to relace it. With it tuned and flattened properly, frog set to have the back of the throat support the blade it's still a capable tool especially after my scrub plane's done the initial shaping of the board. But that wide open throat and bendy as hell blade means the days when I trusted it for fine work are long gone... As for a doorstop, try beating a #7 for size.

My story with their block planes was much the same. I bought a Stanley 220 (I think......no model # on the casting). After spending 4 hours tuning it, sharpening, flattening and honing the blade on 8000 grit, it managed to achieve doorstop status on after just the one board. It stayed together just long enough to chatter and bite chunks along the full length of the board edge, the chatter being bad enough to shake loose the quick release cap iron and let the thing literally fall apart in my hands. I'll spare the sob story of the Record 9 1/2 block plane; suffice to say that although it lasted longer, the result was the same. Thesedays it serves as a paperweight in the shop, doubling as a constant reminder NEVER to buy new Record again.

To my mind, any iron plane should conform to 5 main points. 

1/ The casting should be stiff enough to resist flexing.
2/ The sole should be flat
3/ The sides should be square
4/ The iron should be both thick enough and hard enough to resist flexing in use
5/ All burrs and sharp edges created during the machining process should be removed prior to assembly / shipping.

These 5 points are, imho MINIMUM requirements to qualify as fit for purpose; there's a far longer list to define a GOOD plane. Having to spend 4-6 hours working on a NEW product bought in good faith from a manufacturer with a good reputation is utterly ridiculous. 
I know there are aftermarket blades that will improve the planes, but it's my belief that, when the planes NEED an upgrade like that, it SHOULD be done by the manufacturer; if I attempted to pass off a half finished wiring loom as fit for purpose, I'd be fired. Nuff said...??

Ike, I hope this ramble hasn't put you off; there's a LOT of good manufacturers out there making first rate tools. If I were you, I'd have a good long look at the product ranges of Clifton, Lee Valley and Lie-Nielsen; you winna go far wrong with them. Granted, they're more expencive... their difference is... they're worth it.


----------



## Anonymous (23 Jul 2004)

asleitch":2z8mr5q9 said:


> I'd certainly recommend a Ray Iles, - doesn't he surface grind them - so you don't have to do loads of fettling when you get them?
> 
> Adam



Yes, he does - the 5 1/2 I got off him came with gleaming sole and sides. He generally doesn't touch the japanning, so if the plane he got to recon had japanning missing, it'll still be missing when you buy it. It's worth forking the extra money for one of Ray's replacement irons too - it's not A2, but is cheaper than say a Hock or a Victor after-market iron.

that modern stanley someone mentioned, that's not badged stanley, could be one of the handeyman range (as sold in the likes of homebase)...seriously cheap and rubbish! If you have to buy a modern plane, the records are generally considered better quality than the stanleys.


----------



## Anonymous (23 Jul 2004)

Alf":1a1wkyrc said:


> <snip>
> Ike, there's lots of things really. .... the blades are pretty ghastly, <more snip>
> Cheers, Alf



Here's a link with some good info one the steels used in making irons:
http://www.hocktools.com/steelrap.htm



Midnight":1a1wkyrc said:


> I know there are aftermarket blades that will improve the planes, but it's my belief that, when the planes NEED an upgrade like that, it SHOULD be done by the manufacturer;



Trouble is, the manufacturers are making the blades the way they are to meet what they perceive as a demand - they're putting way too much chrome-vanadium in the alloy to keep the metal nice and stainless, to meet Joe-Public DIYers' demand for tools that can be put in the drawer for years, and not go rusty. Your average #4 owner (not woodworker) probably very rarely uses the plane, and there are more of them than there are of us. Stanley is chasing that market, for the volume. That leaves those of us who know better (or think we do, at least 
 ) to go for the after-market irons from Ron Hock or Clifton or whoever.

I did have a link to a page that goes into the whole economics of it, but can't find it at the moment...I'll try and dig it out.


