Stanley No 7 new or old

[screwpainting]

I'm looking to get one soon but would appreciate some advice, is a current, new No 7 really a poorly made tool in comparison to the older second hand ones I see on eBay? I have read they are made in china or somewhere now and not as good but not much info as to whats actually wrong with them.
Anyone here used one or own one?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

The machining on the new ones is nowhere near as good as on the old, neither in most cases are the castings. The irons tend to be far better, as well. The mouths tend to be larger as well - my old No.6 has a mouth 33% smaller than a new No.4 I picked up, which is quite something considering they are meant for different purposes. Keep your eye on the sales here - there was a No.6 come up in the last couple of days - if the price is right there isn't that much difference between a No.6 and a No.7. (And of course if you have No.6 you could always justify to yourself the need for a No.8 )

 

[deema]

Lie Nielsen, Veritas, Clifton. Any of these modern makes will provide you with a top quality plane, as good as if not better than anything else you can buy.

 

[deema]

I personally have a No 8 and 6 rather than a 7 and 6. The extra width, length and mass of the No 8 I find very useful

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Lie Nielsen, Veritas, Clifton. Any of these modern makes will provide you with a top quality plane, as good as if not better than anything else you can buy.

Not for the £30 I paid for my No.8 with a full laminated "Sweetheart" iron, they don't. Ok, I got lucky (and it was a few years ago) - but they do come along.

 

[bugbear]

Lie Nielsen, Veritas, Clifton. Any of these modern makes will provide you with a top quality plane, as good as if not better than anything else you can buy.

Not for the £30 I paid for my No.8 with a full laminated "Sweetheart" iron, they don't. Ok, I got lucky (and it was a few years ago) - but they do come along.

This board needs a "you lucky, lucky b*astard" emoticon.

BugBear

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I've a Marples No.7 and a Stanley No.6c as well - but they were only £15 each.

 

[custard]

I've never used a brand new Stanley or Record No 7 so I'm not qualified to answer your question.

What I can say, because I've done it more than once, is that flattening the sole of a No 7 is a serious undertaking. The amount of warping you find in such a big plane is correspondingly daunting, plus there's the absolute size of the sole to be taken into account. Consequently if you want a flat true sole, one that's capable of reliably edge jointing boards so they make up into a table top with invisible glue lines, then you're looking at many hours of work. You can flatten off the sole of a No 4 well inside of thirty minutes, but a No 7 will still see you at it when the sun's going down! I suspect that's going to be true with both new or old Stanley and Records.

If long, invisible glue lines are on your agenda then personally a No 7 is where I'd dig deep and buy a Lie Nielsen, because then the sole will be true or nearly so. Either that or drop down to a No 6 or a No 5 1/2, either of which will get the job done perfectly well with pretty much all pieces of domestic furniture.

Just my 2p's worth.

Good luck!

 

[heimlaga]

New Stanley Bailey planes are just glorified longline sinkers and not good for much else. So are the new Indian made Records. A wastage of good money as perfectly adequate longline sinkers can be made by drilling a hole in a rock. I have tried to use a few for planing and they were clearly not designed nor manufactured for that purpose.

Elderly Staleys and Records vary in quality depending on it's age and how much abuse they have suffered over the years but as a general rule of thumb Stanley bench planes made in USA from 1907 up to around 1950 are good with the English ones being good up to the late 1960-ies.
English made Record were good up to around 1980.
Woden and Sargent and Siegley and Millers Falls and Ohio Tools and Union Toolworks and Hellstedts and V&B are a few more examples of useful old planes floating around the secondhand market. WS-tools are also said to be good but I have never seen one myself.

Rapier are pretty worthless but they can usually be improved by milling the contact areas between the forg and the body. Kuntz are usually totally worthless though the occasional decent example will turn up as their quailty was and is uneven.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Custard - Here we go again, if we're not careful. I agree. I was lucky with all my long ones, they were within a gnat's fart of being flat and I can butt joint run of the mill joinery straight from the plane without checking it. There is one I have the flattening necessity of which would be beyond anyone's doubt and that's a No.5 1/2 Marples that was actually winding so badly I took most of it out with a flap disc. Nice plane now, mind.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Heimlaga - two of the best finished castings I've ever come across were a Canadian Stanley No.5 and a Hellstedt No6 (I missed that one - Frank down the market wanted £60, I could have got it for £50 but ummed and aahed to long). Old Wodens are invariably well made, as well.

