Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 203

Thread: The Sacrilege!

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dickinson, Texas
    Posts
    7,655
    Blog Entries
    1
    I have LN planes. I sold a LN 4 1/2 to purchase a BU smoother.

    My Bedrocks (604, 605, 607) have after market irons and breakers. They do really a nice job.
    They all produce full width, translucent shavings if need be.

    I also have a #3 Bailey with a modern Stanley iron and old breaker in it that is a favorite of mine.
    It is comfortable to use and produces full width translucent shavings. I really like the feel and balance
    of the plane. It was made in Canada and was a school plane in a previous life. So, go figure. . . .

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,582
    Quote Originally Posted by David Weaver View Post
    I think you could only conclude the stanley planes were a "crappy design" if you know as much about them as the people who used them to make a living. They are, in fact, an absolutely genius design. One that clifton, Record and LN (and others) have copied almost almost dead copies of.

    Like I said, if the backlash would've been a problem, the professional customers of stanley would've required it be dealt with. The fact that it wasn't should tell you something as a user.
    Yes - the basic design of the plane is outstanding - I'm just venting about the sloppiness of the adjustment screw. It might be that was a huge step forward as compared to the tappy-tap methods of the past. No doubt. Its just the execution of the screw and coupling was done poorly. The advantage being that the screw turns so smoothly (exactly because it is sloppy). If they had tightened it up to eliminate backlash the knob would likely need to be turned with much more force so they found a balance point that worked. With today's modern machining equipment and knowledge of screw design they can do much better. I haven't looked at the new Stanley's so I'm not saying they never improved their mechanics like the LV tool I have experience with. And yes, like I've said before, I'm not an authority, just a semi-frustrated user. To me the backlash IS a problem. To you (and others) apparently you have bigger fish to fry - I understand that.

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by jamie shard View Post
    .... I want to believe that the old planes are just as good. I used to believe the old planes were just as good.
    Well, I NEVER believed the old planes were just as good. While perhaps they can produce equivalent results, from a purely objective standpoint of the quality of the casting, machining, blade metallurgy...even just the blade thickness...it would be very difficult to come up with any standard where an old Stanley could ever measure up as "just as good".

    It shouldn't be surprising that those who are used to the older planes might have a preference for older planes, and that newcomers that have no dog in the fight might prefer new planes once they've had a chance to use them. I think people are just looking for a way to make this controversial because they have a thing again Chris. I've met Chris a couple of times...he seems like a nice fellow. He says some dopey things in his blogs sometimes and he doesn't seem to have particularly thick skin (not good for someone in the public eye, I guess). This particular kerfuffle is a tempest in a teapot.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    Well, I NEVER believed the old planes were just as good.
    Of course they are not "just as good." Though they are good enough for me. Backlash in the blade adjustment doesn't get me all upset.

    I used to drive an old (even back then) 1957 VW bus. That thing took me more places than can be remembered. If instead at the time my ride was a new Chevrolet or Ford the ride may have been more comfortable, but the memories wouldn't be any better.

    It is kind of like comparing one's wife of 30+ years to a bubbly college coed walking by in the produce section. (I hope my wife doesn't see this.) So often it comes down to what does one have more time or more money? An old coot like me ain't going to hook up with some "shiny new lady" without plenty of money so I will keep putting in the time.

    It also makes me wonder how many people took their problem planes to the classes to have CS help them tune them? Holding a plane while "dialing up on their cell phone to order a new one" makes me think these students aren't financially restricted. For a lot of people having CS's blessing can move some tool prices upward.

    I have had more than one plane that didn't want to be tuned without the aid of a machinist. I am not a machinist. This is just one of my reasons for preferring pre-WWII Stanley/Bailey planes.

    My planes can pretty much match the results of a new plane, they are just a bit more fiddly. I kind of like fiddly.

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  5. #125
    I've read this thread a couple of times with interest and I see it in a different light, maybe. The argument is about the wrong question, it doesn't matter if a modern plane is better than an old plane, that seems to depend on how you measure better. The real discussion should be about skill. It takes a certain amount of skill to prepare a surface with hand planes. A beginner may experience a level of frustration at first using an old out of tune plane. There are two solutions to the problem, do the research, learn and develop the skill necessary to use the plane or go buy a new better plane. Just because your new plane makes nice shavings out of the box doesn't mean you now can now prep your stock using hand planes. You cannot buy skill, by buying a new plane you may have actually set yourself back in skill developmental. What Mr. Schwarz didn't say in his post is how he had set up the new planes were the irons cambered, was the chip breaker ground etc.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Koepke View Post
    It is kind of like comparing one's wife of 30+ years to a bubbly college coed walking by in the produce section. (I hope my wife doesn't see this.) So often it comes down to what does one have more time or more money? An old coot like me ain't going to hook up with some "shiny new lady" without plenty of money so I will keep putting in the time.
    My planes can pretty much match the results of a new plane, they are just a bit more fiddly. I kind of like fiddly.
    jtk
    I do like your perspective Jim

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Koepke View Post
    Of course they are not "just as good." Though they are good enough for me. Backlash in the blade adjustment doesn't get me all upset.

