Stanley V Stanley

[Bluekingfisher]

I have been reading with interest of late the discussions regarding the comparisons of ancient Stanley Planes and their modern counterparts. There already exists a thread on that aspect so I would go there.

What I would be interested to know is why do so many consider the older Stanley Planes far superior to their relatively modern family members?

I have a stable of Stanley bench planes of no great value and various vintage ranging from late WWI period to late 1990's. All of them are in good condition and having been tuned and fitted with aftermarket irons, cap irons and yokes I cannot for the life of me notice a difference in performance.

Is there a real difference in quality of work the older planes can produce.

David

 

[Cordy]

David, why are the planes fitted with aftermarket irons ?

 

[RogerP]

and having been tuned and fitted with aftermarket irons, cap irons and yokes I cannot for the life of me notice a difference in performance.

... maybe this is why?

 

[Eric The Viking]

I've had the same experience as David (Bluekingfisher), but, whilst my aftermarket irons* are noticably better, they're actually not hugely better than the originals when I've sharpened properly (see sharpening thread...).

I have one Stanley block plane, a new "Sweetheart" #92 and a spokeshave that all use the 'new' steels, and they do hold a better edge, but the old stuff, even the 1980s stuff, isn't all that bad once fettled.

I much prefer the feel and finish of the old Stanley stuff -- the oldest plane I have is probably a #7 circa 1923 -- but I can't genuinely claim it works any better.

That said, the new-style "Sweetheart" #92 is an object lesson in how to design-out goodness. It's a miracle it works at all, blade not withstanding, and it remains my most-regretted woodworking purchase to date. I just came across Chris Schwarz's blog from 2010 mentioning it: his could've been from a different planet! Perhaps Stanley exercise better QC in North America, as the competition is fiercer there. Am trying to persuade the kids to get me the Axminster "Rider" one instead for Christmas...

I bet rubbish tools were produced in times past, but there wasn't much of a DIY market, and so less opportunity to offload junk at a profit. The bad stuff would have failed to sell to tradesmen, and they would have been the biggest market by far. You'd sell once to a hobbyist, but probably several times to a tradesman.

I think my favourite Bailey pattern is a Record war-finish #4, which I inherited from the DC's grandfather. With a laminated blade in, it sings. It's not quite as good as my modern #5, and definitely not as good as the #5 1/2 I bought from Jimi a while back, but it has something intangible about its history, and it has a feel in the hand that isn't there with any other planes I have.

E.


(Axminster's Japanese laminated irons, which have recently got VERY expensive, so I won't be getting any more :-( )

 

[RogerP]

Of all the planes I've owned the Asian type work best for me.

This sort of thing but there are many others,

http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Mujingfang_Planes.html

 

[MIGNAL]

I think you've already said it, you've fettled all of yours. The older planes are built a bit better than some of the later types. I have Stanley's/Records from a number of different decades and the couple that I had from the very late 70's and mid 80's were pretty poor. My late 60's/early 70's Stanley 5.5 is a perfectly good plane, original blade and chipbreaker. I've done nothing to fettle it but there is evidence that someone has flattened the sole and squared the sides of the plane, so it has been worked on. It has the cast yoke. The types from the 50's and earlier may not perform any better but providing the blade hasn't been overheated you are virtually guaranteed to get a good blade. I've had around 7 or 8 old blades with the square cut corners and I've yet to see a bad one. I have good later types too but I've also had a couple that seemed to wear or dull quickly. May have been bad luck or perhaps poor quality control. I don't really know. Occasionally I seem to come across a blade that performs better than the norm i.e. easy to sharpen and seems to stay sharp a little longer. I have an old Acorn blade (1930's) and a Stanley rule and level block plane blade (1890's) that are like that. It's not a world of difference though.

 

[Bluekingfisher]

Thanks for the response chaps, much appreciated.

In my case, I changed the blades out because some of theoriginal blades had defects, were worn out or in such bad shape I became tired of trying to make them functional. I bought a couple of beefier replacement irons and cap iron (Workshop Heaven) for the two most affected planes. The results impressed me so much I began to change them all out. For relatively little cost the planes function very well. I have a LN #4 and a couple of LV planes which set the standard really and although I wasn't expecting to meet their standard I have come very close indeed, if not equal to.

I was also concerned initially as to the difficulties of sharpening the thicker and harder Quengshang blades. I use diamond plates to sharpen so there is no drama there.

I did have to widen the plane mouths slightly to incorporate the thicker blades but as the planes are not rare or valueable I considered the work would not be detremental.

