Cheap brand plane experiences

[Vann]

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

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

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

Cheers, Vann.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Reggie]

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

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

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

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

 

[G S Haydon]

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

 

[Vann]

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

You should complain about that...

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

Cheers, Vann.

 

[custard]

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

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

 

[Graham Orm]

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

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

 

[G S Haydon]

So a little more on the Faithfull #4

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

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

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

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

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

http://youtu.be/nroLYYuF2vg

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

 

[Reggie]

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

 

[bugbear]

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

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

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

Not. :lol: :lol:

I've seen one of those Records - terrifying.

BugBear

 

[G S Haydon]

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

 

[chipmunk]

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

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

Jon

 

[Dangermouse]

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

After a bit of fettling

 

[G S Haydon]

That's a beauty DM

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

 

[Jacob]

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

 

[Racers]

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

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

Pete

 

[Cheshirechappie]

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

That's not quite correct.

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

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

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

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

 

[potteringpotter]

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

 

[Jacob]

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

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

 

[Racers]

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


Pete