Apart from the Sacrilege

[Kees Heiden]

Well, mr. Schwarz's investigation method is a bit dubious, but the question still remains. Are the new LN and LV planes really better then the vintage planes? And in what respect are they better?

I can't compare, because I don't have new benchplanes. But I have another example. I like to use both my Stanley #4 and my wooden coffin plane. The Stanley is certainly easier to use, quicker to adjust, not warping over the year, quicker to sharpen with its thinner blade. But the woody is lighter, has less friction, feels better in the hand. All in all, when the going gets tough, I tend to reach for the Stanley. Both are as perfectly tuned as possible for me.

At the other hand, I have a Chinese Quengsheng blockplane and a Stanley #18. Both are prefectly allright and I have no favorite.

[Brian Holcombe]

You're certainly in the mood to stir the pot.

I have little basis for comparison, because I only own LN planes. That being said one of the woodworkers nearest to me (in proximity), who is also my reliable source of information outside of SMC, owns vintage planes, wooden planes and LV planes. I know from speaking with him that he considers his LV planes among his favorites.

[Kees Heiden]

You're certainly in the mood to stir the pot.

Ha, that's what pots are made for, aren't they?

Actually I was reading a bit in the Seaton chest book this morning. One of their observations was that the tools mostly weren't very perfect. For example chisels were grinded on both surfaces but not very flat. People back then could make things with astonishing perfection (for example the sawplate thickness was very accurately tapered), but perfection was time consuming and costly, so they only cared for precision where it really counts. That's a different mindset then what we have in our machine perfect modern world. Using our handtools we can go back a little bit to that mindset, but we are fairly deeply engrained with the need for perfect everything. For example when I write that shooting boards are hardly neccessary in a handtool shop, I don't get much acclamation.

[Brian Holcombe]

Cheers!

I use shooting boards because I show end grain often times on my projects. My evolution into a mostly hand tool user was due in part to the fact that I found the product of machine tools to be mostly disappointing in lack or perfection or just ubiquity and without a human element. Using hand tools you have to constantly be up on what is what (checking for flatness, squareness, act), but with machine tools its often assumed that they're doing the job with perfection.

[Joe Bailey]

This much is clear -- no one (much less Mr S.) with the most basic understanding of survey methodology would claim that Mr Schwarz's students represent an adequate sampling population.
Notice he takes pains to call it simply "an observation."

And at the end of the day, that is all that it is -- one man reporting what he has seen while teaching the craft to relative or absolute newcomers.

[David Weaver]

This much is clear -- no one (much less Mr S.) with the most basic understanding of survey methodology would claim that Mr Schwarz's students represent an adequate sampling population.

Actually, he may teach enough students to have a credible count, but credible group size or not, it's sort of like taking the opinion of freshman pre-med students on who their favorite vendor of surgical tools is for dermatological excisions.

[Jonas Baker]

*you can interchange LN and LV in my response as well.

I've owned many vintage stanley's as well as many LN planes (and I've used many Lee Valley Planes), and I also use wooden planes. I've actually grown to prefer wooden planes for many uses, for aesthetic reasons, but that's another discussion. When I need to do precision work, I much prefer using LN. I've never used an old stanley plane that was as flat or as finely machined as a LN (or LV). I know a lot of people believe having a flat plane is overrated, and for coarse work, you certainly don't need a flat plane, but for finer work and smoothing, the flatness is an asset to me.

One example of a place where a flat plane comes in handy for me is when joining long boards, or in my case joining guitar tops and backs, where the fit must be perfect. I'm sure you could do this with an older plane that's either been flattened, or even one that's not perfectly flat, but it is much more precise and easily repeatable for me with a plane that is both flat and milled flat on the sides as well.

So in terms of precision and flattness, they are "better" if that is what you prefer. Anyway, besides all of this, this precision machining and flatness leaves me with the feeling that the planes are more solid and "better" to me than the old ones. My version of better may be different from yours.

That being said, I love a tool that shows the wear of years of hard use, but still works well. And for me, getting an old stanley or an old wooden plane takes a bit of work to get them to work as well as they can.

Best,

Jonas

[David Weaver]

One example of a place where a flat plane comes in handy for me is when joining long boards, or in my case joining guitar tops and backs, where the fit must be perfect. I'm sure you could do this with an older plane that's either been flattened, or even one that's not perfectly flat, but it is much more precise and easily repeatable for me with a plane that is both flat and milled flat on the sides as well.

With a reasonably square vintage 7, I doubt you'd be able to tell a guitar joined by on vs. the other. You're right about the jointers, I have always lapped every jointer I've gotten. Doing so on a long glass shelf just makes them ever so slightly convex so that getting a long straight edge is easy.

I've had some stanley jointers that have been very far out of flat, including concave, which isn't a situation that can be left as is, but it's easily fixed with a $20 glass shelf and a few bucks worth of 80 grit psa.

I also had a LN 8 that was exactly at spec (1.5 thousandths) concave, which was incredibly annoying on a 4 foot long board, because it would have to take several passes on a board before it would take a through shaving, and then the effect was doubled when match jointing two boards. But then there is a dilemma with the LN, do you lap it? It makes it a lot less marketable - it's still in spec. I sold it.

LN does get you where you want to be without modification 9 times out of 10, though.

[Brian Holcombe]

That last part is the trick for me, I have so little interest in modifying tools right off the bat since I feel like I may regret the modification later on. I sharpen the blade and go to work.

[Frank Martin]

I started the hobby 12 years ago and have very little time for woodworking. So, in general I always prefer to invest more in the ready to use / better performing tool out of the box than refurbishing old tools to maximize work on wood rather than the tools. When I first started I purchased some new Records planes and also got some old Stanleys from ebay. Could never get them to working properly, which I am sure was limited by my knowledge and skills. When I purchased new LV planes and their power sharpening system, I was amazed how well the planes started working. So, I say there is room for both new and old. I also really appreciate what LV, LN and other small makers has done for the hobby and don't mind supporting them in the process.

