The Sacrilege!

[Frederick Skelly]

As of this moment, this thread has been opened/read/viewed by more people than any other Ive yet seen - 3,878.

Fred

[John Sanford]

We can get specific and empirical: Take like planes and run them through their paces. What can a LN 5 do that a Stanley 5 cannot, or do better? What can a Veritas LA jointer do that a Stanley 7 cannot, or do better? Etc. ad infinitum.

End result does not define "better" by itself. That, in fact, is much of David's argument. The Reader's Digest version: A properly fettled vintage plane can get the same results as a modern premium plane, and will likely cost less money. Therefore, the vintage plane is "better."

Now, David having introduced a consideration other than simply the results into the equation, we are free to introduce other considerations as well.

Send five noobs out with instructions to purchase the first vintage Jack Plane they come across, and the first new LN #5 they come across. Have each of them return with the planes, have a competent sharpening dude touch up all of the blades, and set them to work. Remember, these are 5 vintage planes chosen by noobs, versus 5 fresh out of the box LNs. The odds are very high that every one of the LNs will work great out of the box. The vintage planes, chosen by noobs? Not so good odds. So, it takes a certain amount of knowledge and experience to pick out decent vintage planes. The more knowledge, the fewer turkeys. For some, that makes them "better", but for most folks wanting to get on with the matter of butchering wood, not so much of a plus.

Now, simulate the effects of a modest herd of young boys thundering through one's workshop. Oh, my. The planes have been subjected to sudden deceleration upon hitting the floor. New plane, ductile iron. Old plane, simple cast iron. New plane, dents floor, little dent on nose of plane. Old plane, dents floor, cracked body. Is cracked better? Is the heightened risk, because not every drop ends in keeee-rack, of being cracked better? In an absolute sense, no, unless you're looking for a source of cast iron to recycle. For some though, the risk may be worth it given the lower cost of the vintage plane.

IF you are good enough with your tools, you can build a Chippendale highboy using nothing more than a healthy supply of rocks and your own skills. Thankfully for those of us who are not Uber-Neanderbubbas, our ancestors spent thousands of years improving tools so that things are easier and more pleasant to accomplish. While an LN vis a vis a vintage Bailey doesn't represent as much of an improvement as the first plane does over a handheld chisel, it's better durability, superior adjustability, and greater "ease of getting into service" (i.e. finding & fettling to a serviceable level) makes it a "better plane." Better value? Well, that's another question entirely, related, but different, and the answer depends on what the potential owner/user values. Time? Money? Heritage, aesthetics, the environment, etc, etc.

The results are the same, it's just a bit easier to get there with the new plane. And that's what tools are about. Making life easier.

btw, before somebody goes down the "well, you've got to know how your plane works to get the best results" route, let me ask you this: do you know machine language? Or is knowing how to type and maybe a bit more sufficient for you to get the results you want out of your computer? It can certainly be handy to know more about your tool, but it beyond a certain point, it isn't necessary to get the results one desires.

[Mark Engel]

End result does not define "better" by itself. That, in fact, is much of David's argument. The Reader's Digest version: A properly fettled vintage plane can get the same results as a modern premium plane, and will likely cost less money. Therefore, the vintage plane is "better."

Now, David having introduced a consideration other than simply the results into the equation, we are free to introduce other considerations as well.

Send five noobs out with instructions to purchase the first vintage Jack Plane they come across, and the first new LN #5 they come across. Have each of them return with the planes, have a competent sharpening dude touch up all of the blades, and set them to work. Remember, these are 5 vintage planes chosen by noobs, versus 5 fresh out of the box LNs. The odds are very high that every one of the LNs will work great out of the box. The vintage planes, chosen by noobs? Not so good odds. So, it takes a certain amount of knowledge and experience to pick out decent vintage planes. The more knowledge, the fewer turkeys. For some, that makes them "better", but for most folks wanting to get on with the matter of butchering wood, not so much of a plus.

Now, simulate the effects of a modest herd of young boys thundering through one's workshop. Oh, my. The planes have been subjected to sudden deceleration upon hitting the floor. New plane, ductile iron. Old plane, simple cast iron. New plane, dents floor, little dent on nose of plane. Old plane, dents floor, cracked body. Is cracked better? Is the heightened risk, because not every drop ends in keeee-rack, of being cracked better? In an absolute sense, no, unless you're looking for a source of cast iron to recycle. For some though, the risk may be worth it given the lower cost of the vintage plane.

