The Sacrilege!

[Kees Heiden]

popularwoodworking.com/woodworking-blogs/chris-schwarz-blog/observation-vintage-handplanes


Actually I don't really have an opinion about this. I live in ignorant bliss regarding new planes.

[Steve Voigt]

Statistics lesson #1:
Avoid drawing broad conclusions from non-representative samples.
In this case, the better conclusion would be "the type of person who is willing to shell out a few thousand bucks and a week of time to take a CS class prefers new planes."

[Kees Heiden]

I was thinking, maybe it is just the weight of the newer planes? Beginners tend to like heavy planes. Light ones are an aquired taste.

But like I said, I really have no idea.

[David Weaver]

Another illustration of why Chris Schwarz's advice is only relevant for beginners.

EDIT: that was maybe too generous....there are better places for beginners to get advice, too.

[Christopher Charles]

Here, perhaps, is the key sentence:

"They will wait for me to sharpen them and then pick them out of my tool chest. "

[glenn bradley]

Here, perhaps, is the key sentence:

"They will wait for me to sharpen them and then pick them out of my tool chest. "

Too true . I can certainly see why he shelved the article several times. As with Festool, EZ Smart and Old Arn, discussions of new versus old in the hand tool arena causes even the meekest craftsman to rise and voice his opinion. Some hornet's nests should not be poked .

[Kim Malmberg]

Another illustration of why Chris Schwarz's advice is only relevant for beginners.

And who says advice for beginners isn't relevant? I have a slight problem with comments which excludes certain people from certain others. This is being from someone who has no idea whatsoever how it feels to use a pristine, new hand tool from any maker. But I certainly am a beginning woodworker.

I agree very much that many a times less is more. I also agree that if you focus on the work at hand rather than the tools, you might get something done. But even I who only use vintage tools and standard cutters, most of which have wear and tear, have been flirting with the idea of buying one newly made, unharmed quality plane with a thicker cutter, just to see if maybe the hand plane requiring very little attention might get my job done better or faster - or even both.

My point: I don't care if anyone dislikes Chris Schwartz. He's not necessarily my go to guy either. But I can't fault him for making observations which most of us surely can't be opinionated about - simply because we haven't been there. And if you really read what he writes, he is saying he loves old hand tools.

If there is one thing I really like about Chris Schwartz is that he promotes the small amount of modern era tool makers. I think it's wonderful that in this time and age we still have people and companies around who care about quality, local production and customer service. And as much as I love vintage tools, I sometimes get a bad conscience for not buying tools from these modern makers. We all know that woodworking isn't exactly the hottest hobby on the planet and therefore I think we are quite lucky to have these small companies making excellent tools and at times even improving on age old and approved designs.

[David Weaver]

And who says advice for beginners isn't relevant?

It's not relevant once you're not a beginner. But even if you're a beginner, there are gobs of publications that focus on techniques and less on specific tools. The draw toward shiny things does make us all want to gravitate toward tool focus when we're new. Maybe not all of us, but most of us. If it's just a little flatter, with an iron that's just a little thicker, and a little harder, and an alloy that's a little more wear resistant with an adjuster that's just a little finer and just add a pound or two....then I'll do better work with it. But that just doesn't end up being the case.

[Winton Applegate]

David,

Slams against CS aside.
(I suppose one person is allowed to detest another person and say so if they must.)

As I read along here I was going to defend or maybe a better word for it is express my RESPECT for what you do and say about vintage planes and the fact that you have unlocked their potential and attempt to educate us lazies about it.

That, as I understand it, you have been the modern plane route along with the infill route and have found a way to leave all that behind for the simplicity of the basic stock every man's (person's) hand plane is commendable.

And the simplest sharpening method to go with it.

That's good stuff in deed.

A side note :
It drives me crazy when I am around people who do the following; and I find it is, more often than not, sales people or manipulative people who do it.
Not that you are that; YOU ARE NOT.
anyway
what drives me nuts is when some one says "absolutely" over and over to agree with what another has said or to sell them something. Especially when what they are agreeing to or selling is far short of 100 percent : good, useful, intelligent, sound, a good value . . . _______
you fill in the blank.

So . . . David
I really respect what you have to offer.
One little quibble though

Change "just doesn't' to "usually doesn't".

In my quest to conquer all the wood that was considered extreme I indeed found some definite utility in at least a couple of the "questionable improvement features" you list as being baseless.

If it's just a little flatter, with an iron that's just a little thicker, and a little harder, and an alloy that's a little more wear resistant with an adjuster that's just a little finer and just add a pound or two....then I'll do better work with it. But that just doesn't end up being the case.

OK . . . I've said too much so I will quit now.

[David Weaver]

David,

Slams against CS aside.
(I suppose one person is allowed to detest another person and say so if they must.)

As I read along here I was going to defend or maybe a better word for it is express my RESPECT for what you do and say about vintage planes and the fact that you have unlocked their potential and attempt to educate us lazies about it.