David

 

[Cordy]

Thanks for reply David
Last night I collected this Stanley 5½ that was on ebay as a 5; cost £10, I was the only bidder, one mile from my house - so no postage costs
Plane is in much better nick than this ebay photo suggests

Glad I didn't go for a new Quangsheng 5½, pretty sure I can fettle this to a decent Plane

 

[Trafalgar]

The old ones works as well with their thin irons as newer ones do with thick irons. Everything seems to fit a little better -- iron to frog, frog to body. The 1920s era plane(s) I have would not work with a thicker iron without opening up the mouth. Newer planes tend to have a gaping mouth that almost requires a thicker iron to close up the mouth a bit without having to dangle the frog over the rear edge of the mouth when fitted with the original thin iron.

I am not one of those who believe the cap iron has rendered mouth aperture irrelevant at all times and all places.

 

[Bluekingfisher]

Nice enough looking plane Cordy, I am sure there is a gem under the dust and surface rust. I paid 321.00 for my 5 - 1/2 It looks to be a Mid 1960's model. It looked as though it hade spend the majority of its life in a box somewhere, it looked almost new. Perhaps this model is not in high demand at the moment?

Charles, I'll have to take your word on the thin irons being as effective as the new technology thicker steel irons. The old irons have proven themselves over the years, no doubting that, although for me the investment was worth the relatively little work involved in opening up the mouth to accommodate the 3 mm + thick iron. I have Karl Hotley "thin iron" in my #7 which did not require retrospective or additional work to the plane body. I bought this thinner iron as a comparison to the thicker irons. IMHO I consider the thicker irons toproduce a better result.

Perhaps you can clarify a point, I was of the belief having the frog ******** in the body was likely to cause chatter, created by the thin unsupported blade and cap iron flexing under tension of the lever cap? Does the frog therefore not NEED to be flush or close to the rear of the mouth?

David

 

[MIGNAL]

That Stanley is a very good bargain for £10! It looks like you have one of the older models, square cut corners to the blade.
It might not take very long to get that working at it's best. It will take much longer if you want it looking good as well though.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

A lot of the internet discussions I see on Bailey-style planes tend to be very polarised - "buy pre-1970, because they were rubbish after" and similar statements. I don't think it's that definite.

Planes made before WW2 were generally of good and consistent quality when new, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll still be good. Heavy use causes wear, and such evils as rust and abuse at the hands of the uncaring don't help either. It's true that clean, little-worn examples are usually good, reliable performers, though.

Planes made after WW2 could be just as good, or even better; however, the pressures of increasing manufacturing costs and a slowly diminishing market meant that as time went on makers found ways to economise, and the result of many changes each small in themselves in the end amounted to products that were variable in quality. Some examples were perfectly fit for purpose, and some less so. The problem for a prospective purchaser is that without using a particular plane, it's almost impossible to tell a good one from a dud.

I don't buy the mantra that everything made after about 1970 is rubbish. I've noted elsewhere that two Record planes I bought new in the 1980s were different; the 1986 04 was dreadful, the 1989 07 was, and still is, a perfectly decent plane. I'm also inclined to the view that some people reinforce their own prejudices a little; some people happen to like pre-19xx planes, big them up a bit, and run down later ones (whether they've any experience of using a later one or not). The actual difference in performance between a decent pre-WW2 plane and a decent 1980s plane are pretty marginal, if they exist at all; but some people feel happier with the older ones, and that reflects in their stated opinions.

The only real test of a plane, of whatever vintage, is whether or not it does what you want to the standard you determine you need. You can't judge that without using it, which gives a problem if you have to buy without trying. Buying premium will give a virtual guarantee of excellent performance, but you have to pay for that. Buying new and cheap means taking a chance - you might get a good one, or you might not. Buying secondhand is also a chance, but at least you're not generally risking too much money.

 

[Trafalgar]

Nice enough looking plane Cordy, I am sure there is a gem under the dust and surface rust. I paid 321.00 for my 5 - 1/2 It looks to be a Mid 1960's model. It looked as though it hade spend the majority of its life in a box somewhere, it looked almost new. Perhaps this model is not in high demand at the moment?

Charles, I'll have to take your word on the thin irons being as effective as the new technology thicker steel irons. The old irons have proven themselves over the years, no doubting that, although for me the investment was worth the relatively little work involved in opening up the mouth to accommodate the 3 mm + thick iron. I have Karl Hotley "thin iron" in my #7 which did not require retrospective or additional work to the plane body. I bought this thinner iron as a comparison to the thicker irons. IMHO I consider the thicker irons toproduce a better result.

Perhaps you can clarify a point, I was of the belief having the frog ******** in the body was likely to cause chatter, created by the thin unsupported blade and cap iron flexing under tension of the lever cap? Does the frog therefore not NEED to be flush or close to the rear of the mouth?

