Why bother with Anant and other low cost brands?

[carpenteire]

I was doing a tidy up in the shop yesterday morning and I came across a cheapie Anant 60 1/2 block plane that I'd bought a couple of years ago, with the intention of "tuning it up" to get the most out of it. The block plane has never been used other. I also (foolishly) bought an Anant No. 3 smoother at the same time and a replacement Hock iron to go with, why I bothered with either of the two planes I don't know. Having successfully tuned up my 2 Records (an old no. 4 and a more recent no. 7) I suppose I thought I was going to get reasonable quality in the Anant at a budget price- how wrong was I? Knowing what I know now it seems crazy to spend time and money on these budget tools when the dividends are so poor. I've spent considerable money since then on Clifton, LV and LN products and have never regretted the money spent; I think too often we don't value the actual "cost" of our time when it comes to trying to use poorer quality tools to get a job done.

 

[dchenard]

I was doing a tidy up in the shop yesterday morning and I came across a cheapie Anant 60 1/2 block plane that I'd bought a couple of years ago, with the intention of "tuning it up" to get the most out of it. The block plane has never been used other. I also (foolishly) bought an Anant No. 3 smoother at the same time and a replacement Hock iron to go with, why I bothered with either of the two planes I don't know. Having successfully tuned up my 2 Records (an old no. 4 and a more recent no. 7) I suppose I thought I was going to get reasonable quality in the Anant at a budget price- how wrong was I? Knowing what I know now it seems crazy to spend time and money on these budget tools when the dividends are so poor. I've spent considerable money since then on Clifton, LV and LN products and have never regretted the money spent; I think too often we don't value the actual "cost" of our time when it comes to trying to use poorer quality tools to get a job done.

I agree, often people don't take their time into account. But sometimes you can get a silk purse out of a sow's ear...

A few years ago I purchased a Groz #5. It took me over an hour to get the sole "flat enough", plus some time to flatten the iron and the frog, I thought that was a lot of time for a cheap plane. But in the end I could plane bird's eye maple without tearout, going either direction. Not too bad for a plane paid £17 or so.

My brother-in-law's birthday was coming, so I went and bought another one. This one took no more than 15 minutes overall to fettle, and performed as well as the first one.

Recently one outlet here had Award #4 planes on sale for the equivalent of £8.50. Too curious to resist, I went and bought one. Less than 15 minutes later that plane was working very well too.

But there's always the possibility of getting a rotten apple. The Groz 60 1/2 block plane I bought at the same time as the #5, I haven't been able to make it work consistently, and I've put quite a bit of time on it :evil:

Now I do like my premium planes as much as anyone else and own a number of them, but it would be wrong to say that one can't get good results out of those inexpensive planes out there. Premium planes are for the most part ready to go out of the box. Inexpensive planes (Anant, Award, Groz, etc.) are more like a crap shoot, one plane will need lots of work to work well, and another will take minimal fettling to work.

I won't sell my Veritas and LN planes, but the inexpensive ones found a place in my shop.

DC-C

 

[whybob71]

I agree that buying cheep planes is not a good idea, but I have to admit that the only Anant #5 I bought some years ago (and sold) had a really flat sole. Maybe an exception?

 

[Losos]

I agree that buying cheep planes is not a good idea, but I have to admit that the only Anant #5 I bought some years ago (and sold) had a really flat sole. Maybe an exception?

This is the problem...................you maybe lucky..................even if not perfect it may take only an hour to fettle and get it working nicely.................but, it may not.

Like most of us here i suffer from a medical condition (Not quite sure what it's called) but basically once I've started on something I get this kind of manic red mist comes over me and I absolutely positively refuse to stop until that inanimate lump of steel or whatever is doing precisely what I want it too :roll:

This illness means I've spent far more time than necessary buggering around with cheap far eastern stuff that really should've been binned the minute it stopped doinh what it's supposed to.

