Cheap brand plane experiences

[Jacob]

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

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

 

[G S Haydon]

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

 

[Graham Orm]

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

 

[G S Haydon]

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

 

[Jacob]

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

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

 

[Tony Zaffuto]

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

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

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

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

 

[Cheshirechappie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Corneel]

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

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

 

[Jacob]

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

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

 

[Sawyer]

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

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

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

 

[bugbear]

I keep needing a bench rebate plane.

Might I ask why/what for?

I'm intrigued. :?

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

I keep needing a bench rebate plane.

Might I ask why/what for?

I'm intrigued. :?

BugBear

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

 

[Graham Orm]

Did you buy the hammer Jacob?

 

[bugbear]

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

You are an *****, deliberately misunderstanding for supposedly comic effect.

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

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

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

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

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

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

 

[Phil Pascoe]

BB - I think you accidentally thanked Jacob!

 

[bugbear]

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

Rebates of that size are very common

You can do smaller rebates with a carriage plane (they don't have to be the full width) so one would be quite handy on the bench for all manner of jobs. Less fiddly than a 78 and more precision and capacity than a wooden rebate plane.
In theory at any rate - I haven't got one yet.

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

It appears that though they perhaps could have been used to form wide rebates, practically speaking they weren't.

My question - to Sawyer - stands.

BugBear

 

[Sawyer]

I keep needing a bench rebate plane.

Might I ask why/what for?

I'm intrigued. :?

BugBear

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

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

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

 

[Jacob]

Did you buy the hammer Jacob?

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

 

[Graham Orm]

Did you buy the hammer Jacob?

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

:lol: