Stanley 62 Sweetheart LA jack plane and no4 Sweetheart

[Dangermouse]

I ordered this off a small tool company in London, see post
stanley-62-low-angle-plane-t67037.html
It was posted yesterday and arrived today, so very quick delivery, which always bodes well of a company. Having taken it out of the well packed box, the actual Stanley box was very solid and nicely presented. Inside was a manual, giving the basic set up info and honing angles. The plane was in a plastic bag well wrapped in anti-rust paper and my goodness was it heavy, 2.43 kilos. So with a bit of excitement and fear, that for the price it wud be a dud, I took it out. First impressions were WOW! what a lovely plane, well finished and sole and sides with nearly a polished finish.
But to the nitty gritty, out came the straight edge, feeler gauge and square. Results were spot on,

Sole.... Well within British Standard, which is 3thou, a feeler gauge of 1.5 thou would just fit under the SE in two small places. So no fettling needed there.

Sides.... Absolutely 100% square and flat, which is essential for shooting.

Adjustable mouth....Smooth action, beautifully ground faces, totally square mouth, closes up tight to blade.

Finish.... Excellent, can't fault it, from the japanning to the brass , wood handles, everything is spot on.

Blade / Frog........The blade is A2 steel, 7/32 thick, ready to use from the box, ( more of that later). The bed is very long and machined out ultra smooth and flat, no fettling needed. The Norris style adjuster works a treat, a perfect fit in the blade, and just enough backlash to be able to feel the blade engage. it has a very very fine thread so adjustment is thou tolerance.

Handle & Knob...... The handle and knob are made of American Cherry, finished with a smooth but not shinny finish, very nice to hold and comfortable.

Casting..... The casting is very thick and 100% well finished. The sole and sides are smooth and the sides are nearly mirror finish. The japanning might be a little thin, but that is the style of modern finishes these days.

Cap..... Some reviewer's have said the cap , which is made of Aluminium, is too light and might bend. Well as far as weight is concerned, I'd not want it any heavier. The cap is ribbed and to me is fine, unless some fool tightens it up beyond common sense.

Conclusions..... Sorry that this looks an an advert for Stanley, but it is what I have found. Compared to Stanley's usual modern offerings, this was a revelation. I cleaned it up and straight from the box took a see through shaving off a piece of mahogany with opposing grain, leaving a silk smooth surface. Even at its normal prices form £110 ish to £130 ish, I'd say it was a bargain. But at the offer I got of £88.36 inc postage, I'm very pleased. I wouldn't part with my old Stanley's and Record's as I love them and they are fettled to give perfect performance, but if the rest of the Stanley premium range is as good as the no62 I'd not hesitate to buy one if I needed a replacement.

To see a video on youtube of my review click the link below.
http://youtu.be/DRhW8D_AQ2o

Where I purchased my plane from have a full range of Stanley Premium planes, as far as I can see the cheapest in the country.
http://www.toollineuk.com/search.php?se ... y+Premium+

http://www.toollineuk.com/product.php/s ... /STA112137

By the way I have no interest in this firm what so ever, just passing on as a help to forum members.

 

[baldpate]

Thanks for the review - at that price it sounds like a bit of a bargain.

 

[MIGNAL]

I'm surprised that there haven't been more user reviews of these Planes. Many of the online reviews are now more than 2, 3 years old. The 'issues' seem to focus on several aspects:

1. Fragile Japanning.
2. Backlash on the adjuster.
3. Aluminium lever cap.
4. Skewed blade bed.

I might just buy the No.4 and see if some of these issues have been addressed. I can live with all but the last factor, unless the Aluminium lever cap is such an issue.

 

[Dangermouse]

All of these issues you mention have been put right. Stanley have listened to all the feedback and sorted the problems found on the early planes, also the lever cap is perfectly ok and holds the blade fine. An adjuster has to have a bit of backlash, but not too much, that way one can feel when the blade starts to move. On this plane backlash is under half a turn. Even on the best vintage Stanley and Record planes backlash was often over 2 turns.

 

[Eric The Viking]

It sounds a lot better than the Sweetheart #92 :-(

Shame.

E.

 

[MIGNAL]

All of these issues you mention have been put right. Stanley have listened to all the feedback and sorted the problems found on the early planes, also the lever cap is perfectly ok and holds the blade fine. An adjuster has to have a bit of backlash, but not too much, that way one can feel when the blade starts to move. On this plane backlash is under half a turn. Even on the best vintage Stanley and Record planes backlash was often over 2 turns.

Good to hear. . . . because I've gone and hit the buy button!
Not that I need another No.4 but I need to reduce my tax liability. My Veritas Block plane has a touch over quarter turn of backlash but half is perfectly acceptable to me. The No.4 is a real heavyweight at 5lbs. At £76 inc P&P it looks to be a very good plane indeed. Not that much more than an after market blade and chipbreaker that I bought a couple of years ago.
I'll give a quick report back once it arrives.

 

[Dangermouse]

Look forward to hearing your review, I may be tempted. Ahh that slope again, I may have to see the saw doctor. (hammer) :shock:

 

[bugbear]

Interesting tote - much more like the Clifton/Veritas shape, quite vertical, as opposed to the old Stanley ones, which are more curved.

BugBear

 

[Mike Wingate]

This looks like a great tool at a bargain price. Nice! I bought the Quangsheng last year. It gets loads of use, the high angle scraper blade solved a few problems with one job. I made a new tote for it, as the standard one did not suit me. It makes a great shooting plane also.