David

I do have a Hock iron in a Record 04.5 It's a good performer, but in truth no better than an old Stanley 04 with thin iron or old Record 04 with its original crucible cast steel iron that looks ever so slightly thicker than the Stanley. If the iron is bedded well and the frog to plane seating solid there is no real reason a thin iron plane shouldn't perform up to the standard of a thicker iron. When one counts the cap iron and lever cap there is a whole lot of metal sitting atop a thin iron. As long as the lever cap is transmitting pressure down through a series of assemblies that are well machined and fitted all should be well.

On my son's old Stanleys when you put the frog on the body it more or less sort of snaps into place, aligning with body very well. You can't slew the frog around on the mating parts left or right. It will only move forward and backwards as designed. On later planes the frogs can be rotated around in plan as if on a clockface plus forward and back. It doesn't mean the plane won't plane well, but a quick visual comparison between the two is really no comparison at all -- the older planes really look to be machined better, the frogs in particular. With the old Stanley it is practically impossible to install the frog into the body biased either left or right causing one to have to take up the difference with almost all of the adjustment range of the lateral adjustment lever. When the iron comes out for honing and goes back in it's sitting dead center, or very close, of the mouth. Just A TOUCH of lateral adjustment and it's perfect.

 

[Bluekingfisher]

CC - I am pleased to read your response, Not being an expert on the history of Stanley Planes my knowledge is based on what I have read by others online in support of their own chosen vintage of plane.

It would appear then that pre WWII era planes in sound condition (not being abused) are generally a safe option - does the second hand market price reflect this? or is an "old Stanley just an old Stanley"?

Perhaps then planes built after this time are a bit of a hit and miss? I would hazard a guess this is true of many tools of the same period. My own Stanleys have all performed admirably, albeit with varying levels of fetteling required in order to do so. Despite being ardous on occasion I did learn many things of the plane by taking it apart, cleaning, polishing, re assembly etc. all part of the hand tool experience I suspect.

I have a #4 which was issued to my dad as part of a tool kit when he worked for the then GPO. Both the body and iron are stamped "GPO 1969" and according to him, a pile of junk, as everything during this time was. He had no need for it and so it lay for 30 plus years unused until he unloaded it on me. After being in my possession for 15 or so years it was my entry into hand tool work. I wasn't expecting too much in the way of performance and to be honest the original blade was really poor, certainly no good for fine work as is expected of a smoothing plane. However the new iron and cap iron have transformed it into a very useable plane. I may have gone overboard on this one with the rouge and polishing mop though, it gleams like a newly minted coin.

Anyway, thanks for the education all

David

 

[Trafalgar]

Some people like the WWII planes as their castings are thicker, theories abound as to why this is the case the most prominent being that the skilled grinding labor was at war and the positions replaced by much less skilled grinders. At any rate, they're noticeably beefier.

 

[Bluekingfisher]

Charles, Thanks again for the information. I have a Stanley #4 circa 1919 and my dads #4 stamped 1969. I'm going to strip them both down to compare the build quality and machining.

David

 

[Bod]

Stanley UK planes, I feel had a down turn in quality, as did the Record ones when Qualcast (the mower people) did the casting.

Bod

 

[G S Haydon]

I have been reading with interest of late the discussions regarding the comparisons of ancient Stanley Planes and their modern counterparts. There already exists a thread on that aspect so I would go there.

What I would be interested to know is why do so many consider the older Stanley Planes far superior to their relatively modern family members?

I have a stable of Stanley bench planes of no great value and various vintage ranging from late WWI period to late 1990's. All of them are in good condition and having been tuned and fitted with aftermarket irons, cap irons and yokes I cannot for the life of me notice a difference in performance.

Is there a real difference in quality of work the older planes can produce.

David

I don't feel there is a big superiority really, much is personal pref. The moment Stanley started using hollow (solid plastic is fine) plastic handles and not finishing the casting on the soles and sides while also charging close to £60.00 is when they failed to be a sensible choice. You can pick up good examples £20>40 on fleabay or less at a boot sale so buying a new one in their current specification is pointless.

Personally the other factors are window dressing that don't change how a tool works 99% of the time for 99% of woodworkers.

 

[Eric The Viking]

I have a #5 bought new around 1980, with the solid plastic handles. They used to give me blisters originally. I recently fettled it (about 8 or 10 years ago) and gave it Rosewood handles from Crown Tools IIRC.

It is a lot more comfortable, and really nice to use now. Goodness knows what they made the handles from, but acetone, meths and WD40 all dissolve them to varying extents (DAMHIK), and once clagged with grime they're almost impossible to clean.

E.

 

[lurcher]

stanley no 4 1/2 made in usa sweetheart £2.00 best plane i have and i have a few .
does a usa stanley differ to a uk stanley i have both and record / marples /sorby woodies and transitional planes is there anyware to go forward with a plane or
do we think its now perfect .
or do we ask more from the tool than the tool can do . oh what did we do before forums on the pc/