 

[Jacob]

I had a Stanley #7 new about 1975 which was slightly concave along the sole which made it useless. Ebayed it and bought 2nd hand american Stanley which is fine and wasn't expensive.
But in the meantime I discovered how to flatten long soles easily - basically two pieces of 80 grit wet n dry in a wet pool on a saw table (or similar), so could have used the first one after all.
NB flattening with coarse wet paper - helps to use a bit of a fence (piece of wood clamped on) to keep the scratches in line with the sole - then there's no need for any further fine fettling.

Also nb - don't be seduced by the Alan Peters story of using only a 7. He may well have done but it's a daft idea and the Barnsley lot were a bit bonkers. A 7 is really handy for straightening (but not finishing) long lengths - say 6 ft or more, but otherwise is best avoided.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Worth a thought -
vintage-stanley-bailey-number-7-t102589.html

At least if you buy old and look after it you will always sell it on again without losing and possibly even gaining a little.

 

[bugbear]

I have read they are made in china or somewhere now and not as good but not much info as to whats actually wrong with them.

what-makes-new-hand-planes-bad-t85883.html
new-hand-planes-t94149.html
cheap-brand-plane-experiences-t72764.html

BugBear

 

[Sawyer]

Also nb - don't be seduced by the Alan Peters story of using only a 7. He may well have done but it's a daft idea and the Barnsley lot were a bit bonkers. A 7 is really handy for straightening (but not finishing) long lengths - say 6 ft or more, but otherwise is best avoided.

It may or may not be true, but I've always been a bit bemused by this story. It is beyond doubt that Alan Peters knew very well how to use a plane to good effect, but for most things other than straightening, a no. 7 is simply not the best tool for the job. Why would someone who knew planes as well as he did not have utilised the relative advantages of other sizes for their respective purposes?

 

[screwpainting]

Thanks for the replies guys and the links, much appreciated. I think I'm going to order a new one and have an actual look at it, I'm intrigued now to see how a modern day accountant designed plane stacks up. It will almost certainly go back, based on what I have read here but at least I will have had a hands on look at it. I might do the same with a faithfull and that other silverline thing as well. So long as I can send them back there's really nothing to lose. I might even have a go at doing a sort of idiots revue of them
If its still available after all that, I might have a look at the one you linked to Phil, thanks for that.

 

[screwpainting]

It may or may not be true, but I've always been a bit bemused by this story. It is beyond doubt that Alan Peters knew very well how to use a plane to good effect, but for most things other than straightening, a no. 7 is simply not the best tool for the job. Why would someone who knew planes as well as he did not have utilised the relative advantages of other sizes for their respective purposes?


Perhaps he was doing something like this with it... at about 6 minutes onto the ****ography

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzXwmqxMbxs

I just love watching these guys, and those cordless tools...

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Why would someone who knew planes as well as he did not have utilised the relative advantages of other sizes for their respective purposes?
Indeed. Just as illogical as Paul Sellers saying the universal plane should be a No.4? You might get away with using a jointer as a smoother, but you'd have hard work using a smoother as a jointer.

 

[Jacob]

Why would someone who knew planes as well as he did not have utilised the relative advantages of other sizes for their respective purposes?
Indeed. Just as illogical as Paul Sellers saying the universal plane should be a No.4? You might get away with using a jointer as a smoother, but you'd have hard work using a smoother as a jointer.

Personally I'd recommend the 5 1/2 as universal plane if you had just one only. I believe Dave says the same!
But a 4 for a beginner is not a bad idea - they are very cheap and easy to use. Or a 5.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Yes, my first was a 5 1/2 - I've still got it and use it regularly.