Un-boxing and tuneup of a $10 Harbor Freight bench plane

[Steve H Graham]

No one really needs a $400 smooth plane. No one can look at a piece of furniture and tell whether it was made with a Harbor Freight or a Karl Holtey. It's not right to convince people otherwise when they're trying to get into the hobby. Frank Klausz and Paul Sellers use old Stanley planes, alongside whatever else they have. One wonders how many expensive new planes they would have if the manufacturers didn't give them to them. I would have a bunch myself if Lie-Nielsen begged me to take them and use them in videos. Unfortunately, I have to pay for my tools.

If a person is too lazy or busy, or unable to develop the simple skill, to spend two hours fixing an old Stanley, how will that person ever manage to build anything out of wood? You can't complain about spending a little time fixing a plane and then spend twenty hours making a cutting board.

The people who built the furniture and did the other woodworking at the palace at Versailles used wooden planes, carbon steel saws, and foot-powered lathes. Nobody using a Lie-Nielsen plane today does better work than they did.

I'm not suggesting everyone should use Harbor Freight planes, but obviously, some skilled people have managed to do it, and many others have done great with $25 Stanleys from Ebay. It hasn't been that long since Stanleys and Unions and so on were the best tools available, and top craftsmen used them without problems. Look at all the exquisite furniture that has been built with them.

My first plane was a c. 1980 Stanley #4 I found in my dad's garage. It was a real piece of junk. I fettled it for fun, and I found it worked beautifully, even with the big crater in the bottom where someone let it rust. I kept it even though it's cheap because I would have to be crazy to throw out an excellent plane. It makes me wonder how many good planes people have thrown out because they never gave them a chance.

[Mike Kreinhop]

For me, there is a huge difference between restoring a plane that had a good design and fixing something that was flawed from the start. In my youth, I would likely have taken on the task of putting hours into a HF plane just to bring it up to a usable standard. However, now I prefer to expend my time on other tasks, like using the plane that doesn't need so much effort just to make it work. The time invested to shape and sharpen the iron is a sunk cost no matter which plane I use.

I appreciate the effort that went into improving the HF plane, but it's not something I would do.

[george wilson]

Back in the 60's,when I did not have a lot of money,I made fine guitars with only an old Stanley block plane, which was used for all planing, even the process of reducing the pre sawn 3/16" ,book matched sheets of Brazilian rosewood and German spruce. They required to be more like 1/8" thick. I had a few chisels,and finally got a set of Marples,which are my go to chisels today. I had a small chip carving type knife,which was used for everything. Scrapers were made from junked hand saws. I had an old Lufkin 2' steel rule, which I still have.And a few mis matched used needle files. I had a 1950's Craftsman crosscut saw, which I still have (WHY?) ,and not because there was anything great about it! And an old Disston back saw. These were my hand tools.

If I HAD to use a new HF plane,today, the first thing I'd do would be to make a new blade for it from 01 or W1. Then,I'd flatten the sole, and do the other things needed to make it serviceable. After I had used it for a while, I'd remove the blade I made, and at least make a wooden body for it!

BTW,the handle on the HF shown,and the front knob are far from the ugliest handles I have seen on new, much more expensive planes. Since I can only stand downright ugly for a certain length of time,I'd soon be making new handles for those planes too!


As a side note: a few days ago,my wife bought a 12" wide plaster spreader with a nice blue spring steel blade about 4" tall. It would make a good blade for a back saw. I'm not sure if it was made from 1095 or 1085 steel,but seemed to flex well. It is about 20 thousandths thick.

[Joe Tilson]

The old saying goes "my house my rules", I have purchased old and fettled, and new and fettled. A few weeks ago I purchased a Stanley 60 1/2 for $7.00 that needed a blade. Some time ago I purchased a few Hock blades when I had the money, and one of those blades was for a 60 1/2. Now I have a tools that rivals my LN 102, but having said that, I like my MF 1455B just as well. Now I have three very good users. It ends up being that way with all my planes. Hey I just like working to restore any of the older hand tools. All I had to do to the LN 102 was sharpen and go. That was fun too! Still not as much fun as making the old Stanley sing again. Now I'm going to start on the 50 saws I have to restore. If you see a fellow running around SC with Popeye arms, just say Joe is that you?