----------



## ike (23 Jul 2004)

> Ike, I hope this ramble hasn't put you off;



Tony, Roger, Mike,

Not at all!. I'm thankful for your views on the subject. I must make the effort to lay my hands on the Clifton and LN's somehow. I have a Clifton 3110. To me it works beautifully and my only gripe with it is was that the cast faces were not properly deburred after grinding. Pretty poor for a plane that cost me (then) £115. I hope their bench planes are better finished.

What I want first is a smoother. I don't yet own one. I reckon a 4-1/2 rather than a 4. Poring (drooling?) over my LN catalogue the other evening, one thing I'm still confused about is the relative merits of the standard bench plane and the low angle equivalents. Can you enlighten me a bit more on this? 

I'm hoping I can save enough to get at least a smoother and a few nice chisels by the year end.

Ike


----------



## Philly (23 Jul 2004)

Hi All,
My single E-bay experience was a beech shoulder plane. Got it for £14, brand new. Looked beautiful, sharpened the blade and off we go. Oh  The thing is warped in two planes (no pun intended). Flattened the sole on my jointer, no problem, but it was warped in its length as well. A wooden banana.
So, if you want a sharp wooden banana drop me a line. I'm sure your's will be the "winning" bid.
regards,
A Ripped Off Philly :?


----------



## Neil (23 Jul 2004)

Thanks everyone - plenty of advice either way. I think I'll tread carefully and give ebay a try to get a cheap #4 to tide me over until Alf has finished her 'workshop reorganisation' :wink: 

NeilCFD


----------



## Midnight (23 Jul 2004)

> Can you enlighten me a bit more on this?



Ike..

My first instingt was that the best way to cover this would be to do a proper review, not least because doing that here would hijack Neil's thread. I'll ummmmm.... see what I can do. 

<hushed> if you ping Alf's knicker elastic hard enough it may spook her into a review of her #164, but _*dinna*_ say I put you up to it :wink:


----------



## ike (23 Jul 2004)

Alf,

Mike said not to say who put me up to it but if I ping your knicker elastic hard enough will you review your #164. 

* :twisted: Was that hard enough?

Psst, what's a #164?

Ike :?


----------



## Midnight (23 Jul 2004)

> * Was that hard enough?
> 
> Psst, what's a #164?



Sheesh.. talk about subtle as a brick....

L-N#164 is that flashy lookin tool she's using in her Avtar, a.k.a. low angle smoother.


----------



## ike (23 Jul 2004)

Eh? whaa? did I say somethin wrong? :? :lol:


----------



## Anonymous (23 Jul 2004)

found more details on the choice of steels used in plane irons, and why modern, mass produced irons are not as good these days as they used to be:



www.fine-tools.com":2mj66gqp said:


> Another point - maybe you have heard the story of the ancient chisel rediscovered in a corner of the attic. It still worked, and sharpened up brilliantly, to an edge that lasted for ages. It rapidly became the tool of preference for every job. And what happened? Not a miracle, unless you count the properties of carbon steel, for that was what it was made of: carbon steel is excellent to sharpen and has high hardness. In the 19th century, virtually every cutting tool was made of carbon steel. The name is given to steel unalloyed with any other substance. It is allowed to contain up to 1.7 % carbon. It has some disadvantages - it is brittle and can be denatured if heated. And it is not stainless.
> 
> Many of today's manufacturers avoid these disadvantages by using steel alloys. Adding chromium and nickel, for instance, makes the steel stainless, adding tungsten and molybdenum makes it resistant to heat, and titanium toughens it. Foundries will mix the additives to obtain the best combination for the product.
> 
> ...



