Chisels or a plane - or both?-Now incl New Stanley Plane Pic

[Karl]

They look good. Looking forward to somebody doing a review....

The adjustable mouth on the No4 looks like a nice update.

Cheers

Karl

 

[Aled Dafis]

They look good. Looking forward to somebody doing a review....

The adjustable mouth on the No4 looks like a nice update.

Cheers

Karl

From some of the blurb I read a while ago, I seem to remember that the planes were to have a solid frog i.e. machined as part of the casting, so the adjustable mouth would be the only way of getting around this.

Cheers

Aled

 

[Paul Chapman]

From some of the blurb I read a while ago, I seem to remember that the planes were to have a solid frog i.e. machined as part of the casting

Yes, it looks like that from the photo of the #4. I'll be sticking with Clifton, LV and LN - in my experience Stanley are not interested in their customers these days.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[cutting42]

From some of the blurb I read a while ago, I seem to remember that the planes were to have a solid frog i.e. machined as part of the casting, so the adjustable mouth would be the only way of getting around this.

Cheers

Aled

I took a look at this after your post and yes the frog is cast. In fact the instruction manual makes a statement of this claiming better resistance to chatter.

 

[bugbear]

They look good. Looking forward to somebody doing a review....

The adjustable mouth on the No4 looks like a nice update.

Cheers

Karl

From some of the blurb I read a while ago, I seem to remember that the planes were to have a solid frog i.e. machined as part of the casting, so the adjustable mouth would be the only way of getting around this.

Cheers

Aled

In fact, even if the frog were a separate casting, having it non-adjustable (and using a adjustable toe piece) would still allow superior fixing techniques (to the sole casting) to be used).

BugBear

 

[PeterBassett]

...I seem to remember that the planes were to have a solid frog i.e. machined as part of the casting, so the adjustable mouth would be the only way of getting around this...

Sounds like a much better way of achieving the adjustability to me. What advantages does a separate frog give?

 

[bugbear]

...I seem to remember that the planes were to have a solid frog i.e. machined as part of the casting, so the adjustable mouth would be the only way of getting around this...

Sounds like a much better way of achieving the adjustability to me. What advantages does a separate frog give?

It allows two features (fixing the frog, adjustring the shaving aperture) to be done with one piece of machining - in short. it's cheaper.

It's the mouth "screw adjuster" (notably missing on some Bailey clones and very early Baileys) that makes you think it's fancy.

That adjustable toe is fiddly to machine.

You might want to google "Marples X4", although I suspect Stanley's (direct) inspiration was more Canadian than British.

BugBear

 

[bugbear]

Also got some 1200 wet and dry for some scary sharp sharpening - thanks bugbear!

In the words of Columbo ... "just one more thing".

If you're not entirely confident that your sharpening is all it could be, the best gadget to get, BAR NONE, is a good magnifier. Watching what actually happens to an edge (and bevel) as you proceed is tremendously informative and helpful.

https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/view ... sc&start=0

BugBear