Stanley No. 4 vs. Millers Falls- how do they compare?

[Karl Andersson]

I’d like the opinions of the group here. I get by prettywell without a number 4 sized bench plane, but have wanted a larger smootherthan my number 3. The flea market gods smiled on me this weekend, and I managedto find not one, but two planes in this size category – a Stanley No. 4 and aMillers Falls “2 in” (sorry, too lazy to look up the proper number designationright now). Let’s just say the prices were very comfortably in the “you suck”range.
Number 4 vs MF 01.jpgNumber 4 vs MF 02.jpg
My plan is to keep one for my use and to sell the other one.The Stanley is a Type 12 Sweetheart, trademark indicates it’s from 1921-22, andhas a plain sole. The MF looks a bitnewer, just judging by the “wiped stain” appearance of the handle finish, butit has a corrugated sole. I haven’t done my homework yet, but I assume theStanley would command a higher price – seems like a given.
With that in mind, in the opinion of those with experienceusing both, can the MF be fettled to work as well as the Stanley would? All myiron planes I use now are Stanley Type 14’s and I understand their capabilitiesand limitations.
Just Bragging: The Stanley appears to have been taken fromits box, used once or twice and left on a shelf. The tote and knob are close to immaculate –the tote’s finish is completely intact and it has no chips or splits; the knobis the same but has one or two small rub spots. The Japanning is 99-100% intactand there is just light overall rust, no pitting. Most of the plating is still on the levercap, and the blade has what looks like the original factory grind (neverlapped).

The Millers Falls is in similar shape, maybe kept in aslightly more damp shed, but it will clean up very well. It has some pitting inthe lever cap plating, but only surface rust on the blade and body. The depth adjuster yoke is the split type; itcurrently is too wide for the adjuster knob, so one side rides outside thechannel in the knob, but it looks like I could carefully squeeze the sidestogether 1/16th to get it back in. The knob and tote are in perfect shape,except they were anointed with paint splatter that I can easily clean off. The lever cap is the two-piece type.
Number 4 vs MF 04.jpgNumber 4 vs MF 03.jpg
In comparison, the bodies are almost identical; the MF soleis about ¼” longer and 1/8^th” wider. They have the same blade pitch (they look different in the pic, but that’smy camera’s fault), same blade width, although the Stanley blade might be 1/64^ththicker. The frogs both have very wide support surfaces for the blades and arealmost identical as well. The wood on the Stanley is beautiful rosewood - the MF is stained hardwood. The MF's tote is less shapely than the Stanley - a bit more blocky. The front knobs are high ones and again, almost identical in shape (the MF is maybe 1/8th" taller).
Number 4 vs MF 05.jpg
So, performance-wise, would these generally be considered tohave equal potential? I’m trying to avoid fettling both and comparing their performance–I’ll leave the Stanley’s “patina” intact in case the future buyer appreciatesthat more than having it be useful. Of course, if the MF isn't on a par performance-wise, I'll have to reconsider keeping the Stanley, but I'd hate to start dinging up the rosewood.
And no, I don’t need both – the tool cabinet I’m buildingonly has space for one
Thanks,
Karl

[steven c newman]

My "Stanley #4" are both from the Handyman lineup. I also have both the #9 by Millers Fallls and the 900 "V" line. All four are almost the same, right down to the red frog. My #9 was from the WWII era, and has the stained hardwood handles. A later model #8 (stanley #3 size) has gancolo handles. I seem to like the M-F planes better, and even sold a Stanley #4, type11. SDC14565.jpgThe 900 "V" lineSDC14476.jpg M-F #8SDC14367.jpgHandyman #1204SDC14145.jpgStanley #4, type11SDC14688.jpgand the M-F #9. That photo was right after it came in the mail. Someone had even painted their name and the handles an UGLY red colour. So far, I am very happy with the Millers Falls planes.

[Jim Koepke]

My preference is for Stanley planes. That doesn't mean the Millers Falls is not a better plane. Currently there are 3 #4s in my shop and they all see use. Funny that the one in the worst shape gets as much use as the other two. It was put together from spare parts to test a $3 blade from Home Depot.

My preference is also for smooth soles. That doesn't mean the corrugated sole is not better in some way. A couple of my planes (a #4 & #5) have corrugated soles and they work fine.

What matters is not the opinions of others. What matters is which plane seems to work best for you. You will likely find that they are actually pretty much equal to the tasks you give them.

You may also want to consider putting a camber on the blade of one to use as a scrub plane. Two of my #4s were set up so one will take very fine shavings for finish work and the other is set up for heavier cuts.