So, when Stanley proudly boast their chrome-vanadium irons, they're actually telling straight away that the iron is not worth the money!

back to the thread


----------



## Alf (23 Jul 2004)

Any chance of keeping my knicker elastic out of this? :roll: 

I have the LV low angle jack to review first, and the bullnose, plus a coupla other things, so it's looking unlikely at the moment. But allow me to draw your attention to my review of the Lee Valley Veritas low angle smoother instead... :wink: 

There are two main advantages of a low angle plane, particularly for the newbie. Firstly you can close the mouth down very easily, instead of having to learn about frog adjustments. Just loosen the front knob, move it to where you want, tighten. Easy. Secondly, with a couple of additional irons you can give yourself a wide range of attacking angles to choose from, therefore cutting down on the number of planes "needed" :roll: . Thus the standard blade grind might be giving you an end-grain ideal 37 degs, but an additional blade ground at a steeper angle could give you the more common, er, _common pitch_ of 45 degs just like a regular Bailey type. Then a steeper grind still might offer a 50 deg York pitch for difficult woods, or even as high as a scraper plane. LV have cottoned on to this "Swiss Army Knife" approach popular with new plane users, and offer a steeper ground iron as an extra. L-N seem to favour the alternative option of a higher angle frog on a standard bench plane instead. Frequent debate occurs amongst handtool afficianados, putting forward the pros and cons of the low angle bench planes; those against often resorting to the "if it's so darn good, why didn't the old timers buy them then?" argument. The theory being that the rise in low angle bench planes is down more to fashion that their superiority. I dunno. I think it may have rather more to do with the use by L-N and L-V of ductile iron plane bodies, eliminating the stresses and failures that plagued the old Stanleys, and their lower cost as opposed to their befrogged cousins. Certainly I wouldn't be without at least one, and it's as good a place to start as any. Does that help at all? Or merely confuse further? :? 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## ike (23 Jul 2004)

Much obliged. I'm starting to get a handle on it all now and I'm going to read some more over the weekend.

thanks very much and have a good one.

Ike


----------



## Adam (23 Jul 2004)

ike":27puj6ha said:


> Much obliged. I'm starting to get a handle on it all now and I'm going to read some more over the weekend.
> 
> thanks very much and have a good one.
> 
> Ike



Poor pipper, it's like watching a new born baby taking his first few steps. Little does he know he's only a few steps away from the start of _the slope_.

Ike, back away now! Reading a bit more and you'll quickly have that shiny new Stanley as a doorstop, and you'll be trawling car-boot sales for old planes, investigating surface plates, searching on ebay, reading and re-reading the LN catalogue, and before you know it, the only reason to have electrics in the workshop is to keep the lights shining.....

What have you done Neil? He was happy with it and now.......

Tut tut tut.

Adam


----------



## Midnight (23 Jul 2004)

> Little does he know he's only a few steps away from the start of the slope.



Och...dinna listen to him Ike; it's really nae so bad down here..once ye get past the friction burns......Ahem


----------



## ike (23 Jul 2004)

I might be staring down the slope but don't worry yet, I think the super-duty SHMBO safety rope is still firmly attached.


----------



## Neil (23 Jul 2004)

Adam":3s41upag said:


> What have you done Neil? He was happy with it and now.......


Hey, I don't think this is my fault at all! May I present Exhibit A:


ike":3s41upag said:


> Poring (drooling?) over my LN catalogue the other evening


Sorry, but if Ike already had an LN catalogue, then all hope was lost already :wink: 
NeilCFD


----------



## Anonymous (23 Jul 2004)

Alf, those were some fine points about the low angle planes.
These planes are an excellent example of where new planes make more sense than the originals even for a hard core old tools guy.

These planes, especially with an extra blade or two, are very versatile and certainly have merit as a starting point irregardless if you take the old tools or new tools path.


----------



## ike (23 Jul 2004)

I got home and with everyones comments ringing in my ears, I gave this Stanley No.5 a closer inspection. My god!, it's all true! Warped to b****ry. I've filed it down and stoned it and got it flatter but still about 3 thou end to end. It had about 10thou concavity crossways. The sides are hopelessly out of square - no chance of fettling them true. It's still far too useful for a doorstop though. It'll serve me well in my travelling toolbox for those journeyman jobs that bring in the pocket money.

So, back to looking at LN's, etc

Slippery slope! PAH! - What slo...parghhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.......*!*


----------



## Anonymous (23 Jul 2004)

Don't worry about the sides being square and .003" is nothing to fret about. 
Unless you are using the plane on a shooting board, the sides don't need to be square. If you need to shoot miters with it, Robert Wearings books have plans for shooting boards that reference from the sole only.

Put a small camber in the blade and it will plane nicely. You can scrape the surface to take the undulations out until you get a smoother.


----------



## Midnight (23 Jul 2004)

> It's still far too useful for a doorstop though.



Ike, I agree with you; hell, every board I work on sees the #5 somewhere along the preparation, but I've had to learn the hard way that I *HAVE* to work inside it's limitations, the way it bounces off areas of hard, figured elm are really sickening. But, that said, it'll be a while before I get around to finding a direct replacement for it, although I can see me trying an upgraded blade before too long; too many other holes in the armoury to fill first.


----------



## ike (24 Jul 2004)

Mike,

Do you reckon then, that a decent aftermarket blade is worth the investment?. I would like to think so if it would hold a better edge.

You know, I spent about an hour cutting the blade right back to a full 25 deg bevel yesterday on my waterstone. I then put a 30deg microbevel on and stropped it. Bloody hard work getting it right with my bins on. I am thinking ahead to when I can afford the new plane(s)/chisels and whether to invest in some sharpening gear thats quicker and easier to use (and no, I can't run to a Tormek!). Whats your thoughts on a horizontal wet grinder like the Rexon for example. I don't have a bench grinder.

IKE


----------



## Midnight (24 Jul 2004)

Ike...

from the hoards of them that have gone the upgrade route and craw about the difference it makes, I'm guessing that it's a sound buy, something that I need to get around to sometime as both my #5 and my dad's #4 could benefit from them. 

As for the wet stone grinder... I honestly donno; never tried one. There's more than a few here that swear by the tromek but to my mind, I could buy a fair few traditional waterstones for the price of one. My prob is lack of shop space; my stone pond fits on a shelf in a wall rack, the guide and angle jig in a drawer, nice and compact. I guess it depends on what tickles your fancy. I'm happy to hear you're progressing with the hand sharpening; stick at it. as I said, the Stanley blades are the perfect learning tool as they're nice and soft; that A2 cryo stuff I use takes a fair while to tickle by comparison. Nice and theraputic though... the task forces you to focus on it completely which can be a good thing at times...


----------



## Anonymous (25 Jul 2004)

Ike,
Brent Beach has done the hand tool community a huge favor by testing a host of aftermarket blades and developing a sharpening system complete with microscope photos of blades as they are sharpened and as they wear.
Here is his website.

I communicated quite a bit with Brent as he did this work and I have done some testing on my own with the same conclusions.

The system basically is to cut the primary bevel quickly and use a series of smaller and smaller microbevels. Brent uses a belt sander and I have too, but anything that cuts quickly is fine. The next step is to create a small secondary bevel on 15 micron abrasive sheet, followed by an even smaller bevel on 5 micron abrasive and a final bevel on .5 or .3 micron abrasive. This sounds more complicated than it is. The upshot is that the finer grits work on smaller and smaller areas so very little steel has to be removed to polish out the scratches from coarser grits. A tiny backbevel eliminates the need to polish the back of the blade (obviously we are talking about planes with bevel down blades here, backbevels are really bad on bench chisels).

I salvage a lot of blades from old broken planes and it takes about 10 minutes to take an abused blade to full sharpness. After the primary bevel is shaped, rehonings take a minute or less. With the spare blades I can wait until several blades are dull and sharpen them in batches. Using the 3M abrasive sheets on a marble tile means no water for soaking or ponds, etc. which is impractical in my shop where I don't have running water or constant heat in the winter. There are no stones to flatten or maintain. I spent about $25 on abrasives two years ago and I have enough for another year or two.