 

[xraymtb]

I think the point is, and it does appear to be missed quite often, that many people can spare time and effort whereas money is a bit tighter. For many people, the idea of putting in a few hours fettling to get a reasonable tool out of a £17 plane is by far preferable to spending over £100 or more on a LN or the like that works well immediately.

If you happen to be working with your planes on a paid job, then your time may well be worth a lot (an hours work at £15...20....25.....) but for anyone who undertakes woodwork projects at home, in their spare time, as a hobby, fettling the tools becomes part of the fun and saves a lot of money in the process.

Beginners should also be considered, and I know the argument that crap tools give crap results and scare people away, however can you imagine the initial outlay if people listened to all the advice they hear to spend at least £300 on a table saw and only buy LN/Veritas/Clifton planes and that the five pack of Stanley chisels at B&Q is only useful for opening paint cans etc...the cost of starting out would scare them off before they even handled a piece of pine from their nearest Homebase.

In the long term, and for those of you who have been doing this for years and can afford it, cheap tools may need replaced or avoided but for those on a tight budget or just starting out, I think there is a lot to be said for spending sensibly and following the advice of this forum to create usable tools that give reasonable results for a lot less money.

 

[Karl]

Mike - I agree to a certain extent. I have had excellent results in tuning up an old Stanley No6 recently.

But, unless one has experience of how the "best" tools work, then you don't have a reference against which to gauge these other fettled tools. I can safely say that, as good as my No6 is, it will never be on a par (for cutting action) with my Clifton No7. But I wouldn't have known that if I hadn't forked out for the expensive plane in the first place.

My advice to anybody working/fettling cheap/secon hand tools is - go for it. But make sure you have one decent plane which can be used as a benchmark.

Cheers

Karl

 

[bugbear]

I think the point is, and it does appear to be missed quite often, that many people can spare time and effort whereas money is a bit tighter. For many people, the idea of putting in a few hours fettling to get a reasonable tool out of a £17 plane is by far preferable to spending over £100 or more on a LN or the like that works well immediately.

If you happen to be working with your planes on a paid job, then your time may well be worth a lot (an hours work at £15...20....25.....) but for anyone who undertakes woodwork projects at home, in their spare time, as a hobby, fettling the tools becomes part of the fun and saves a lot of money in the process.

Beginners should also be considered, and I know the argument that crap tools give crap results and scare people away, however can you imagine the initial outlay if people listened to all the advice they hear to spend at least £300 on a table saw and only buy LN/Veritas/Clifton planes and that the five pack of Stanley chisels at B&Q is only useful for opening paint cans etc...the cost of starting out would scare them off before they even handled a piece of pine from their nearest Homebase.

In the long term, and for those of you who have been doing this for years and can afford it, cheap tools may need replaced or avoided but for those on a tight budget or just starting out, I think there is a lot to be said for spending sensibly and following the advice of this forum to create usable tools that give reasonable results for a lot less money.

All good points. I would add that some people (me!) get a positive kick out of the achievement of tuning, although I prefer putting the effort into cheap, old second hand tools than new ones.

Beginners pose a problem; they (probably) don't want to buy expensive tools, and they don't know enough (or have the "infrastructure") to tune poor tools, old or new.

BugBear

 

[bugbear]

But, unless one has experience of how the "best" tools work, then you don't have a reference against which to gauge these other fettled tools.

Agreed. But this reference knowledge might also be gained at a club, or a show, or a friend's workshop, or a UK workshop forum get together.

BugBear

 

[Pekka Huhta]

Has anyone recent experience on Stanley and Record planes? For what I've looked on the shops, Stanley looks just as crappy as Anant or even worse and Record isn't that fancy either. I'd say that Record might be worth a try if anything else wasn't available, but I never had enough interest in it to try.

So what are your experiences on the recent examples of the former "big brands"?