I wouldn't worry about dinging up the rosewood on the Stanley. My planes have seen a lot of use and my hands have yet to knock chunks out of any handles.

You might want to save one of the planes "ready to go" in a drawer somewhere. A friend or neighbor may want to borrow a plane to take care of a sticky door. A lot of my less than best tools are still in my shop just for the purpose of having tools for the "dirty jobs" or to loan out with no worries.

jtk

[Adam Cruea]

I prefer Stanley planes. Type 11 if I can get hold of them.

Corrugated soles are great if you're not on the edge of a piece. Personally, I keep a corrugated and smooth bottom version of almost every plane I have (at least the jointers) because it's supposed to lessen friction. Does it? *shrug* I also almost always switch out the stock Stanley irons for Veritas A2 irons and chip breakers. I don't throw out the old irons, I just use the A2 for most things and keep the old Stanleys around because the steel seems softer and, to me, like it would take a much finer honing (I could be wrong, though).

As for worrying about the totes. . .unless you're trying to make the planes "collectible" (and may a hipster interior decorator haunt you for the rest of your days if so), you're probably not going to hurt it much. I've bounced many of my planes off the floor a time or two, and the rosewood on only a few has cracked or had a horn broken off. It's an easy fix, though, and as long as you keep the tote screwed down firmly, I can't imagine any sort of use you put it through is going to hurt it much.

[Archie England]

A MF #9 is a quality vintage plane--just as is the Sargent VBM 409. Compared to a vintage quality Stanley, they're about the same. I have several of each and find that once tuned, there's little appreciable difference. In fact, having recently bought my first LN, I've discovered that some of the real improvements are not all that critical--less slop in the adjustments and a thicker blade--while others are much more so--flatness and perfectly mated faces. Just like a Handyman is a step down from a Stanley #4, a MF 900 or Sargent 1409 are both lower quality planes. However, how well each one works is only determined by how well the one you have works. Don't discard a plane because it isn't the best "type" of a series. I've been amazed at how well many of these vintage planes work.

[Jim Koepke]

Don't discard a plane because it isn't the best "type" of a series. I've been amazed at how well many of these vintage planes work.

One of the planes I purchased at an estate sale was a late Defiance by Stanley. The frog consisted of fins cast into the base, like on some block planes. It was still able to do fine work. It was sold to a coworker before my retirement.

jtk

[Chris Griggs]

One of the planes I purchased at an estate sale was a late Defiance by Stanley. The frog consisted of fins cast into the base, like on some block planes. It was still able to do fine work. It was sold to a coworker before my retirement.

I can relate.

I've probably told this story before, but one of the best vintage planes I've used and have is a vintage Footprint (not sure when it was made, but I'd have to guess 70s or later) I bought off Archie a few years ago. It honest to God performs on par with or better than any "best" type vintage plane I've used. Its got a heavy casting like the war time stanleys, and it adjustments are smoother and tighter than any other vintage plane I have. I can't explain it. The only work I ever did to it besides on the blade was about 20 minutes of lapping the sole. I bought it to use as a coarse plane but it performs on such a fine level I ended up using it as large smoother/panel plane of sorts. I almost never use it since anymore as I tend to use my LA Jack if I really need a large smoother, but that old footprint never ceased to impress me, even though to this day the "Footprint" on the lever cap always makes me doubt it when I pick it up. Anyway, all that is to say, use both planes, and see which you like better. I like the old stanleys and MFs equally well. The MFs I have and have used, for whatever reason seemed to actually have smoother easier to move adjustments than the Stanleys (maybe they saw less use), with the tradeoff being that I think the MFs have bit more backlash. Really though there is a lot of variation in even the best of the best vintage planes, and you really need to use both to tell which is better.

[Jim Koepke]

one of the best vintage planes I've used and have is a vintage Footprint

Even the makers who have people scoffing when you mention their name have some quality items slip past their doors.

Not sure what the current situation is with Footprint, but at one time I think they may have actually been a respected tool maker in England. I have a mallet from them that is a very nice mallet. Picked it up in an old time hardware store in the Richmond, CA area when I lived in that neck of the woods.

jtk

[Karl Andersson]

Thanks all for the input - now that I've had a chance to research a little more, it appears that at least for the time period of both these planes, the useability should be comparable. So, I'll start fettling one and see how it works. As for the hipster threat, if that's what is takes to fill up my daughters' tuition accounts, then I've got plenty more rust-ic tool art for them to overpay for...hey, dude, a 10-inch brace would make a fantastic corkscrew!

Karl