IF you are good enough with your tools, you can build a Chippendale highboy using nothing more than a healthy supply of rocks and your own skills. Thankfully for those of us who are not Uber-Neanderbubbas, our ancestors spent thousands of years improving tools so that things are easier and more pleasant to accomplish. While an LN vis a vis a vintage Bailey doesn't represent as much of an improvement as the first plane does over a handheld chisel, it's better durability, superior adjustability, and greater "ease of getting into service" (i.e. finding & fettling to a serviceable level) makes it a "better plane." Better value? Well, that's another question entirely, related, but different, and the answer depends on what the potential owner/user values. Time? Money? Heritage, aesthetics, the environment, etc, etc.

The results are the same, it's just a bit easier to get there with the new plane. And that's what tools are about. Making life easier.

btw, before somebody goes down the "well, you've got to know how your plane works to get the best results" route, let me ask you this: do you know machine language? Or is knowing how to type and maybe a bit more sufficient for you to get the results you want out of your computer? It can certainly be handy to know more about your tool, but it beyond a certain point, it isn't necessary to get the results one desires.

Yup. .

[Daniel Rode]

Why is there so much energy being put into defending expensive premium tools? Rather than a debate about tool choices, it's gotten very personal and emotional for some people.

Seems to me there are 2 camps. The first camp says the expensive planes are really nice but you can slice wood just the same with a vintage tool. The other camp says, Nooooooo! Expensive planes are better and saying anything different is a personal attack and wrong and mean.

I can't recall anyone who favors the vintage tools saying anything negative about the premium tools or someone's decision to buy them.

[David Weaver]

End result does not define "better" by itself. That, in fact, is much of David's argument. The Reader's Digest version: A properly fettled vintage plane can get the same results as a modern premium plane, and will likely cost less money. Therefore, the premium plane is not "better."

I fixed it so it actually says what I'm stating. The real problems in woodworking (design, sourcing good materials, sequencing a build, etc...) are far more significant than the difference between a vintage plane and a "premium" plane. However, when you're showing party tricks to a beginner, talking about design (which, for example, would include not showing dovetails externally), sourcing good materials and discussing things like assembly, etc, don't show as well as party tricks.

"here, feel how smooth this 10 pound #8 feels.....oooohhh...see a vintage iron will chatter".

Well, not if you use a vintage iron properly, but it always sounds lovely to talk about "how advanced we are now...we're so superior now, our stuff is so much better".

Like I said, doing less with more.

[Mark Engel]

I think there are many examples here of vintage tool zealots saying negative things about the new 'premium' tools. ^

That is not my problem with this thread. What I object to is the character assassination of Chris Shwartz. Chris Schwartz is a published author, a well known hand tool 'expert' and a well known hand tool teacher. Yet, some of our members discount this mans experience claiming that it is all due to his association with some tool manufacturers.

I wonder who on this forum can claim to have the documented experience and expertise to dis-prove any of CS's opinions or teachings. It is easy to say "He is wrong". Prove the point and show why you are right.

[Sean Hughto]

End result does not define "better" by itself.

Pray tell, John, what is Chris talking about here if not the end results - if not the performance of the plane? What does he mean when he says "just as good" if not the use and results? Did the students suddenly realize the wonder of ductile iron? Did they suddenly move back in time and need to pick a plane again?

What I have observed is this: The students with the super-tuned vintage handplanes almost always tend to use – over and over – my Lie-Nielsen and Veritas planes during the class. .... They put their vintage planes below their bench or back into their tool bag. I have even seen some of them order a Veritas or Lie-Nielsen plane on a cellphone during a class while holding one of my planes in their other hand.

.... I want to believe that the old planes are just as good. I used to believe the old planes were just as good.

[steven c newman]

I have watched Herr Schwarz a few times, not too bad a time. Learned a few things, too. But like all the ones on the tube/internet, I take what they say with the grains of salt required. Never once as "Gosphel" (sp0

That being said, I use vintage tools because they are what I can pay for. Closest I ever got to a Premium Plane was the Wood River #4V3 I won as a Featured Member on another site. Not too bad a plane, either, has some "good genes" to it. I have rehabbed a bunch of planes over the years. Keeping trying them out until I find a few I like, AND can DEPEND on to work right out of the Tool Chest. That is what counts! You can have one made of soid Gold, but if it don't work the way YOU NEED it to......go melt the dang thing down into a watch or something...

Really don't care what others use in their shops. That is their problem. I'm still working out mine. I doubt if spending more on one plane than i spent on the last 20 COMBINED, will even begin to make me a better woodworker. One has to learn the HOW of this craft. Fancy tools look good in the photos, true. But is it the skill to use them to be bought along with that Bling Tool? Some say they can get shavings thin enough to read the paper through, BFD. That is usally the LAST step in getting a board ready for a finish. Not all the other steps it takes to get there.

Hey, IF Mr. Schwarz runs a class on woodworking, and people do show up to learn HIS way, that's more than fine by me.

[David Weaver]

I wonder who on this forum can claim to have the documented experience and expertise to dis-prove any of CS's opinions or teachings. It is easy to say "He is wrong". Prove the point and show why you are right.

He was certainly wrong about the cap iron. In fact, I had several people send me private messages before the kato and kawai video came out when I was describing the usefulness of the cap iron. They were a combination of people telling me to can it because either chris schwarz or rob cosman had described other than what I was advocating, and I was wrong and should ...like I said, just stop posting.

Then even after I wrote an article and there was a kato and kawai video to show what I was talking about, I still got those emails, anyway. It was pretty ridiculous. Several months later after it was topic du jour on the forums for a while, I got a message from someone telling me that I had learned it from Chris Schwarz.

I suppose in a way, it's almost a bit funny, because proper use of the cap iron is the equalizer between vintage and premium planes, and in my experience, the stanley design cap iron is a bit better bone stock and it provides a nice spring for the lever cap to clamp on. The weight of a stanley plane is preferable, too, and I can't think of anything up to and including hard maple where it's lacking in weight.

Two other things that I found outright wrong:
* getting old tools into shape is false economy (sure, it might be if you don't think about how you'd like to do it quickly. Doing something poorly or slowly and drawing a conclusion to fall again on the side of new tools is a poor suggestion)
* LN had to make a drawknife because good ones are hard to find and hard to use. I had to go track down the blog post to make sure that I didn't misquote. He claims to have spent a day grinding his grandfather's drawknife. That's odd, again, just like the bullet point above. I watched a video of curtis buchanan describing and demonstrating bringing a vintage drawknife into shape. It wasn't a long process. I recall looking through shop after shop for good backsaws at the time, and the only thing I found in droves was......drawknives. unused keen kutter drawknives for $50 (two) and gobs of good used drawknives for about $25 in any size and manner you could want. For a short period of time, i was subscribed to the blog (i was subscribed to a whole lot of blogs), but things like that made me change my mind about it -advocating solutions to problems that didn't exist. And at high cost to (who is usually going to be the folks buying something like a $170 drawknife?) beginners.

[Pat Barry]

... proper use of the cap iron is the equalizer between vintage and premium planes...

I think the proper use of the cap iron is an equalizer between vintage and premium planes, but not THE equalizer. A big problem for me as a neophyte plane user is the backlash with the vintage planes. Maybe this can be improved (reduced) but I have never seen that topic addressed. The LV BUS I just purchased has virtually zero baclash and that makes planing much easier for someone like me. If you want to take off a bit less you turn back the adjuster slightly and away you go. With the vintage planes (that I have) I need to crank the adjuster back about what seems to be 2 or 3 full turns before it even feels to be retracting the blade, then a few test cuts, more backing off (maybe) more likely need to crank it back in. Anyway - there is terrible mechanics to the old planes compared to the new one I've used, and those lousy mechanics lead to frustration. SO, to me, this is equally if not more important than the touted cap iron discoveries.

[David Weaver]

Pat, you probably haven't seen it addressed because backlash isn't much of a problem in a plane in use. If it was, stanley would've added tabs to the cap iron to mitigate it.

My view on it is this:
* it takes about 2 seconds or less to run the backlash out of an adjuster. Most of my planes seem to have about a turn.
* half of your adjustments are going to be in the direction that there's already tension, so there will be no backlash issue at all
* once you have your plane set where you want it, there isn't going to be much depth adjustment, anyway

On my vintage planes, the backlash is about the length of my index finger, and I can remove all or almost all of it in one swipe.

On a plane in regular use, the wheel will almost spin freely between tension from one direction to another, making it easier yet.

Now, I know I'm not going to get my wish on this. I too bought premium planes and marveled at the lack of backlash, but at the time, nobody ever told me it wasn't a problem.

