Improved hand tool myth.

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

For long grain shooting long thin panels often, then I'd probably agree, but I don't do regularly,
and only have Baileys with non square sides, but can use the bench to find small discrepancies.
Perhaps constantly planing very thin long stock which won't stand on edge might make it notable?
Derek might be one to answer this.

Before there was a Veritas or LN, there was this Stanley #62 ...

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Jacob]

Before there was a Veritas or LN, there was this Stanley #62 ...

Regards from Perth

Derek

Was never very popular - not many of them about at all, presumably a good idea but not a lot of use.

 

[Jacob]

Hi Derek, I agree, undoubtedly David Charlesworth proved this, however, out of the box, a new veritas or Lie Nielsen would be better than a new or indeed vintage un-tuned plane, a definite improvement in my opinion.

The general idea is that you sharpen and "tune" them yourself. Even a new and expensive LN or LV is going to need sharpening quite soon, if it gets any use at all.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Might make a difference for one who wants the least amount of tools.

Why?

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Was never very popular - not many of them about at all, presumably a good idea but not a lot of use.

Jacob, that supports my earlier argument that there is nothing new in the world of hand planes, in this case, just improved/refined construction.

I've had that Stanley #62 since 2003. It was improved by a Veritas LA Jack.

I have also has a Stanley #51/52 shooting board ...

It was improved by the LN #51 ...

Both Stanley planes are very usable, just not as well constructed as the modern versions.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[throbscottle]

And cats toungues

Are we talking about a team of highly trained and coordinated cats here? Or about when the cat no longer has a use for it?

 

[throbscottle]

Segmented snap off knives, apparently they date to the 50s.

I don't think the comparative sparsity of truly new classes of hand tool means the sector is some kind of innovation wasteland, it's simply a reflection of a mature sector with few new problems to solve. It follows that innovations are either incremental or predicated on other changes, e.g. to economics or manufacturing processes. The snap off knife is an example of that, it's existence depends on disposable blades being an economically attractive proposition.

Other sectors have seen hand tool development, notably electrical and electronic work. Two hand tools that come to mind straight away are wire wrap and punch down tools, both methods of making high density, semipermanent electrical connections.

What all three have in common is that the introduction was bought about by external factors, i.e. what's changed? Going for woodwork only and hand tools only limits the degrees of freedom for that change to come from, so you will see little truly new ideas.

It can be argued that wire wrap is permanent, since (with the correct pins being used) it forms a cold weld.

 

[Hornbeam]

regarding that video - could a router plane be used to do hinges?

Doubt it! It's very fast with a chisel.

I fit almost all my hinges using a router, Very simple cut out template for each size of hinge which is held in place with double sided tape. 1 pass with a router with a guide bush and then square off the corners. For very fine fitting I use a stanley hand router to adjust the last tad. The only restrictions are how tight you can get into a corner and if the door is fitted into a rebate

 

[paulrbarnard]

I can't see the use of it. Can't possibly be any quicker than using a chisel.

I would still love one though.

 

[Molynoox]

Are we talking about a team of highly trained and coordinated cats here? Or about when the cat no longer has a use for it?

I'll leave the details for the experts - all I know is that cats tongues feel exactly like sandpaper, and it can't be coincidence. Presumably they evolved that way because they used to do a lot of woodworking before humans domesticated them. Come back to this forum in 1000 years and you may find that the the latest breed of human woodworkers may all have sandpaper tongues - either that or cats will be running the internet.

 

[Molynoox]

I fit almost all my hinges using a router, Very simple cut out template for each size of hinge which is held in place with double sided tape. 1 pass with a router with a guide bush and then square off the corners. For very fine fitting I use a stanley hand router to adjust the last tad. The only restrictions are how tight you can get into a corner and if the door is fitted into a rebate

sounds like you are talking about a power router - in the post that you referenced I asked about a router plane.

 

[johnnyb]

having fitted many many many doors. I use a trim router with the fence set to the with of the hinge. ie I turn the hinge over push the knuckle to the door and mark. the I freehand the waste from the hinge. rebated casings are done with a hammer and chisel. I find it gives a wonderfull consistent depth.