    I used to drive an old (even back then) 1957 VW bus. That thing took me more places than can be remembered. If instead at the time my ride was a new Chevrolet or Ford the ride may have been more comfortable, but the memories wouldn't be any better.

    It is kind of like comparing one's wife of 30+ years to a bubbly college coed walking by in the produce section. (I hope my wife doesn't see this.) So often it comes down to what does one have more time or more money? An old coot like me ain't going to hook up with some "shiny new lady" without plenty of money so I will keep putting in the time.

    It also makes me wonder how many people took their problem planes to the classes to have CS help them tune them? Holding a plane while "dialing up on their cell phone to order a new one" makes me think these students aren't financially restricted. For a lot of people having CS's blessing can move some tool prices upward.

    I have had more than one plane that didn't want to be tuned without the aid of a machinist. I am not a machinist. This is just one of my reasons for preferring pre-WWII Stanley/Bailey planes.

    My planes can pretty much match the results of a new plane, they are just a bit more fiddly. I kind of like fiddly.

    jtk
    Great post Jim!

    Regards from Perth

    Derek

  8. #128
    It may not seem like it, but I have really enjoyed this discussion - when everyone gets a little vented, that's when we talk fairly unrestricted and that's (like it or not) when most people learn things and when most people learn things that they thought were true might not be. I always learn more in discussions like this than I do when there's a long discussion filled with "yes, great!!" comments, and everyone who disagrees runs away so as not to spoil the flow of the thread.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Chicago-ish
    Posts
    352
    I've enjoyed this thread too. It's been fun to kick around what "just as good" means. It's interesting that for some people, it means "it works just as good" and for others it means "it is engineered just as good"... the latter would never cross my mind as what "just as good" means in everyday usage.

    It's clear that new planes are great out of the box and there can be a satisfaction in using well-machined tools. But it seems a bit disrespectful of any working tool to say that it is somehow deficient if it is performing well. It kinda reminds me of the saying "that may work in practice, but it doesn't work in theory."
    clamp the work
    to relax the mind

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Thompson Falls, Mt
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Rode View Post
    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.
    I haven't used an expensive newer plane. My preference is to spend the time vs the money, and learn with the older turn of the century planes. It seems to be a matter of preference. I like tinkering with metal and wood, and also giving these old tools a new lease on life. I also like the idea that some craftsman from 100 years ago was using this same tool. Of course, with a 100 year old tool "buyer beware" becomes a necessity.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Stone Mountain, GA
    Posts
    751
    I figure that the guys he's talking about that have "super tuned" their vintage planes are pretty big tool nerds. They are OCD and enjoy the process of bringing an old tool into 'perfect' condition, for it's own sake. They are a bit beyond the "rational Neanderthal" who just fixes whatever needs fixing to get it working and moves on. They might even prefer the idea of making an old tool 'perfect' over buying a pre-made 'perfect' tool- because what's the fun in that? So they are naturally curious when picking up one of these modern industrial masterpieces. And the heft of these planes, the precision with which everything is ground, the lack of slop or backlash on the adjusters...it just kind of exudes the perfection they are so OCD about, in a way that even the most hyper-tuned Stanley could never do. So, they get a private thrill out of holding and using them. They might even appreciate it so much that they want to buy one. And none of this would necessarily mean that they were impressed with the difference in actual woodworking performance- Schwarz never gave an example of that. It could simply be that they (perhaps overly) value the perception of quality and perfection. Not too different from someone who would pay for a Rolex vs. a Timex.

    I can see a little bit of that in myself. There's something about the feel of the LN/LV planes that I really like- it's almost similar to the way I would admire a nice piece of furniture. It's not even really a question of function.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Thompson Falls, Mt
    Posts
    100
    Seems like we're on the same page. Both watches keep time.
    Last edited by Roger Rettenmeier; 04-15-2014 at 8:44 PM.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,457
    I was thinking (dangerous!) about this thread in the train this morning about the engineering aspects of LN versus antique Stanley planes. What's different?

    - Backlash of the adjuster. That sure is less in the LN. And less is better, even if you can live with a bit of slop.
    - Thicker blade. With the available sharpening media available today that isn't a bad development. Back in the day a thin blade was easier to keep sharp.
    - Blade steel. The old cast iron blades from Stanley were pretty good, certainly no worse then O1 and ideally suited for the available sharpening stones. A2 doesn't seem to be so hot as it was touted to be, but isn't bad either.
    - The improved capiron isn't much of an improvement at all. The only improvement is that they come tightly fitted to the blade from the factory, no aditional flattening work neccessary. But they lack the usefull spring from the Stanley design. And they come standard with a 25 degree bevel that is too low to be usefull for bending the shavings.
    - The weight of the plane. For a professional who does all dimensioning by hand a heavier plane is not a good idea. For the hobbyist market it probably doesn't make a difference.
    - The ductile iron. When you drop the plane on a concrete floor it survives. But dropping your planes is pretty stupid to begin with, and not part of the daily routine of using the plane. Ductile iron is softer then the gray cast iron used in the old Stanleys. It scratches easier, and will wear in the usual spots faster. Again no problem for the hobbyist, but a professional who does loads of edge jointing day in day out, it certainly is a problem. Especially because they didn't have PSA aluoxide sandpaper back then, not even floatglass. Wearing a groove down the length of an iron plane must have been a big problem for a woodworker.
    - The handles. Stanley used beautifull rosewood, and LN quite bland cherry. But from an environmetal point of view that is actually a good idea.