That, as I understand it, you have been the modern plane route along with the infill route and have found a way to leave all that behind for the simplicity of the basic stock every man's (person's) hand plane is commendable.

And the simplest sharpening method to go with it.

That's good stuff in deed.

A side note :
It drives me crazy when I am around people who do the following; and I find it is, more often than not, sales people or manipulative people who do it.
Not that you are that; YOU ARE NOT.
anyway
what drives me nuts is when some one says "absolutely" over and over to agree with what another has said or to sell them something. Especially when what they are agreeing to or selling is far short of 100 percent : good, useful, intelligent, sound, a good value . . . _______
you fill in the blank.

So . . . David
I really respect what you have to offer.
One little quibble though

Change "just doesn't' to "usually doesn't".

In my quest to conquer all the wood that was considered extreme I indeed found some definite utility in at least a couple of the "questionable improvement features" you list as being baseless.



OK . . . I've said too much so I will quit now.

I'm struggling a little bit to find something where a new tool allows someone to do finer work (presuming that the "old" tool it's compared to is undamaged).

And don't accuse me of not being lazy. I can cut a good honest swath right through the definition of laziness

I don't know that manipulative is quite right, but I did get sent to "time out" when I was in school for being an instigator. Sometimes I could tell people wanted to cause trouble, and they just needed someone to give them an idea on what to do. I usually steered clear of making the trouble on my own, though So if I can instigate the use of old tools, that's good. If someone's got no interest after getting the information, that's OK, too (which is where I differ from someone in sales - that and I usually stray away from giving advice that would provide any personal gain to me).

[Sean Hughto]

I'm struggling a little bit to find something where a new tool allows someone to do finer work (presuming that the "old" tool it's compared to is undamaged).

YES, THIS. We don't have to try to devine "better" by fickle choices of newbies who can have as many planes as they like (i.e., are not limited to one). 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.


If more expensive and fancier means better results, does that mean we should all aspire to Norris infills and what have you?


I used to think that the one place where something like an LN might actually perform better was in smoothing super difficult grained woods. I haven't done the the tests, but I'm skeptical about even that these days.


So why do I have LNs in addition to my vintage planes? They are a bit tighter feeling in use in some circumstances, for one - not that this affects the result really. Things like far less backlash on the depth adjustment wheel and so forth. They are also often a bit more foolproof having been made to tight tolerances with somewhat superior castings and materials - again, the cut is not affected. I can get a used base model Honda accord that is nice to use and gets me there everytime; I can get a brand new luxury model Honda Accord that gets me from place to place no better and not particularly differently as far as aesthetic feel, but sometimes, leather seats and such are nice, even if unnecessary.

[Daniel Rode]

That's really the point. All else (like cost) being equal, I would be very likely to choose a new premium plane. They are beautifully designed and manufactured and I'm sure they are a pleasure to use. The one exception might be the weight. The premium planes are often heavier than their vintage counter parts and sometimes a lighter tool is an advantage.

I look to the 100+ years that vintage Stanley Bailey style planes have been in the hands of craftsman. Homes and museums are filled with the things made with these tools. I can't point to one that would have been better if only they had a LN jointer or a LV BU smoother.

YES, THIS. We don't have to try to devine "better" by fickle choices of newbies who can have as many planes as they like (i.e., are not limited to one). 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.


If more expensive and fancier means better results, does that mean we should all aspire to Norris infills and what have you?


I used to think that the one place where something like an LN might actually perform better was in smoothing super difficult grained woods. I haven't done the the tests, but I'm skeptical about even that these days.


So why do I have LNs in addition to my vintage planes? They are a bit tighter feeling in use in some circumstances, for one - not that this affects the result really. Things like far less backlash on the depth adjustment wheel and so forth. They are also often a bit more foolproof having been made to tight tolerances with somewhat superior castings and materials - again, the cut is not affected. I can get a used base model Honda accord that is nice to use and gets me there everytime; I can get a brand new luxury model Honda Accord that gets me from place to place no better and not particularly differently as far as aesthetic feel, but sometimes, leather seats and such are nice, even if unnecessary.

[David Weaver]

I haven't done the the tests, but I'm skeptical about even that these days.

for good reason. There is no difference in either a LN or a plain stanley (in decent shape) to handle difficult grain.

That said, the LN bench planes are fine pieces of gear, I really like them a lot. If I had infinite money, I would've kept mine, but I'm to the point where I prefer the overall experience (quick sharpening, ease of mind if they get a few dots of rust, etc) of the vintage planes.

But I must give LN credit, when they were focusing on bringing good capable planes to market, before they got into this whole excess gadget and road show stuff, I was impressed - they did a good job. The high priced gadgetry that they're adding on now, and running around demonstrating their 8 as a smoother, etc, and telling people that the cap iron is too fiddly - not so much. (not to mention the fact that they put a video out suggesting that people shouldn't grind their irons). They're in the weeds now, but their bench planes are still great if that's your desire.

[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. .