[James Waldron]

Several years ago, I was gifted by a special person with three (!) Anant bench planes, a No. 3, a No. 5 and a No. 7. There was no option: they had to be put in service or I might be put out of service (so to speak). So off to the shop I go.

Out of the box they were so-so at best. The blades needed work on the backs and honing before even attempting a cut. Then it got interesting:

The No. 7 did best of the three; to get it going, I did a bit of deburring of the mouth, adjusted the set of the frog, polished the chip breaker and broke the edges of the base casting. It was good to go and still is. It actually performs quite well and the blade holds an edge far better than I expected.

The No. 5 had all the same issues as the No. 7 and a couple more. The frog wasn't sitting square because of a large burr on one of the upper seats of the casting. That was easy to remove. And the sole was a bit out of flat. A bit of work on the granite with a range of grits fixed that. And again good to go.

The greatest amount of work went into the No. 3. As expected, it had all the problems of the others - and more of them. Lots of burrs, lots of grinding the sole on the granite plate, side walls out of square (but I'm not likely to use it as a shooter, so who cares?). Then there was the lever cap. Rough casting, little evidence of cleaning up the casting. Kidney shaped hole was very messy and took a lot of work to clean up and the chip breaker engagement was awful, with a "bumpy" edge that didn't sit flat when engaged. And attempting to use the plane resulted in the blade moving and the lever cap being loosened. After a good bit of filing and polishing, I got the lever cap to fit properly. But then after taking two or three shavings, the lever cap would pop loose again. After a bit of head scratching, it finally dawned on me: the lever cap screw was too long, bottoming out in the frog and never getting to the point of a proper fit of the lever cap. Working down the tip of the screw and the thing finally worked as it should.

Whew! But they were in service and so was I!!! And unlike rust hunts, there had been no rust to deal with.

As I understand it, when Irwin bought Record, they sold off tooling for Record planes to Anant. The castings made in India are pretty good as far as I can tell. The "fit and finsh" work after the castings are demolded was less good and apparently inconsistent on these examples. Once the work that should have been done in the foundry is done by the purchaser, a very good user results. I have a number of Stanley and Record planes as well. While I haven't put a micrometer to work on them, it is my impression that the castings on the Records (and now on the Anants) are a wee bit heavier than the Stanleys. In any case, they are all excellent performers in my shop.

I haven't seen the Anant planes in the US market in a while. Highland used to carry them. Anyone know what's up with them?

[Patrick Chase]

I saw Marty's video and thought it was great. There are too many people giving noobs the idea that a Veritas or Lie-Nielsen is a necessity.

Depends what your time is worth.

I have an HF33, and I think mine took ~3 hrs to clean up. There is no way that I came out financially ahead in that transaction, compared to buying an LV/LN that would have worked with a minimum of effort. In my case I did it "for kicks" and to see how much performance I could wring out of a POS, not because it was the most cost-effective way to obtain a plane.

That's particularly true when you consider that the HF has no cap iron, and simply can't be made to perform at the same level as a quality BD plane.

[Jim Koepke]

Depends what your time is worth.

To me my every second is a priceless wonder.

Sadly, I have never met that fellow who pays folks a lot of money for not taking the time to refurbish an old tool.

Just for fun the other day I bought a hatchet for $2. It cleaned up rather well. The handle was rather ugly and someone had used nails to replace a wedge. After a bit of work, it was shown to the person from whom it was purchased. He asked if the handle was replaced, it wasn't.

Two bucks and a bit of elbow grease isn't bad for a True Temper Kelly Works Flint Edge hatchet. Of course those few priceless hours are gone forever. There will likely be as many hours in the future showing the hatchet to my grandkids and telling them how that old rusty piece of warmed over death was restored while we are chopping some firewood.

Besides, for me there is enjoyment to be found in honing a blade or rehabilitating an old tool.

It is kind of the same with cars. Some folks will only want something off the show room floor. While others derive great pleasure from picking up a pile of parts which after time and effort they can be using (driving) something that was close to being nothing more than scrap metal.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

To me my every second is a priceless wonder.

