New or Refurbish?

[Jim Koepke]

[snip]
There is a risk associated with buying an old Stanley off of e-bay. You can considerably reduce this risk by reading Jim's "What to look for" thread. However, you can't eliminate this risk, and if you buy a fair number of planes off of e-bay, odds are very good that you'll get one or more that are unfixable (cracked cast iron) or would take too much money in spare parts to be worthwhile. The way I think of it, the risk can be put in monetary terms at about 20% of the cost of any plane you buy sight unseen. My guess is that you can reduce this to below 5% of the cost by only buying planes that you can put your hands on and examine in person.
[snip]

There is a lot to be said for being able to examine a plane up close. I have recently bought an inexpensive plane off ebay that had more hidden damage than even good pictures would show. It did have some good parts that still made it worth it for me. For someone else it would likely have been a bitter disappointment.

The lower your expectations, the more likely you will be pleasantly surprised.

jim

[Tom Vanzant]

Buying planes thru eBay can work both ways. Early in my "collection/accumulation" days, I bought a Stanley #3 that turned out to be in somewhat worse condition than I had expected, but at the same time, I had bought a #3 for parts. As it turned out, the "parts" plane became the basis for a pretty decent plane, using only the tote and knob from the other. It sometimes happens that way.
Tom

[Tom Winship]

I only got into planes several years ago. I thought I had them sharp, and found out later I didn't know anything. Bottom line is, although I know a LN out of the box will cut full width .002 shaving off cherry face, there is no feeling like restoring a "clunker", and then hearing it sing, after you have rehabbed it, sharpened and stropped it. Kinda like when your kid has gone "0 forever" in little league, and after many hours of hard work, he gets his first solid, error free base hit. You know what I mean.........

[Richard Niemiec]

I've gotten skunked on ebay virtually every time I've bought something; all were parts planes. I prefer to fondle tools before purchase, and tend to estate sales and auctions for tools. The more common planes you can buy in the classifieds below or over on Woodnet (a little more active market for hand tools there) from regulars who give the tools the once over and tune them a bit; which is worth something, and generally you'll pay less in forum classifieds than on ebay.

[Brian Kent]

I have enjoyed fixing up old planes. My strategy, based on what I got from Sawmill Creek: Buy one great new plane and then use it as a standard to learn what a good plane should work like. Then get whatever is interesting used and see if it is fun to fix them up.

I enjoy it, and am now doing the same with hand saws.

[Bill Whig]

Several folks have remarked that the old Stanely planes do not cut as well as those by LN and the like. In his book on Classic Hand Tools, Garrett Hack points out that the old Stanley hand tools were designed to cut soft woods. Thus, I will suggest, maybe a side-by-side comparison is unfair.

As far as buying old tools: I say buy most of what you can find (I go to auctions) and if you're satisfied with 2 out of 3 purchases then I expect that on the average, you have done pretty well. I have come home with some stuff only to throw it away, but on the average I've done pretty well at the auctions. Of course, if I price the time I've spent at them at $25/hr, then I've done terrible.

Deep down, I think that owning expensive new tools ought to be a "rite of passage". Give a 16 year old a new sports car and what has he, or she, got to look forward to--I mean to work for.

Lots of opinions out there. I'm just happy to be here sharing my passion for old planes.

Peace,
Bill

[Jim Koepke]

Of course, if I price the time I've spent at them at $25/hr, then I've done terrible.

Peace,
Bill

I have always wondered who was going to give me that $25/hr if I weren't out hunting for rust or rehabbing an old plane.

Certainly not my wife.

Being in a different position, I kind of think of my retirement as paying me to go out and look for them old buckets of rust.

jim

[John Coloccia]

All I can think to say is there is no Stanley on the planet, I don't care how nice it is, that is as nice as a couple of the Veritas planes I have, specifically my smoother and my block plane. It has nothing to do with restoration. It has to do with there are designs out there that aren't 100 years old. Nothing against old Stanleys, and I own a couple myself, but there's something to be said for updated designs and better machining.

I don't think this is an either/or decision. Restoring old planes doesn't need to be a religion. If I find something I like at the antique store, and it looks to be salvageable, I pick it up and bring it back to life. If I need a plane I don't have for some project, I'll just call Lee Valley or LN and order it. Sometimes, I'll order the LV or LN regardless because that model happens to be much nicer than the old Stanleys, even when they were new.

So to answer your question, I'd say "New AND refurbish!"

