cost of quality planes and the best cheaper alternative ?

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Matt

The analogy to a car will not work for anyone who simply looks at the cars and compares them at this level.

It only works when you drive the cars, and compare them for road holding at speed. Drive them slowly and you may as well take a bus (go back to my previous post and the comment I made about using different woods).

You have to push the envelope to understand the differences.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[bugbear]

I just can't get with the comparisons to more complex machinery. We're talking about a lump of metal, with handles, for holding a blade in a fixed position to slice wood.

I expect for there to be differences but not the type quantified by Lada v. Ferrari.

Try doing a cost comparison on the cheapest 12" combo set against the most expensive; something like 5 quid versus 200 (factor of 40). The differences are in the materials and the accuracy of machining, not the gross shape.

In the world of cycling, the term "BSO" is used; it's a (very!) perjorative term used of the sort of bicycles advertised in the tabloid weekend supplements. It stands for Bicycle Shaped Object

I think some Anants, Silverline, Am-Techs etc might be called PSO's.

BugBear

 

[matt]

I'm talking decent, straight, old Record or Stanley (i.e. where there was intention to produce a competent tool rather than a tool to a price) versus LN, Veritas, etc. I realise some of the really cheap stuff, made to a price, is crap.

 

[bugbear]

I'm talking decent, straight, old Record or Stanley (i.e. where there was intention to produce a competent tool rather than a tool to a price) versus LN, Veritas, etc. I realise some of the really cheap stuff, made to a price, is crap.

O.K. We've established there's a spectrum from crap to perfect.

Is your question about the technical differences in build quality of (e.g.) LN versus 1950's Record, or the planing performance?

I suspect we have people who can give first-hand evidence on both counts.

BugBear

 

[matt]

I was in axminster high wycombe today and got to looking at the shiny tool **** that they very unsportingly have next to the checkout - an almost overwhelming temptation to say wait a minuite i'll have one of those too...

That was me 2 days earlier...

They look great and I've no doubt they are better engineered than the like of Record and Stanley but what does that engineering mean to the job of planing?

I rescued and Stanley 5.5 from eBay and messed around getting it fit for purpose. I'm still fettling but it seems to be doing a reasonable job. That said, I don't do a lot of planing. I mostly use a block plane to fit doors and smooth the cut from the bandsaw if necessary.

...is what I said earlier on in the thread.

To which the car/machine analogy doesn't convince me of the value of prioritising an expensive plane to replace what I've got. It just does not present a good argument in my case. That's more or less it for me.

 

[bugbear]

I was in axminster high wycombe today and got to looking at the shiny tool **** that they very unsportingly have next to the checkout - an almost overwhelming temptation to say wait a minuite i'll have one of those too...

That was me 2 days earlier...

They look great and I've no doubt they are better engineered than the like of Record and Stanley but what does that engineering mean to the job of planing?

I rescued and Stanley 5.5 from eBay and messed around getting it fit for purpose. I'm still fettling but it seems to be doing a reasonable job. That said, I don't do a lot of planing. I mostly use a block plane to fit doors and smooth the cut from the bandsaw if necessary.

...is what I said earlier on in the thread.

To which the car/machine analogy doesn't convince me of the value of prioritising an expensive plane to replace what I've got. It just does not present a good argument in my case. That's more or less it for me.

Ah - I understand. It doesn't alter the fact that some people do need (or want...) a premium plane, of course, but I understand prioritising expenditure.

BugBear

 

[DarrenW]

For what its worth here is my view. I class myself as a weekend amatuer.

I started out with a stanley N05 and a stanley low angle block, back then the No5 was £50. Sole was way out, so bought some glass to flatten it (£10) and a straight edge to check it (£40 starratt ). Spent a day flattening it (thats 50% of the time I had that weekend).

Blade was pants so upgraded to a clifton iron and two piece cap iron (£40 a few years back).

So in total spent £100 tuning it up and £40 on a straight edge I will use for other stuff.

3 months down the line re-checked the sole and it had warped again! :twisted: Covex aswell! So the plane was then worse than I started!

At that point, I bought a new Veritas it was about £160 at the time. No need for tuning, sole was 'flat enough' and much better than the stanley ever was. So no time wasted, no extra added costs needed.

So in total an extra £60 at the time.... well worth it in my view.

Admittedly the prices have gone stupid since, so not quite as clear cut, but don't underestimate the time spent on fettling as apposed to the woodwork we all want to do. Especially for the weekend workers like me who have precious little time as it is without doing metal work.