Sadly, I have never met that fellow who pays folks a lot of money for not taking the time to refurbish an old tool.

Ah, the joys of retirement :-).

For those of us who aren't there yet, that fellow is called an "employer". Many of us receive a significant part of our compensation in performance-based incentives of one sort or another, so there is a very real tradeoff between doing time-consuming but ultimately unnecessary stuff for ourselves and maximizing those incentives. For that matter the same is true of SMC time, which is related to my disappearance earlier this year.

I also have kids, so disappearing for 3 hours to "fettle my plane" incurs domestic costs as well. Now that my son is almost 7 I can sometimes convince him to help, which causes the time to be drawn from a different and less-frowned-upon account...

[Jim Koepke]

Ah, the joys of retirement :-).

For those of us who aren't there yet, that fellow is called an "employer". Many of us receive a significant part of our compensation in performance-based incentives of one sort or another, so there is a very real tradeoff between doing time-consuming but ultimately unnecessary stuff for ourselves and maximizing those incentives. For that matter the same is true of SMC time, which is related to my disappearance earlier this year.

I also have kids, so disappearing for 3 hours to "fettle my plane" incurs domestic costs as well. Now that my son is almost 7 I can sometimes convince him to help, which causes the time to be drawn from a different and less-frowned-upon account...

Even when I was employed at a good paying job there was much enjoyment to be found in working on old tools.

Too tell the truth, sometimes it dawns on me that there would be just as much enjoyment if my shop was set up for metal working instead of woodworking.

jtk

[george wilson]

As a passing thought related to manufacture in India: They made some machine tools there,and some are pretty large. I saw years ago a video of some far Easterner putting a lathe headstock together. It was going to be a lathe about at least 16" or maybe 18 inch swing. He was wearing typical Arabic clothing(like a loose toga and sandals. I don't know what they call the loose cloth they traditionally wear. Certainly sandals are NOT the safest footwear when handling heavy parts!

He was working in what looked like a rather abandoned industrial building,with only the natural daylight coming in via 2 large garage doors which were open. He was working right on the concrete floor. The headstock and all the gears were right on the floor. I couldn't help wondering how much dust and grit that geared headstock was gathering if any breeze was blowing. That would have been very bad for the life of the lathe. He had no drawings at all,and worked just from memory.

Even in China,I have never seen any pictures of such primitive working conditions. They seem to have,for the most part,modern factories well equipped with good machines from Germany or other good sources. Their biggest problem must be lack of proper training for the workers,and poor quality control.

I am aware of a small car garage in Taiwan where a father and son cast 1000# castings in a pit dug in the casting sand floor. They cast the main bodies for Bridgeport type milling machines in the hole they must completely re do for each casting. They have a large,but rather primitive furnace just outside the garage. The cast iron flows down a gulley made in the sand. It must carry a lot of sand into the bottom areas of the machine's base!

I worked in a similar situation about 2009,in Williamsburg,when a funded project of casting a bronze cannon was undertaken. I made several of the items they had to use,such as a loam lathe. This is a simple wooden frame that the cannon barrel pattern is rotated in. A wooden sheet of wood with the shape of the cannon is lightly pressed against a roughly cylindrical shaped hunk of moist casting sand as it is rotated. The pattern for the barrel is thus made. The trunnions are added after the lathe work is finished.

The empty shape of the cavity for the cannon is carefully buried in the earth beside a brick furnace they made. When the metal is ready(A VERY by the seat of the pants estimation!),a plug is pulled,and the bronze flows down a gulley made of hardened clay.

The director insisted on having the "hot top"(as I call it) sawn off. That was on the TOP of their casting,and this first attempt was only a Coehorn mortar. The casting was so full of fine sand,I wore out 4 HSS steel bandsaw blades,@ $40.00 each,cutting the worthless thing off. I knew I'd never be able to bore out the casting with so much abrasive in it. Fortunately,I retired before I had to ruin some large drills!

It was evident that they had not yet mastered the art of pouring large castings!