[Mark Engel]

He was certainly wrong about the cap iron. In fact, I had several people send me private messages before the kato and kawai video came out when I was describing the usefulness of the cap iron. They were a combination of people telling me to can it because either chris schwarz or rob cosman had described other than what I was advocating, and I was wrong and should ...like I said, just stop posting.

Then even after I wrote an article and there was a kato and kawai video to show what I was talking about, I still got those emails, anyway. It was pretty ridiculous. Several months later after it was topic du jour on the forums for a while, I got a message from someone telling me that I had learned it from Chris Schwarz.

I suppose in a way, it's almost a bit funny, because proper use of the cap iron is the equalizer between vintage and premium planes, and in my experience, the stanley design cap iron is a bit better bone stock and it provides a nice spring for the lever cap to clamp on. The weight of a stanley plane is preferable, too, and I can't think of anything up to and including hard maple where it's lacking in weight.

Two other things that I found outright wrong:
* getting old tools into shape is false economy (sure, it might be if you don't think about how you'd like to do it quickly. Doing something poorly or slowly and drawing a conclusion to fall again on the side of new tools is a poor suggestion)
* LN had to make a drawknife because good ones are hard to find and hard to use. I had to go track down the blog post to make sure that I didn't misquote. He claims to have spent a day grinding his grandfather's drawknife. That's odd, again, just like the bullet point above. I watched a video of curtis buchanan describing and demonstrating bringing a vintage drawknife into shape. It wasn't a long process. I recall looking through shop after shop for good backsaws at the time, and the only thing I found in droves was......drawknives. unused keen kutter drawknives for $50 (two) and gobs of good used drawknives for about $25 in any size and manner you could want. For a short period of time, i was subscribed to the blog (i was subscribed to a whole lot of blogs), but things like that made me change my mind about it -advocating solutions to problems that didn't exist. And at high cost to (who is usually going to be the folks buying something like a $170 drawknife?) beginners.

Okay, let's step through some of this:

What about the cap iron was CS wrong about? And, if 'several' people sent you PM's about your use of the cap iron, why is CS the only one you are telling all of us not to listen to?

So, after you wrote your article about proper use of the cap iron, you received a message saying you learned this from CS. Was that message from CS? Not sure how that message from 'someone' has tainted your opinion of Christopher Schwartz.

So, proper use of the cap iron as an 'equalizer'. How does the Stanley design cap iron prove to be better than the cap irons from Hock, Lee Valley/Veritas or Lie-Nielsen? In my limited experience, this is not the case. Getting a 'vintage' Stanley cap iron to behave is (in mo) a pains taking process, while getting a (Hock, Veritas, Lie-Nielsen) cap iron to behave is ... easy, they are about ready to go right out of the box. I have seen no advantage to any spring provided to the lever cap. Not really sure what advantage that spring could provide.

I happen to agree that getting old tools into working condition is NOT false economy. I just can't seem to find where CS said that. Do you have a reference?

I have no frame of reference for your drawknife argument. It seems like you have a problem with how long it took to grind the tool based on how long it took someone else to grind the tool? Let me suggest this ; Different people work at different speeds?

I have nothing to add to your last paragraph. I don't understand the point.

[David Weaver]

Okay, let's step through some of this:

What about the cap iron was CS wrong about? And, if 'several' people sent you PM's about your use of the cap iron, why is CS the only one you are telling all of us not to listen to?

Because it was CS that they were quoting. They weren't saying it of their own experience, none of them had any or they wouldn't have been sending me anything. They quoted (for the most part) Schwarz and a couple quoted cosman.

So, after you wrote your article about proper use of the cap iron, you received a message saying you learned this from CS. Was that message from CS? Not sure how that message from 'someone' has tainted your opinion of Christopher Schwartz.

You asked for something where he was wrong. I pointed it out. I thought it was icing on the cake that the same person being quoted as then being described as the origin where I learned to use a double iron. There wasn't an issue, though, with anyone saying both and being the same person.

So, proper use of the cap iron as an 'equalizer'. How does the Stanley design cap iron prove to be better than the cap irons from Hock, Lee Valley/Veritas or Lie-Nielsen? In my limited experience, this is not the case. Getting a 'vintage' Stanley cap iron to behave is (in mo) a pains taking process, while getting a (Hock, Veritas, Lie-Nielsen) cap iron to behave is ... easy, they are about ready to go right out of the box. I have seen no advantage to any spring provided to the lever cap. Not really sure what advantage that spring could provide.