Since that experience I have continued to pay for the time saved from fettling. It works for me, but probably not everyone.

But it is true that I now know what makes a poor plane and how to adjust it..... its just that my metalwork is worse than my woodwork

Darren

 

[JohnCee]

I have a Ray Iles-ground Stanley USA No 6 (c. 1910, fitted with a Ray Iles iron), and a Lie Nielsen 5 1/2, both of which I use on a very regular basis. I can honestly say that I prefer the Stanley. The performance is the same (except for the adjuster backlash on the Stanley that doesn't bother me one bit), but the Stanley just feels nicer to use.
I feel guilty about this. I want to prefer the L-N because my family clubbed together and bought if for me for a "significant" birthday. But I've stopped trying to convince myself now.

 

[lurker]

Darren,

Thats why most folks here recommend if you MUST buy new buy a top make.

The other way is to buy old ( good quality "settled" steel) & fettle.

I have decent users that have cost less than a tenner & a couple of hours work.

 

[bugbear]

... but the Stanley just feels nicer to use.[ than a LN]

Do you mean "nicer" in the sense of nicer cutting action, result, quality of cut, or "nicer" in the sense of ergonomics and comfort (or, perhaps, some sense of "nicer" which hasn't occurred to me

BugBear

 

[JohnCee]

... but the Stanley just feels nicer to use.[ than a LN]

Do you mean "nicer" in the sense of nicer cutting action, result, quality of cut, or "nicer" in the sense of ergonomics and comfort (or, perhaps, some sense of "nicer" which hasn't occurred to me

BugBear

Cutting action and results are essentially the same. I think I find the stanley "nicer" because it achieves the same results as the L-N without carrying excessive weight. It also just feels more comfortable in my hands.

 

[bugbear]

... but the Stanley just feels nicer to use.[ than a LN]

Do you mean "nicer" in the sense of nicer cutting action, result, quality of cut, or "nicer" in the sense of ergonomics and comfort (or, perhaps, some sense of "nicer" which hasn't occurred to me

BugBear

Cutting action and results are essentially the same. I think I find the stanley "nicer" because it achieves the same results as the L-N without carrying excessive weight. It also just feels more comfortable in my hands.

How about "friendly" as a summary of the Stanley?

BugBear

 

[Benchwayze]

Darren,

Thats why most folks here recommend if you MUST buy new buy a top make.

The other way is to buy old ( good quality "settled" steel) & fettle.

I have decent users that have cost less than a tenner & a couple of hours work.

Quite agree. Except I found the Lie Nielsen No 4 Bedrock style, a bit 'clumsy' Maybe it was the weight, it being heavier than I was used to. But I love my low angle Jack from LN!

Pity I have to finish serious woodworking, just as I got used to all this new stuff! Does that make me a non-working member of UKW'shop?

 

[big soft moose]

looking at old planes ( not the ray iles site , the other one ) are "Woden" any good as a make ?

 

[Benchwayze]

looking at old planes ( not the ray iles site , the other one ) are "Woden" any good as a make ?

They aren't famous for planes, but most of their normal stuff was top quality otherwise, If you can fettle then you'd have a decent plane for a good price...

 

[lurker]

Does that make me a non-working member of UKW'shop?

No it makes you a ........ :roll: collector

Sorry to hear you have to give up wookwork John

Am I being rude by asking why?

 

[Benchwayze]

Not at all lurker.

My knees have completely gone, and I just cannot stand at the bench long enough to do any useful furniture-making.

I shall probably potter about in the shop, but no more lugging planks over the planer and saw-table! Or jointing tops, or stooping over the vice cutting tails and doves!

So it's time to call it a day, other than maybe knocking up 'hammer and nails' jobs.

Cheers..

John

 

[Racers]

Hi, Benchwayze


I think you should just make smaller things, stuff you can do siting down at the bench. small boxes etc. It seems a shame to stop doing something you like.


Pete

 

[CHJ]

Sorry to here you are finding things difficult John, in all seriousness have you every had a leaning towards turning?

I know that might be sacrilege to some flat-workers but it certainly is a way of continuing to enjoy the beauty of wood.

Not a cheap option but one that is a godsend to many

 

[Paul Chapman]

Sorry to hear about your knees, John Hope you are able to find some ways to carry on doing some woodwork - it would be a shame to have to totally give up something you love doing.

Cheers :wink:

Paul