 

[MIGNAL]

I've received my Stanley Premium No.4. Not really much point in doing a separate review as I think that Dangermouse has covered the important aspects.
Suffice to say that I am very impressed with the new Stanley. For a No.4 it is a weighty affair. Compare the side wall casting of my wartime Stanley No.4, itself a thick casting as far as old Stanley's go:

Blade and chipbreaker are impressive, fit is as good as one could wish:

Shavings, extremely good performance on this sample of Bubinga, which I know from experience readily shows tear out:

I have two very minor objections. I find the sides of rear tote a little too flat. The transition from the rounded section to the flat sides could be executed better. The edge between the sole and side casting is a little too sharp. Both these issues are a very simple and quick fix.
These aside I must concur with the conclusions of Dangermouse. It's a very serious Plane for relatively little money.

 

[Jacob]

I've ordered one. £82.80 from Amazon. If it's any good I can ebay the LV and get some money back and buy food, clothes etc. :shock:

 

[Jacob]

It's arrived. http://www.woodworkuk.co.uk/forum/viewt ... f=5&t=9461

 

[Dangermouse]

Jacob's post on the " other forum " :roll:

Quote : " I bought a Stanley SW No4

by mrgrimsdale » Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:01 pm

It arrived 48 hrs after ordering. £82.80 from Amazon.
QS no 4 is £119.50
LN £261
LV LA smoother £261.50 (phew I didn't realise they'd gone up so much I might get my money back after all!)

Not quite as sexy as the others but a lot cheaper!
1 Works out the box! But has 25º bevel - the edge won't last long I reckon.
2 Has adjustable mouth which is better than the bedrock as it is much easier to set and leaves a solid integral frog to support the blade. Bedrock was always a bit dubious IMHO.
3 Has Norris adjuster which actually works (laterally), unlike the LV offerings. It's a bit floppy but thats OK - the LVs are so closely machined that they come out with the blade which is a bit faffy. There is an extra feature which is a tightening knob below the adjuster which holds it tight and remedies the floppiness.It's not as good as the Stanley/Bailey adjusters (as on the QS and LN) but is much simpler and must save on cost.
4 No obvious fault of any sort
5 I'll give it a good try out tomorrow. I don't see why it shouldn't work just as well as the LV BU smoother as the effective planing angle is the same (near enough) and the blade (same metal) is just as firmly held against a solid frog.

Looks like a goer! Bye bye LV?

cheers
Jacob ": Quote

PS. Its £76.00 from Tool Line, where I got my no62.

 

[bugbear]

All of these issues you mention have been put right. Stanley have listened to all the feedback and sorted the problems found on the early planes

You'd have thought a big company like Stanley, relaunching its famous "Sweetheart" brand would have done "just a little" testing BEFORE the launch.

As you say, the early copies (collectibles of the future) were dogs.

They also seem to have dropped the prices at the moment - those seem amazingly cheap, almost "loss leader" level.

Edit:' some googling reveals the launch price in the USA of the #4 was $180.00.

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

.....
You'd have thought a big company like Stanley, relaunching its famous "Sweetheart" brand would have done "just a little" testing BEFORE the launch.

Of course they tested first. But the ultimate test is 'on the road' and the question then is whether they will correct production faults or just let them go to the dogs.

As you say, the early copies (collectibles of the future) were dogs.....

Could be just a rumour. Toolies do get carried away!

 

[Paul Chapman]

As you say, the early copies (collectibles of the future) were dogs.....

Could be just a rumour. Toolies do get carried away!

There did seem to be some production problems with the early ones (particularly the #62 and the block plane) but these seem to have been rectified now http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/cSch ... nley-1.asp

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[bugbear]

As you say, the early copies (collectibles of the future) were dogs.....

Could be just a rumour. Toolies do get carried away!

Not a rumour - multiple, detailed, reviews by people with the tool in their hands.

I note that you've just bought a plane on the basis on a review on a forum. Wonders will never cease.

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

...............Could be just a rumour. Toolies do get carried away!

Not a rumour - multiple, detailed, reviews by people with the tool in their hands.

The 4 got fairly positive reviews early on, from Chris Schwarz amongst others (same link as Paul's above).

I note that you've just bought a plane on the basis on a review on a forum. Wonders will never cease.

BugBear

True I am sceptical about a lot of forum stuff (especially sharpening advice which nearly always total cobblers) but I do try things out in an open minded sort of way!

Anyway I've had a go and I would agree with Schwarzy and Mignal - this plane is not bad at all.
In fact it cuts just as well as my other expensive plane the LV la bu smoother. It is also easier to hold somehow, slightly bigger handle and different geometry.
The adjustment is much better than the LV and the blade is easier to take out and put back in, almost as good as the Stanley Bailey design in fact.
Only quibble so far - the adjuster is not well machined - very slack (one whole turn) and flat spots i.e. the shaft is slightly bent. But it still works much better than the LV so thats OK. If I was fussy I might send it back but it's too much bother.

So I'll have a few more goes and probably be ebaying the LV.

I wonder about the Clifton but the bedrock design is not as good as the solid frog and adjustable mouth IMHO. I think Clifton need to look at the new Stanley 4 for some inspiration!

 

[bugbear]

I think Clifton need to look at the new Stanley 4 for some inspiration!

They could look at the earlier Veritas bench plane - I'm pretty sure Stanley did.

http://www.leevalley.com/US/Wood/page.a ... 41187&ap=1

1/8" A2 blade, moveable toe, continuous frog, steeper than traditional handle, Norris style adjuster...

So familiar...

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

Right . I was beginning to wonder if the Stanley was the only one with this configuration. So they've copied the Veritas but at a third of the price!
It's a good job that non of these details are so original as to be patentable. They all seem to be trying out different recipes with the same ingredients.
This format seems to be the most sensible and begs the question of what is the point of low angle planes - no obvious benefit but several compromise due to the cramped layout.