    So overall, I'm not so sure about which one is better. It depends on the market too. For the professional market back in the 19th century, the Stanley was probably a better plane then the LN would have been. Nowadays most woodworkers using handplanes are hobbyists who have different needs. The old Stanleys are often worn by now, which makes them less ideal for a beginner. The biggest asset of the LN plane is that you can buy them now, mostly ready out of the box with a guarantee for life.

  14. #134
    That's a pretty good summary, Kees.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,469
    Hi Kees

    You have put a lot of thought into this reply. It is worth a comment or two. In some areas I agree, and others I have a different perspective ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Kees Heiden View Post
    I was thinking (dangerous!) about this thread in the train this morning about the engineering aspects of LN versus antique Stanley planes. What's different?

    - Backlash of the adjuster. That sure is less in the LN. And less is better, even if you can live with a bit of slop.

    Agree.

    - Thicker blade. With the available sharpening media available today that isn't a bad development. Back in the day a thin blade was easier to keep sharp.

    Some will argue that thin is easier to sharp, and some will point out that thicker has less flex, especially relevant in a BD plane. It also depends on whether the blade uses a chipbreaker or not.

    - Blade steel. The old cast iron blades from Stanley were pretty good, certainly no worse then O1 and ideally suited for the available sharpening stones. A2 doesn't seem to be so hot as it was touted to be, but isn't bad either.

    Wood selection is paramount here. Over the weekend I was planing boards with Terry Gordon (HNT Gordon), and he commented how abrasive many Australian woods are. He sells a great deal of HSS blades. Blades made of the Veritas PM-V11 steel have a place, not only in my world, but for those who just want an edge that lasts longer. These steels are also fairly easy to hone.

    - The improved capiron isn't much of an improvement at all. The only improvement is that they come tightly fitted to the blade from the factory, no aditional flattening work neccessary. But they lack the usefull spring from the Stanley design. And they come standard with a 25 degree bevel that is too low to be usefull for bending the shavings.

    I disagree here - there is sufficient tension achieved in both LV and LN chip breakers. The extra spring in the Stanley can, in fact, make it more difficult to set up. It takes less time to hone a 45 degree bevel on the LN and LV than it takes to flatten the underside of a Stanley leading edge. Note that I am just pointing out that they are different designs and both work well as long as you are familiar with your choice.

    - The weight of the plane. For a professional who does all dimensioning by hand a heavier plane is not a good idea. For the hobbyist market it probably doesn't make a difference.

    There are very few professional woodworkers who do all their dimensioning by hand. I do not know of any in Australia. Professionals here use machines to dimension boards and may use handplanes to finish.

    - The ductile iron. When you drop the plane on a concrete floor it survives. But dropping your planes is pretty stupid to begin with, and not part of the daily routine of using the plane.

    Ductile iron is softer then the gray cast iron used in the old Stanleys. It scratches easier, and will wear in the usual spots faster. Again no problem for the hobbyist, but a professional who does loads of edge jointing day in day out, it certainly is a problem. Especially because they didn't have PSA aluoxide sandpaper back then, not even floatglass. Wearing a groove down the length of an iron plane must have been a big problem for a woodworker.

    I have never dropped a plane (touch wood!), but I am reassured knowing that my ductile planes are unlikely to be damaged in the event of an accident.

    - The handles. Stanley used beautifull rosewood, and LN quite bland cherry. But from an environmetal point of view that is actually a good idea.

    The wood used in a handle can be swapped out, as one pleases. I have done so on many occasions. Indeed, I do not hesitate to modify my tools as I see fit. I would not choose a plane based upon a replaceable/alterable item.

    So overall, I'm not so sure about which one is better. It depends on the market too. For the professional market back in the 19th century, the Stanley was probably a better plane then the LN would have been.

    Few 19th Century woodworkers would have chosen a Stanley over the better-made LN.

    Nowadays most woodworkers using handplanes are hobbyists who have different needs. The old Stanleys are often worn by now, which makes them less ideal for a beginner. The biggest asset of the LN plane is that you can buy them now, mostly ready out of the box with a guarantee for life.

    Hobbyists are not the only ones purchasing LN and LV handplanes. Time is money for a busy professional. Most I know would rather spend their time producing furniture than setting up a handplane. One of the assets of a LN or LV is not simply their build quality, but that they are reliable and ready to be used out of the box.

    Regards from Perth

    Derek


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •