How many planes?

[AndyT]

Reading Derek's thread, and the discussion about the market for planes, led me to wonder, "Does anybody know how many planes were made?" How many No 4s are out there? I can't guess even the order of magnitude. 1 million? 100 million?

There's no way to calculate a total, obviously, and a huge proportion must have been scrapped, but does anyone know any actual statistics to put some real numbers into the picture? Maybe some of the hardcore Stanley collectors will have heard of production records from the company accounts. If we have any economic historians on here, they might be able to find historical stats about imports or exports. Maybe there are written descriptions of visits to Sheffield with boasts of how many thousand planes are made each year?

The only example I can offer myself is from back in the early days - the Reeses' book on Christopher Gabriel and the C18th Tool Trade says that the inventory for 1800 shows 1655 completed planes in stock, plus 28,160 part completed. That's not actually a measure of turnover, and the accounts that would show turnover have not survived. However they offer a guess that the stock could represent about three years' supply so we could say, very roughly, that the firm could have been making something in the order of 10,000 planes a year. That was all hand work at the bench of course!

 

[Vann]

Hi Andy. I've often wondered that myself. I reckon Stanley USA must have made 100s of millions (all sizes) over their many years of production. Even Record must have got to tens of millions, surely?

I have tried hinting in a thread Rob Lee was participating in, but no uptake... I think it's considered commercially sensitive. I wonder if Katie from Flinns would be prepared to tell us how many planes Clico made each year (before the sale) and what sizes are the best and poorest sellers?

Maybe some of the hardcore Stanley collectors will have heard of production records...

I doubt Stanley kept Records... (homer) :mrgreen:

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Just taking metal bench planes only - not joinery or specialist planes, and not woodies - I'd say that without access to production or sales records from Stanley USA, Stanley UK and Record for at least the greater part of their existence to the present day, that would be a very difficult qustion to give even an estimated answer to. If there was a reasonably complete set of data for the big boys, an allowance could be made to account for the less productive makers, but it would still be a guess.

All sorts of questions arise, such as whether infill planes count as bench planes or specials. There are quite a few infills about, and Norris and Spiers didn't have a monopoly!

I think the only answer possible is 'a lot'.

 

[G S Haydon]

What a thought Andy! From the Aanant to the Silchester and beyond, more than half a dozen anyway!

 

[Trafalgar]

I'm sure there's somebody who could give a complete and thorough exposition of why modern artist oil paints are vastly superior that those of centuries ago. Doesn't seem to affect the value of a Rembrandt very much and clearly the paint was *good enough* to produce masterpieces. He put what he had access to down on the canvas, board, etc., no?

Similar situation with planes. The zenith of fine furnituremaking by hand happened centuries ago - in Europe and in Great Britain in the late 1600s through early 1800s. Planes couldn't have been that bad. We might even be kidding ourselves today.

I doubt any of this is even a case of sheer talent overcoming lousy "technology" as many of those with an apparent vested interest would like us to believe.

Settling down with a reasonably decent kit and getting on with it has practically become derisible. Better upgrade. Hurry. There's something better coming. "Your plane's 'centre of effort' is not optimal." "Such and such is just so 'yesterday.' "

Right. So yesterday. Like Messrs. Chippendale and Van Rijn?

 

[bugbear]

I'm sure there's somebody who could give a complete and thorough exposition of why modern artist oil paints are vastly superior that those of centuries ago. Doesn't seem to affect the value of a Rembrandt very much and clearly the paint was *good enough* to produce masterpieces. He put what he had access to down on the canvas, board, etc., no?

Similar situation with planes. The zenith of fine furnituremaking by hand happened centuries ago - in Europe and in Great Britain in the late 1600s through early 1800s. Planes couldn't have been that bad. We might even be kidding ourselves today.

I doubt any of this is even a case of sheer talent overcoming lousy "technology" as many of those with an apparent vested interest would like us to believe.

Settling down with a reasonably decent kit and getting on with it has practically become derisible. Better upgrade. Hurry. There's something better coming. "Your plane's 'centre of effort' is not optimal." "Such and such is just so 'yesterday.' "

Right. So yesterday. Like Messrs. Chippendale and Van Rijn?

I think you're in the wrong thread Charles. What you're saying has no bearing on how many planes have been made. Please take your hobby horse elsewhere.

BugBear

 

[Vann]

Settling down with a reasonably decent kit and getting on with it has practically become derisible.

I think this may be your point, but I'm sorry, like bugbear, I think you're so far off the topic of this thread...

I think Andy's question is an interesting one - just what sort of quantities were planes produced in?

Cheers, Vann.

 

[dickm]

Just trying some totally uneducated guesses:-
Let's say the combined population served by Stanley and Record is of the order of 400million, averaged over the 19th and 20th centuries?
Say 5 persons per household, so 75 million households. What proportion would own hand planes? Let's guess one in every three households would own a couple of planes. So, to supply all the households would need 50 million planes.
The big makers have been going for 150 years - ish. Let's guess each plane lasts a couple of generations, say 50 year, so those 50 million need replaced three times.
How does 150 million planes sound?

 

[Trafalgar]

Settling down with a reasonably decent kit and getting on with it has practically become derisible.

I think this may be your point, but I'm sorry, like bugbear, I think you're so far off the topic of this thread...

I think Andy's question is an interesting one - just what sort of quantities were planes produced in?

Cheers, Vann.

Yes Vann, I did inadvertently post in the wrong thread. Multi-tasking doesn't work past age 50, apparently.

 

[bugbear]

Let's guess one in every three households would own a couple of planes.

This may come as a shock, but I don't think that many households own(ed) that many planes.

BugBear

 

[lurker]

If no one else in our street owns a plane the average is still about 3per household

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

If you want to apply this type of analysis, then use a current object which has some similarity to yesterday. For example, on the assumption that planes may have been purchased for household repairs, how many households today would purchase a (moderately) decent set of screwdrivers? What other object could one use as an equivalent?

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[JohnPW]

Just trying some totally uneducated guesses:-
Let's say the combined population served by Stanley and Record is of the order of 400million, averaged over the 19th and 20th centuries?
Say 5 persons per household, so 75 million households. What proportion would own hand planes? Let's guess one in every three households would own a couple of planes. So, to supply all the households would need 50 million planes.
The big makers have been going for 150 years - ish. Let's guess each plane lasts a couple of generations, say 50 year, so those 50 million need replaced three times.
How does 150 million planes sound?

I would say the number of households owing a plane is nothing like 1 in 3. My guess would be something like 1 in 100 or even 1 in 200.

If you want to apply this type of analysis, then use a current object which has some similarity to yesterday. For example, on the assumption that planes may have been purchased for household repairs, how many households today would purchase a (moderately) decent set of screwdrivers? What other object could one use as an equivalent?

Regards from Perth

Derek

I don't planes can be compared with screwdrivers. Lots of DIY can be done without the need for a plane whereas if you need to turn a screw you have to use a screwdriver, eg in the past that would I think fitting a plug would be the most common use of a screwdriver.