 

[Molynoox]

I have to admit, I really enjoy cutting out the little rebates for hinges with a chisel, but I also appreciate that a power router is just better in every way other than noise and maybe mess depending on your extraction setup.
I recently had to drop some little handles into hatch and I used my trim router. The consistent depth everywhere was like magic, the recessed handle fitted the rebate so perfectly I couldn't quite believe it.

 

[BucksDad]

@Molynoox That looks like Millboard - good job - you definitely don't want a mistake with that do you given the price of it!

 

[Molynoox]

@Molynoox That looks like Millboard - good job - you definitely don't want a mistake with that do you given the price of it!

Yeah it is millboard, £100 per length and you are spot on

Quite stressful making some of the tricky cuts, and this was full of them

 

[Ttrees]

@Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)
I was wondering if you've got say a L-N no.5 1/2 or above.
If you did... and you didn't have those two shooting planes,
I guess it would be more preferable than something without much surface area,
like those low angle planes, or more onto my query,
more consistent than the equivalent Bailey for use on your long grain shooting board,
which I didn't dig out from your collection.

Not that I've got the kinda mula for a single premium plane.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Ttrees, before I acquired the shooting planes mentioned earlier, I used what I had, which was a Stanley #5 1/2. It did fine … not great, not as well as the other planes, but I was in no position to make comparisons, and so did not know any better. But I was okay with this. I could not justify the expense of premium planes at the time. My “toe in the water” of BU planes (which were only just making a revival) was a derelict Stanley #62, which I restored. This was in 2004. I wrote an article on its restoration on the Australian forum, and Rob Lee (of Lee Valley) asked if I would like to compare it against his newish LA Jack. Who would say no? I wrote about this here: Son of Stan... or LV and the Development of the BU Jack Plane

It was to be many years later that I purchased a LN #51 shooting plane. I had been lucky in coming across a local eBay auction and winning a Stanley #51/52 quite cheaply. The reason for the low cost was that the #51 plane was not healthy and needed a lot of work. The frog was braised together, and all was rusted and looked like ****. So I restored it, and wound up with a highly desirable and, in later years, expensive set up. This was in 2007. Write up here: Restoring a Stanley #51/52

LN built their version of the #51 plane, and it came to the market. I had said to Tom Lie Nielsen that I would buy one when he made it. (I was never relaxed about using the re-built Stanley with its fragile frog). I did this in 2011. There is a review here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/LN51ShootingPlane.html

If I never had any of these experiences, I would still be using the Stanley #5 1/2. Perhaps. We move forward. I would not move back.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[mark w]

@mark w
Squaring plane sides up and making them less structurally sound, isn't something I'd want to do to a vintage plane,
so in that way the premium manufacturers made the biggest improvement there.

Could'a said the likes of Lie-Nielsen are made from practically unbreakable ductile iron too,
that's an improvement also, though never held one apart from a little plane, so can't comment on the weight aspect.
could lap the bejasus of it if bothered, I suppose, so the last bit might be crossed out for someone
possibly, i.e find one used with damaged sole, bit of a long shot, fair enough.

Little bit of fettling is neither here nor there for most jobs,
One would have to be real pushed for time if that's a concern.

Regarding a tuned up Bailey vs something on ebay which has light haze of rust and potential i.e with good pictures.
I'd not personally consider any difference in their value really, and only bettered by premium tools for something quite specific like the long shooting.

Appologies if I took you up wrong
Tom

No problem Tom.

Regards Mark

 

[Adam W.]

I would still love one though.

I've got one that I'm thinking of selling along with a rake of other Lie Nielsen stuff. You could get tempted, so best not look when I post it all later in the week.

 

[mark w]

The general idea is that you sharpen and "tune" them yourself. Even a new and expensive LN or LV is going to need sharpening quite soon, if it gets any use at all.

Hi Jacob, you said in your original post
"Has there been any development or improvement at all in hand tools"
I pointed out the improvement in materials and engineering of Lie Nielsen and Veritas hand planes, out of the box they are superior to new and vintage planes. Sharpening and fettling are irrelevant. Even a tuned vintage plane won't be made of ductile iron.
There you go, two improvements, materials and engineering

Regards Mark