[James Waldron]

Interesting, George, but not the only word on Indian manufacturing. My point in discussing the Anant planes, above, is that in many cases there is a trade-off in quality that is found mostly in fit and finish work, not in the core construction of components. For the planes I have, the castings are very good (except for a flawed casting of the lever cap on my No. 3) and once the raw castings are properly trimmed,cleaned, machined, deburred and finished, an excellent plane results. To my eye, while the machining was good, the other later stages had been rushed and less than impeccably done with a lack of quality control that would put these planes at a very good level. But at the price these planes sold for (relatively recently), I could well justify the couple of hours I put into mine to get a very good result. Paying myself at about $75 an hour, I believe I came out a lot better than even, compared to LV or LN.

I haven't played with the Harbor Freight plane or other low/modest cost versions, so I don't know if they can be fettled as quickly as I managed with mine, so I can't generalize. The Anant planes sold for a good deal more that the HF "No. 4." But they were a LOT less than the corresponding LV or LN planes. What I can say is that for those who are limited by budget, there's not that much time involved, so it's a reasonable choice. For those who are limited by time, you can spend the money for a "ready to go" tool. If you're limited by both time and funds, it's going to be tough. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

[Mike Baker 2]

To me my every second is a priceless wonder.

Sadly, I have never met that fellow who pays folks a lot of money for not taking the time to refurbish an old tool.

Just for fun the other day I bought a hatchet for $2. It cleaned up rather well. The handle was rather ugly and someone had used nails to replace a wedge. After a bit of work, it was shown to the person from whom it was purchased. He asked if the handle was replaced, it wasn't.

Two bucks and a bit of elbow grease isn't bad for a True Temper Kelly Works Flint Edge hatchet. Of course those few priceless hours are gone forever. There will likely be as many hours in the future showing the hatchet to my grandkids and telling them how that old rusty piece of warmed over death was restored while we are chopping some firewood.

Besides, for me there is enjoyment to be found in honing a blade or rehabilitating an old tool.

It is kind of the same with cars. Some folks will only want something off the show room floor. While others derive great pleasure from picking up a pile of parts which after time and effort they can be using (driving) something that was close to being nothing more than scrap metal.

jtk

This for me. I love rehabbing old things. If you like the work, it is not wasted, nor is it really work.
And for me there is great pleasure in using something I "brought back".
Nothing wrong with either outlook, really. It just depends on the individual, and their circumstances.

[Simon MacGowen]

Paying myself at about $75 an hour, I believe I came out a lot better than even, compared to LV or LN.

I

You didn't take into consideration the resale value. Most Veritas and Lie-Nielsen planes can recover at 60% to 70% of their CURRENT retail prices which increase over time.

Of course, money is just one factor and if you enjoy bringing old or poorly manufactured tools back to their glory life, money is not much a consideration at all.

I made a few tools for the fun of it, but by and large, all hand tools were bought brand new and I have enjoyed my use of time that is mostly spent on making projects and furniture, and not tool improvement. When I sell all my collection one day, I am sure I will be happy that I bought most tools in the premium (or out-of-the-box) category and used the highest quality tools I could afford. Yeah, I could make the SAME shaving out of a finely-tuned Stanley or one of my premium planes. but the feeling is not the same.

Simon

[steven c newman]

Hmmm, the least of my worries when doing ANY rehab of old tools....."resale value".....could not care less.

I am not any a "timeclock" of any sort. Some people go out and fish...I go and rehab an old tool. About as messy either way..but I don't need to buy the license like the fisherman would. One less expense.

I really doubt IF one of these..
IMG_0525 (640x480).jpg
or..
IMG_0527 (640x480).jpg
or..( broken bit of old saw plate is my plane stop on a benchdog)
IMG_0523 (640x480).jpg
"Poorly made, cheap tools"......these are what I will be rehabbing this week. Next week...who knows, other than I will be having fun doing...something.

[Pat Barry]

To me my every second is a priceless wonder. jtk

I saw this previously and decided not to comment but, after due consideration, I decided to add my two cent counterpoint.

If in fact every second is a priceless wonder, why spend those few precious moments playing around with some basically worthless scrap metal to get it into serviceable, albeit not collector quality, condition? If time is in fact that precious there must be countless other ways to better use that time. If in fact the time is that priceless then spend the $ to buy a tool that doesn't take all that much priceless time to make it functional for producing something that is more precious.

end of 2 cent commentary