As to whether an aftermarket blade is a good investment, it depends. Brent came to the conclusion, and I agree, the old laminated Stanley blades work well on softwoods and most North American hardwoods. The newer non-laminated Stanley blades will hold an edge about half as long as a laminated blade. If you use exotic woods or abrasive woods than a tougher steel would be worthwhile. I'm using a Shepherd Tools A2 cryo treated blade in my best #4 and it does a marginally better job than a Stanley blade plus holds an edge about 50%-80% longer but it also takes more time to sharpen. If you have a modern blade, I would recommend replacing it, if you have a laminated blade, I would keep it unless you are working very hard or abrasive timbers. My friend Andrew F from Australia loned me an M2 blade from Academy Saw Works for testing and it was really tough, just the thing for those hard Aussie woods.


----------



## ike (26 Jul 2004)

Roger et al,

Thanks very much for your advice. I don't like trashing tools just because they're 'modern' (unless they are truly awful quality and I don't think the Stanley Bailey #5 I've got falls in that category). Heck, the Stanley does fine for me, at least on softwood.

I'll eventually get a couple nice new planes rather than actively seeking out old ones. I'm going to check out the LV Low Angle Block plane with handles as in Alfs' review (primarily for MiniMe who's dead keen at the moment - thanks for that tip Alf, I thought I'd have to get maybe a #2 for him), and maybe the LN Low Angle Smoother unless the LV feels right in my hands. I'd prefer extra weight as well, given I'm er.. a big bloke with large meathooks. I'm wondering if I'd be better of with a 4-1/2?. A trip to Tools 2004 I think, will decide what to get.

No disrespect to galoots everywhere but I want to get back to making stuff with handtools, not getting carried away with the tools themselves. I thank you all for the info on blades, sharpening and so forth. 

All I want is to be fairly sure I'm going to spend my wedge wisely, and to know that if I still struggle to get results, it's simply my fault and I need to practice more!. 

cheers

Ike


----------



## Anonymous (26 Jul 2004)

Certainly understandable, Ike. If I had to rely on eBay as a source of vintage tools, I would probably buy new instead. I am no longer an active rust hunter/seller myself. 

I used to spend 2 Saturdays a month during the spring and summer going to estate auctions and my wife usually joined me as she could find vintage fabrics and quilting items at the same auctions so this was our entertainment/quality time together. We sold a lot of excess items so this fun was actually profitable. Neither of us need much of anything now so we rarely go out hunting these days.


----------



## bugbear (28 Jul 2004)

An APTC plane fettling kit would be pricy:
http://www.axminster.co.uk/default.asp?sub=340

The cheapest replacement blade: 21.48 (28.80 if you want the Clifton)
Clifton-cap-iron: 11.34
Crown rosewood handles: 14.76

Kit: 47.58

Adding this to a 30 quid Ebay #5 results in a 77.58 quid plane, and you still have to tune and fettle the thing.

BugBear


----------



## Alf (28 Jul 2004)

Obviously I envisaged a discount for the "set". But you're right, not something the hardened Galoot would buy. More something 
someone might get to try and rescue the new Stanley he/she'd just been given for Christmas. Anyway, personally I'd add in a few self-adhesive go-faster stripes for the full effect...

Cheers, Alf

P.S. People are paying £30 for a #5?! Sheesh. :shock:


----------



## ike (28 Jul 2004)

Bugbear wrote:



> Adding this to a 30 quid Ebay #5 results in a 77.58 quid plane, and you still have to tune and fettle the thing.



I guess a new cap iron and handles are frills to make it look nicer but won't make a huge difference to how well it works. Only the blade might be worth the money to get much better edge holding performance. 

I see Axminster do a 'Japanese' laminated blade. I wonder how it compares with an A2 blade?

Ike


----------



## Alf (28 Jul 2004)

ike":3cel2euo said:


> new cap iron and handles are frills to make it look nicer but won't make a huge difference to how well it works.


Au contraire. A good cap iron can make the world of difference. I might even go so far as to say a decent cap iron will improve a poor blade, but no matter how good the blade, a poor cap iron can make the plane unusable. (I await the brickbats for saying that with resignation :roll: ) As for handles... well a plane's no good if you never use it 'cos it gives you blisters. The handles are the interface between you and the tool, and much more important that a lot of people seem willing to admit. That is, if you plan on using the tool for any length of time. If it's a minute here and there then what the heck, which is why manufacturers don't bother with them any more. No-one in their right mind will surely want to use a _hand plane_ when you can get something with a plug for fifty quid after all... :roll: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## ike (28 Jul 2004)

Alf,

Putting aside the aesthetics, how different is a plastic handle to a wooden handle in prolonged use?