It takes less than five minutes to prepare a stanley cap iron. The rounded edge is at an ideal angle for use on stuff we plane in the united states, and when you're done, you also have a nice spring from the cap iron pushing back on the lever cap. The "improved" cap irons are almost without that, which makes the lever cap retention screw position more picky.

I happen to agree that getting old tools into working condition is NOT false economy. I just can't seem to find where CS said that. Do you have a reference?

No, but it was in regard to chisels, I'm sure it could be found pretty easily.

I have no frame of reference for your drawknife argument. It seems like you have a problem with how long it took to grind the tool based on how long it took someone else to grind the tool? Let me suggest this ; Different people work at different speeds?

I have nothing to add to your last paragraph. I don't understand the point.

The statement that it took a day to grind a vintage drawknife indicates one of two things:
* the drawknife wasn't in a condition to be restored, which makes it an irrelevant comparison to the LN
* the person doing the restoring isn't very competent at restoring

[Mark Engel]

Again, what did CS (or Cosman) say that was incorrect about the cap iron? That point that others with no experience quoted to YOU about? And why did they ask you?

I'm sorry, I just don't understand what any of this means:

You asked for something where he was wrong. I pointed it out. I thought it was icing on the cake that the same person being quoted as then being described as the origin where I learned to use a double iron. There wasn't an issue, though, with anyone saying both and being the same person.

Now this seems to be a bit of a variable.

It takes less than five minutes to prepare a stanley cap iron. The rounded edge is at an ideal angle for use on stuff we plane in the united states, and when you're done, you also have a nice spring from the cap iron pushing back on the lever cap. The "improved" cap irons are almost without that, which makes the lever cap retention screw position more picky.

I think you mean to say that it takes YOU less than five minutes to prepare a Stanley cap iron. I have 'restored' many 'vintage' Stanley planes, and I can't remember a single one where five minutes work was sufficient to properly fit a cap iron. But, maybe I'm just slow.

I think this really shows the mind set being discussed here:

The statement that it took a day to grind a vintage drawknife indicates one of two things:
* the drawknife wasn't in a condition to be restored, which makes it an irrelevant comparison to the LN
* the person doing the restoring isn't very competent at restoring

It sounds to me like you are saying, either buy tools that don't need any restoration, or become more competent at the task.

So, should these 'incompetent' folks maybe consider buying the new premium offerings from the likes of LN or LV, etc.?

[David Weaver]

I don't know if I'll have another plane that needs the cap iron to be setup in the near future, if I do, I will video it. I use three stones to do it. A carborundum stone, a fine india and a hard arkansas. I have never had to repeat the process for any reason.

I'm not sure what's not clear. Chris Schwarz's prior stances was that the cap iron didn't function to control tearout and it should be kept out of the way. There is a video of rob cosman on youtube saying (paraphrased), "it is only there to hold the iron in place, don't let anyone tell you any different".

Because both were saying that the cap iron didn't mitigate tearout, when I said it did, I got PMs from fans of theirs. Some tried to be polite imparting their wisdom, others just told me I had no idea what I was talking about because CS had taught otherwise.

I can't say it any clearer than that. I'd assume that if Cosman and CS had not stated that the cap iron wasn't used to mitigate tearout, I never would've heard from any of those people. That's not an unreasonable assumption.

In terms of restoration, people should learn to do it. There will come a time that you have to make your own tools, if for no other reason, because it will take less time to make them sometimes than it does to find something suitable. I'm not saying either/or, i'm plainly saying people should learn to do it. Restoration doesn't involve cosmetic wizardry or lapping everything to optical surfaces, it involves the geometry of tools being correct, and nothing contrary being in the way (e.g., if there is slag on a frog, run a file over it and remove it quickly, and you're done). Lapping a plane sole and cleaning up the iron and cap iron are the only "restoration" that is required on most out of use metal planes. They are thought-free work compared to making tools (not difficult).

Same with buchanan's discussion of setting up a used drawknife - it's not arduous or difficult and the information is right there. There's no reason to run from it and claim a need for turnkey tools.

Whether or not someone buys premium tools is up to them. They shouldn't be led to believe that there is something arduous, or involving "false economy" in restoring tools or using decent vintage tools, though. They just need to learn from the right person instead of someone who would appear to be advising on something they are not good at.