[James Taglienti]

Several folks have remarked that the old Stanely planes do not cut as well as those by LN and the like. In his book on Classic Hand Tools, Garrett Hack points out that the old Stanley hand tools were designed to cut soft woods. Thus, I will suggest, maybe a side-by-side comparison is unfair.

In that regard I'm going to have to say that Hack is dead wrong. Leonard Bailey, the guy who originally drew and developed the plane that we all know and love today, was a cabinetmaker in the Northeast. To imply that he designed his planes solely around softwoods seems silly. Perhaps the miserably thin irons were for softwoods. The wider the cut, the more the chance of deflection, which explains why I have never met a #2 or #3 that i didn't like. I have had 4 #4 1/2 planes and sold them all but one. Just too wide for the thin iron- especially with the frog moved forward and the blade that much more unsupported. I'm starting to believe that the "Adjustable frog" was more of a machining convenience than an end user bonus. With a thicker iron it seems to work well.

The performance of your plane will depend a lot on the "type." Some types have a much better frog/blade seating. In my opinion type 9 is the best. They only manufactured this frog for 5 years but it's still very available. This plane does not have a screw-adjust frog. The frog seats very solidly on the sole of the plane, and on some types it just kind of "hangs in the air." Even a minute amount of flex here can really upset me when i'm planing.
To address the question of old vs new is going to upset me. I think these old stanleys work just fine if you have the time to bring them back to life. And it can't get much classier than brazilian rosewood, black japanning, and shiny brass fittings.

[David Keller NC]

Actually, the Stanely line of handplanes based on Leonard Bailey's designs were most definitely designed to work softwoods - this is not in doubt.

The reason is that by the mid 1870's when Leonard was applying for his patents most furniture was made in water or steam powered factories. All of these factories had big (and dangerous) planers, jointers, bandsaws and the like.

I've seen estimates that by the late 19th century, more than 95% of the demand for hand tools were the carpentry and related trades, which almost exclusively used softwoods for their work.

[Bill Whig]

In that regard I'm going to have to say that Hack is dead wrong. Leonard Bailey, the guy who originally drew and developed the plane that we all know and love today, was a cabinetmaker in the Northeast..

Well, here is the remark in its context on p. 112 (hope the link works). I know no more.

http://www.amazon.com/Classic-Hand-T...der_1561582735

(sorry it only seems to go to the book)

Best,
Bill

[James Taglienti]

Well david I couldn't find ANYTHING in Bailey's patents about which woods his planes were designed for... I was hoping I would... but I did find some advertising claiming that they could be used for all sorts of woods... but advertising is just that. I still maintain that the planes weren't designed solely for softwoods. And while pine was a very popular wood in the northeast, anybody who has been there would note that many of these old buildings from before the turn of the century are entirely decked out in all of the hardwoods that you can imagine. I guess these craftsmen carried two sets of planes... one for hardwoods and one for softwoods.

[Jim Koepke]

Well david I couldn't find ANYTHING in Bailey's patents about which woods his planes were designed for... I was hoping I would... but I did find some advertising claiming that they could be used for all sorts of woods... but advertising is just that. I still maintain that the planes weren't designed solely for softwoods. And while pine was a very popular wood in the northeast, anybody who has been there would note that many of these old buildings from before the turn of the century are entirely decked out in all of the hardwoods that you can imagine. I guess these craftsmen carried two sets of planes... one for hardwoods and one for softwoods.

I can get some nice shavings from oak with an old type 6 Bailey plane. I usually do not try and take an eighth of an inch of in a single pass. That is why we have handsaws.

I have never seen a carpenter plane 2X4s when they were framing a house.

jim

[jerry nazard]

I use a lot of white oak in my projects, and I have Bailey planes that get used all the time. If Bailey planes were not designed to plane hardwoods, were there planes manufactured at that time that were?

[James Taglienti]

Perhaps some british infill planes, many seem to have a steeper frog... the bailey pattern plane really took over after the turn of the century and there weren't many others, aside from wood bodied planes, which also have a 45* frog, and the woodies were really dwindling too. People were essentially done trying to outdo the Bailey design, but many tried to improve on it and circumvent it's patents. There are a number of Bailey style planes, transitional and iron, that have a tapered iron. That's the closest american made planes have come to being "designed" for hardwoods, if you would consider that a designator. In truth, the statement that Bailey planes were engineered for softwoods is pure conjecture at best. Like I said earlier, the iron is the only performance limiting factor in these planes.