----------



## Alf (28 Jul 2004)

Ike,

Well personally I find as my hands get sweaty they tend to slip considerably more on plastic than wood, which is reason enough for me. What happens then is either my hand slips down, the edge rubs against the upright side of the plane and it hurts. Or, my hand slips up and the horn rubs the web of my hand and, guess what, it hurts. Funnily enough the _shape_ of the plastic handles I don't mind at all, and that's not true of all wood handles by any means... 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## ike (28 Jul 2004)

So, what makes a poor cap iron?. Can I just fettle the Stanley and if so what should I be attempting to achieve?

cheers

Ike


----------



## blurk99 (28 Jul 2004)

Ike,
I bought the Japanese laminated irons for a #5 and #5 1/2 and they hold an edge much longer than the manufacturers (Record) irons, they seem to be a bit thicker aswell, but i never measured it so i can't be sure of that. I think they are a cost effective 'halfway house' for a user like me where a Lie Nielson would be a waste of money in my hands, but an 'off the shelf' just isn't good enough

jim


----------



## ike (28 Jul 2004)

Jim,

The Axminster ones?

Ike


----------



## blurk99 (28 Jul 2004)

Yes

http://www.axminster.co.uk/default.asp?part=HIRO2

those two, but i do have to say i couldn't get the blade to fit in the #5 1/2 without taking 3mm off the end as the one i got was long - and yes, i did back off the depth adjuster as far as i could but it just wouldn't fit

jim


----------



## Anonymous (28 Jul 2004)

the japanese samurai irons, as sold by axminster, are generally thicker than modern Stanley & Record irons, but not as thick as, say, a Hock. They're laminated irons, in much the same was as Jap chisels are. They're considered very good - well worth investing in - being laminated, the actual cutting part is hardened to a very high rockwell rating, possibly even as high as an A2. They hold their edge well, but are brittle - shouldn't be a problem in a plane.

One potentially useful trick is to have a samurai and a hock - that way, with different iron thicknesses, you get different plane mouth openings with the same frog setting (from DC, volume 1)


The cap iron - well, I personally actually sharpen my cap irons! I want the interface between the plane iron and the cap iron to be as close to perfect as possible - no gaps for shavings to get caught in, so no choking. What you want to aim for is the ability to sandwich a rizla paper between the cap iron and plane iron, and not be able to pull it out. You want the cap iron so it comes to a point, which is the contact with the plane iron - you definitely don't want the heel of the end of the cap iron being the contact with the blade, cos you've got an instant gap there, and so a choke point.

Also, you want the leading surface of the chip-breaker part of the cap iron to be smooth - sand it, and even wax it - helps shavings go over and curl nicely. 

Yes, you can fettle a modern cap iron very nicely - no need to invest in after market ones; the Clifton stay-set 2 piece is a nice bit of kit, but a luxury. Lie-Nielsens new cap-irons are thicker than the old, I understand, and help reduce chatter - not experienced one though


----------



## ike (28 Jul 2004)

ES,

Thanks very much indeed for that. 

cheers

Ike


----------



## Midnight (28 Jul 2004)

> I guess a new cap iron and handles are frills to make it look nicer but won't make a huge difference to how well it works.



Ike, aside from Alf's explanation, there's another couple of aspects relating to quality handles. I started out working with a pair of new Stanleys, a #5 and #7, both with plastic handles. In both instances I found that chaffing caused by the mould lines left in the handle caused the web between my thumb and palm to become really tender after a while; as Alf said, they're fine for occasional use, but using them steadily for a couple of days can be physically punishing.
Additionally, there's a slightly more subtle difference, namely the dampening effects wood has on the vibrations generated while planing. I'm guessing that it's something to do with the porus mature of wood, but for whatever reasons, the material itself transmits far less vibration into your hands than plastics. Again, another aspect that makes itself more apparent under prolonged use.


