Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: Weight of old planes.

  1. #1

    Weight of old planes.

    I decided to save myself a couple hundred dollars and talked myself out of buying one of the new LV 5 1/2 jacks. I already have their smoothers, and they are nice, but heavy.
    Instead I used those "savings" on old ebay Crafstman No.6 and got No. 8 from here (still waiting on it).

    Just got the Craftsman made by Miller's Falls and it is nice and light, 6 lbs and 6 oz or about 2.9 kg. 3 oz. lighter that LV 5 1/2 jack and whopping 22 oz lighter than Woodriver no. 6.

    I ended up weighing some of my planes and my old No. 5 jacks are about same weight as new No. 4 smoothers. I actually like a feel of old lighter planes better and I am a decent size and fit guy at 6'6" so actual plane weight is not really a concern, but the feel is.

    I wonder why all modern manufacturer's are compelled to use heavier weight as a positive feature. Do people really prefer heavier planes or is it easier to manufacture these heavy planes? New LV custom planes actually are lighter than the their old planes which actually persuaded me to buy their new smoother to try it out. They could go a step further and actually sell a plane with an adjustable "balast" feature I used to have a gaming PC mouse where you could adjust it's weight by inserting these metal pieces in special cartridge.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Temecula,CA
    Posts
    442
    I'm relatively new to the craft, but I also tend to like the weight of vintage hand planes. I bought a Lie Nielsen bronze #4 and this thing is heavy! Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastic plane, I have found that vintage feels better in the hand.
    I am also somewhat "fit" as I lift 3 days a week, but I find this bronze smoother gives me a workout haha.

  3. #3
    You guys have come to very reasonable conclusions.

    I think generally that the weight is increased on premium tools to make you perceive that they are authoritative in hardwoods, but it is counterproductive if you use them a lot.

    There's a difference between what feels good and effortless in 5 strokes at a woodworking show vs. what feels good to use after your heart rate has been raised a few times and your arms and legs are starting to feel a little heavy.

    Most of the full sized old woodies of appreciable width weight about the same as stanley planes. I think they were all around the same weight for good reason.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Camden, SC
    Posts
    140
    Try to get your hands on a wooden jack; based on your posts, I think you will like it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Renton, WA
    Posts
    228
    Make yourself a wooden jack. It's not that hard

  6. #6
    I actually got a 16 inch and about 3.5 lbs wooden double iron jack around holidays. From ebay, but it was old jack of Bob Rozaieski so it was a proven plane. I really like it and use it for initial prep, so I wanted a No.6 or 5 1/2 as a follow-up.
    I am not ready to make my own wooden plane, and at the moment I am more into making things that family perceives to have a value and there are only so many tangents one can take. I read David's thread about making his wooden planes, and it seems that there are lot of nuances to it that take time to master.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Cockeysville, Md
    Posts
    1,805
    I prefer the heavier planes, my favorites being the 3 4 1/2s with the heavy castings followed the LV BUS. I'm 5 foot 6 and 160 lbs and recently finished 18 months of chemotherapy so my strength and stamina are pretty low but i find the lighter planes wear me out faster than the heavies. Not what i expected but.....

    I should add that i have a plane fetish and my collection runs from #3 through #7 with multiple copies of each, including all the LV bevel up planes, but i reach for the heavies first.

    Thinking about it though, i think I push the lighter planes faster and maybe that is what wears me out....

    Brian
    The significant problems we encounter cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.

    The penalty for inaccuracy is more work

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Reinis Kanders View Post
    I actually got a 16 inch and about 3.5 lbs wooden double iron jack around holidays. From ebay, but it was old jack of Bob Rozaieski so it was a proven plane. I really like it and use it for initial prep, so I wanted a No.6 or 5 1/2 as a follow-up.
    I am not ready to make my own wooden plane, and at the moment I am more into making things that family perceives to have a value and there are only so many tangents one can take. I read David's thread about making his wooden planes, and it seems that there are lot of nuances to it that take time to master.
    It's not as difficult as it may be perceived, but, it's expensive even to make one compared to buying one that was in use. And you may screw up one or two before you get something you like.

    I think getting one that a known user had is an excellent choice, both for use and for money purposes.

    There's a lot of variance in jacks in terms of iron width, handle and weight, more so than try planes or jointers. The jack that I pictured at the end of my plane thread is a copy of a Mathieson jack/fore and it's 5.5 pounds despite being only an inch longer. .

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    South Coastal Massachusetts
    Posts
    6,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Rhodus View Post
    Try to get your hands on a wooden jack; based on your posts, I think you will like it.
    +1 on this.
    I'm a convert.

    If you're on the fence, find an ECE with the finnicky metal adjustments.
    Those things are aces, the irons excellent and the finish exceptional.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    South Coastal Massachusetts
    Posts
    6,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Reinis Kanders View Post
    I read David's thread about making his wooden planes, and it seems that there are lot of nuances to it that take time to master.
    That's an understatement.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    1,029
    I have only one modern plane. It's a Wood River #4. In general, I like the plane. The fit and finish out of the box was very good. Adjustments are smooth and it looks nice. My only complaint is the weight. It's a heavy chunk of metal and 99 times out of 100, I'd prefer a lighter plane. Eventually, I'll find a vintage (pre-war) Stanley #4 to replace it.
    -- Dan Rode

    "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Rode View Post
    I have only one modern plane. It's a Wood River #4. In general, I like the plane. The fit and finish out of the box was very good. Adjustments are smooth and it looks nice. My only complaint is the weight. It's a heavy chunk of metal and 99 times out of 100, I'd prefer a lighter plane. Eventually, I'll find a vintage (pre-war) Stanley #4 to replace it.
    It seems that Stanley No. 4 is very popular on eBay. Very hard to find a decent deal and I have pretty much given up on pursuing them. I have relatively long fingers and based on a too tight fit of my Millers Falls No. 4 have decided that variants of No. 5 are my go to planes. I have four No.5 that I setup for various purposes, Millers Falls is my favorite because rear handle is about 3/4 inch further to the rear than Stanley so there is more space for my fingers. I also have old No.5 bedrock that still looks like regular non-bedrock, but is about inch shorter and very light, I use it with heavy camber and it is pretty sweet that way.

    I attached a picture that shows the difference in rear tote shapes and placement.
    2015-01-14 10.41.06-large.jpg
    2015-01-14 10.40.21-large.jpg

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knob Noster, MO
    Posts
    204
    That Stanley casting looks rough compared to the MF plane. Sorry first thing that caught my eye.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dickinson, Texas
    Posts
    7,655
    Blog Entries
    1
    Your work bench is absolutely too clean!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    i find the lighter planes wear me out faster than the heavies.
    This could be due to how the plane is used to do its work.

    Peter Sellers has a video where he shows a plane taking a shaving while just pulling on the knob with something like rope.

    He mentions pushing downward on a plane while moving it forward uses more effort than letting the plane do the down force and the user only applying the forward motion.

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

Posting Permissions

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