[Jim Matthews]

That last part is the trick for me, I have so little interest in modifying tools right off the bat since I feel like I may regret the modification later on. I sharpen the blade and go to work.

A perfectly valid approach for those of us the value time more than money.
The contention is that the novice has no point of comparison, other than what a tool seller might say.

The difference in quality between the top makers and less expensive versions is analogous
to the difference between a scratch golfer and those playing professionally.

It is my contention that novices get the best results from the finest tools
and the most skilled practitioners can manage passable results with any old thing.

It was said that Charlie Parker could get people to listen to him playing a garden hose...

[Brian Holcombe]

My obvious break in this trend being the dovetail plane, lol.

In working under a master machinist in my youth I noticed that he would take the path of least resistance when it came to tools. If he could built it easily he would, otherwise he would buy it. The goal was always the same, a better result. The place was constantly evolving as a combination of new tools continuously mixed with tools up to a century old, all of which will kept in good repair. He was earning a living along the way, so it was hardly ever possible to sink a day's effort or more into a tool that could be bought.

[David Weaver]

(interchange LN and LV as necessary, except where chipbreaker comes up)

If you set it up as a parameterized thing, I'd grade it as follows:
* flatter - LN (flatter is good)
* easier to grind (stock stanley) - easier is good
* longer edge holding - LN - longer is good
* easier to sharpen - depends on the stones, they are the same with really aggressive stones. With anything else, the stanleys are easier to sharpen
* heavier - LN - heavier than stock stanley, to me, is not good. Lighter than stock stanley can also be not good
* prettier - that's an opinion. I think a clean stanley plane looks nicer (one with good rosewood), I think the cherry on LNs looks cheap and their choice of knurling on the knob looks cheap. Otherwise the LNs are pretty attractive - they looked nice with cocobolo
* cap iron design - stanley is better. It might be cheaper to make but it's still a better design. LN had some trouble even figuring out where to locate the holes so you could use them
* adjusters - stanley more coarse, LN more fine. Probably beginners will prefer the LN fineness, but someone who isn't a beginner won't care. The whole backlash argument doesn't amount to anything in real time at the bench, and the biggest offenders are probably the millers falls planes with the stamped yokes - I still like them

The balance of "quality" measures would point toward the LNs. You can drop them, the tolerances are tighter, they're generally newer and they haven't had an era where they made "cheap ones"

The modern irons on LN planes are definitely harder, and if taking a million 1 thousandth shavings is your objective, the hardness and wear resistance probably points toward them being preferable.

If, however, you're dimensioning wood from rough where the bulk of shavings will be heavy, a super hard iron really isn't any advantage. It makes the plane a bit more of a nuisance to grind and sharpen, especially if it's harder and thicker at the same time.

Harder on a smoother is a nice quality, though, but it doesn't amount to a lot if the balance of sharpening time vs. planing isn't any better (it's similar between a stock stanley and an LN if you sharpen them the right way, though it might lean just a bit in favor of LN if you hone a smoother with two diamond grits).

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why LN thinks that their new chipbreaker design is improved. It is not better at breaking chips, and it has lost most of that lovely spring that the hump on a stanley chipbreaker provides under lever cap tension.

I liked LNs better when I was a beginner (doing mostly smoothing), they're new, clean, you haven't figured out how to correct anything with stanley type planes that come used, etc. I like using stanley planes better now for a whole host of reasons, but still understand why beginners would like LN planes. They (beginners) have no concept of what they'll be doing as woodworkers, especially if they choose to go totally hand planes, it's easy to admire attributes that don't amount to anything when you don't know why they would or wouldn't be important. For some reason, and I think it's one of the things that you don't necessarily need to parameterized, over time, despite having a shelf full of LN and LV planes, I gravitated back toward the stanley planes to actually do work. And once I did that, I went to oilstones and natural stuff (like the jasper), and find that more satisfying, too. I'm sure I can get work done faster now than I did before I gravitated toward stanley planes, but that has to do more with familiarity with dimensioning by hand, and i'd guess that I'd work the same speed with either type.

The biggest flaw in the whole discussion about what beginners pick out of a bucket is that it actually implies you're accomplishing something more with the LN, and you really aren't. All of the old forum wisdom about stanley planes (the backlash is bad and it affects your ability to get work done, they are too out of flat, the cap iron is cheap and flimsy, the iron is cheap and flimsy) all of that is bunk.

[Sean Hughto]

I disagree with you about the backlash. One of the great benefits of the BD Stanley design is that you can take a pass, lift the plane and make a minor adjustment of the depth wheel without even taking you hand off the tote, and take another swipe (lather, rinse, repeat). A responsive wheel is very nice to have as you adjust on the fly without making full turns and guessing when it engaged to make the desired tiny adjustment. Indeed, when rough dimensioning and flattening large panels and such I often need to gradually go from coarse to fine over the course of a planing effort as I go from knocking down high spots to close to smoothing type passes or from across the grain to with the grain, etc.

[Jim Matthews]

I liked LNs better when I was a beginner (doing mostly smoothing), they're new, clean, you haven't figured out how to correct anything with stanley type planes that come used, etc.

I think this is the crux of the anecdote; when starting out - these examples are precisely tuned so that the tool is transparent;
the user doesn't need to accomodate the tool to get good results.

I had the same experience with beginners and their saxophone choices.
Some of these kids could play circles around me with my horn,
but theirs were so badly made, or poorly set up that they struggled.

To paraphrase FactCheck.org "The plural of anecdote is not data."