----------



## ike (28 Jul 2004)

Thanks Mike,

A couple of points I wouldn't have even guessed. I can't see me at present using a plane day in day out to the extent that it would really cause an adverse effect on me (unlike this bloody computer I'm enslaved to 8 hours a day!), and retirement isn't even on the long range radar. I'd been aware of the mould lines on the handles when using it, but I can fettle those away easily.

cheers

Ike


----------



## Alf (28 Jul 2004)

Ike, as Esp says you can fettle a Stanley. DC did a good article on it in F&C not long back. Anyone got the issue number handy? Or do I have to brave the Magazine Pile of Doom? :shock: Although having said which, I have had a cap iron that was so abused as to beyond sensible fettling.  Nothing like having a benchmark, ready-to-go cap iron in your arsenal though - so at least you know what standard you're aiming for.

Of course all my defence of my passing idea of a "Souped-Up Plane Kit" is so much phooey anyway. I've bought one? two? Clifton irons, and one cap iron. No Hocks, Samurai, Holteys or L-N after-market blades have ever found their way to me. A Hock's on order for my #5 1/2, but that's only 'cos it's an early 2 1/2" size virtually no-one else does. Shocking, ain't it? But I still think having a kit of parts like that would be sort of fun, and a solution to many a woodworker's family's "what on earth shall we get him/her for Christmas?". Better than socks anyway. :wink: 



Midnight":13t47xh6 said:


> Additionally, there's a slightly more subtle difference, namely the dampening effects wood has on the vibrations generated while planing.


Mike, ah, hadn't even noticed that. My experience of plastic handles is limited (from choice)!

Cheers, Alf

*Edit*: Longer ago than I thought - January this year, #84. I defy anyone to read that article and not get the urge to rush into the workshop to fettle their cap irons. Any mildly neanderish person, of course. Neil doesn't count. :wink:


----------



## Adam (28 Jul 2004)

Alf":1psthqc3 said:


> Or do I have to brave the Magazine Pile of Doom? :shock:



I used to have one of those, but I knocked up a shelf, and put them in issue number order. What an improvement!

Adam


----------



## Alf (28 Jul 2004)

Adam,

I have *fifteen* (15! Count 'em) magazine boxes full to overflowing. The Pile Of Doom consists of the ones I can't squeeze in. :shock: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Adam (29 Jul 2004)

Alf":2t4immrv said:


> Adam,
> 
> I have *fifteen* (15! Count 'em) magazine boxes full to overflowing. The Pile Of Doom consists of the ones I can't squeeze in. :shock:
> 
> Cheers, Alf



Build a big bookshelf - you can A) Get to read about how other poeple made their bookshelves before you start B) Get to use your collection of planes C) Get to store said magazines afterwards. 

A perfect project surely?

Adam


----------



## Alf (29 Jul 2004)

In theory, yes. In practice there's _nowhere to put the bookshelf_. :roll: And the existing bookshelves are full of books. The reading matter situation is much worse than the tool one; possibly why I can't see the c*ll*ct*r thing applying to me about the latter. :lol: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Adam (29 Jul 2004)

Alf":1mbhgxme said:


> In theory, yes. In practice there's _nowhere to put the bookshelf_. :roll: And the existing bookshelves are full of books. The reading matter situation is much worse than the tool one; possibly why I can't see the c*ll*ct*r thing applying to me about the latter. :lol:
> 
> Cheers, Alf



Time for a clearout?


----------



## Anonymous (29 Jul 2004)

Alf wrote:


> Au contraire. A good cap iron can make the world of difference. I might even go so far as to say a decent cap iron will improve a poor blade, but no matter how good the blade, a poor cap iron can make the plane unusable. (I await the brickbats for saying that with resignation )



All right you asked for it! Hmmm... nope, I'm afraid I agree :lol: .


----------