Pekka

 

[woodbloke]

Pekka - I've had it on good authority from the guys in Penny Farthing Tools that Record planes are now made in China and are fairly dismal offerings and not to be compared with those made in Sheffield of yore. Don't know where new Stanleys are made...probably in the Far East as well - Rob

 

[carpenteire]

Interesting feedback guys.....I suppose I'm lucky that I can (just about) afford to buy the premium plane if I want it, but that said, given I'm not retired and have very little free time I don't get much (least not enough anyway)chance to use the nice kit I do have. SWMBO is buying me a nice LV low angle block plane for Christmas which will now make my Record and Stanley pretty much redundant for good work; if I had the time again I think i'd have preferred to have spent the money on the LV first time round, given all the fettling that it took just to get those brand leaders to perform half decently. As for the modern Record and Stanleys; any new stanleys that I've seen are best avoided as far as I can make out.

 

[tnimble]

I feel the order should be from crap to might be usable: stanley, record, anant. Also there are planes even crappier than stanley. :shock:

 

[bugbear]

I feel the order should be from crap to might be usable: stanley, record, anant. Also there are planes even crappier than stanley. :shock:

My local DIY shop has some REALLY nasty #4's, source unknown.

Dramatically worse than Anant or Groz(*).

BugBear

(*) Some Groz engineering stuff is rather good, BTW

 

[dchenard]

Beginners pose a problem; they (probably) don't want to buy expensive tools, and they don't know enough (or have the "infrastructure") to tune poor tools, old or new.

That's the irony in all this :roll:

DC

 

[woodbloke]

I feel the order should be from crap to might be usable: stanley, record, anant. Also there are planes even crappier than stanley. :shock:

My local DIY shop has some REALLY nasty #4's, source unknown.

Dramatically worse than Anant or Groz(*).

BugBear

(*) Some Groz engineering stuff is rather good, BTW

Rolson maybe? - Rob

 

[Paul Kierstead]

Has anyone recent experience on Stanley and Record planes?

I have 3 Record bench plane about 6 or 7 years old or so (bought new then). I have a #4, #5 and a #7. All came with absolutely horrid totes/knobs and pretty awful blades. All have ill fitting cap irons.

#4 -- doesn't work all that well. Not awful, but no where near a premium plane. I spent a little time tuning it, but have never really put sufficient effort into it. Someday I am going to, just because.

#5 -- my most used plane. Replaced the totes and iron; actually, I have a LV A2 iron as well as a Hock O1 iron with chip breaker. I have done very little tuning otherwise. This plane works very very well; even though I use it really as a jack plane (and sometimes rougher), I can get a very nice surface on most woods. It doesn't chatter, skate or otherwise cause much trouble in most timbers. Usually I could almost forgo the smoother. Mind you, I don't go looking for trouble.

#7 -- I have this set up with some camber and use it pretty close to exclusively for edge jointing (note, though, edge jointing is not exclusively performed by this plane). It is entirely un-tuned, except for the cap iron. It has a LV A2 Iron, but original totes, which desperately need replaced; if you are working hard, the plastic totes get icky (that is a technical term).

In my experience, concerning Records of this vintage, I could recommend them happily for sizing and flattening woods which are not extremely difficult; most 'furniture woods' would seem to be find. They work reasonably well, though do require additional investment. Fine smoothing might require more effort in tuning.

 

[woodbloke]

Paul K wrote-

icky (that is a technical term).

Excellent technical term...ought to be included somewhere on the forum in a glossary of like words, any more than spring to mind?

 

[Paul Kierstead]

Well of course there is the superlative icky-pooh. I like the correct technical terms for those bits whose name eludes you; one of my all time favorites is doohickey, but I am also fond of whatchamacallit and, for those days when language is especially tough, thingy.

 

[Losos]

and, for those days when language is especially tough, thingy.

OMG I must be seriously verbally challenged then 'cos i use 'thingy' all the time :lol: :lol:

 

[jmk89]

Don't forget the ever available "wotsit" (which is owned by "whosit")!

Actually I am afraid that the reason I forget its name is because I am in a thratch because I can't find it, whatever it is! In those circs, none of these terms are used, rather the missing tool is addressed:

"Where the bl**dy h#ll are you, you miserable so-and-so!"