Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 126

Thread: First and last Stanley handplane restoration

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    South central Kansas
    Posts
    290
    I suppose I'll be the dissenter here--I enjoy restoring tools. I'm also an indebted student with no money so a new LN or LV is not within reach anyway...but even if I did have the money I would spend some time restoring old tools. Sure, I'd love a low angle jack plane and I would be more selective with my restoration project mediums but restoration is its own pursuit for me. I get a kick out of the aesthetics of these old things, the knowledge that I'm using a tool made 100 years ago, and the idea that I kept one more valuable item out of a trash dump or some hoarder's basement. It provides a fun vehicle for me to learn about the old toolmakers and manufacturers, and how craftsmen did things a century or two ago. And as much as I would like to support great companies like LN or LV, I also believe that increasing recycling and/or decreasing consumption are usually good things so putting an old tool to work also fits into that aspect of my worldview. It probably also helps that I like a lot of the skills involved in restoration but there are plenty of enjoyable mechanical skills in woodworking as well.

    Now all that said, if I didn't enjoy history and care about saving relics from junkyards the appeal would diminish quite a bit. If my focus and desire was entirely centered on working wood then tool restoration would be a nuisance. And while I have learned a lot about how planes work by restoring a few, I'll echo Archie's sentiment above. You can shorten the learning curve quite a bit by knowing what a well tuned plane, saw, etc. is supposed to feel like. It can be hard to determine whether deficiencies are in my own skill or in some poorly-functioning aspect of a tool sometimes. With a new LN/LV tool you can't misplace the blame--it's all on you!

    One thing I'd advise to anyone interested in tool restoration is to be selective in your restoration candidates. Since I started out with such little money, I'd often pass up a decent plane for $30 because I found a slightly crappier one for $15. That $15 savings, more often than not, translated into hours more time in restoration and a less refined final product. Some things should be deal breakers. If something has a lot of deep rust that will leave pitting after its removal, you should either be fine with the pitting or you should suck it up and fork out the cash for a better project. Grinding, sanding, or draw-filing pitting out of metal isn't enjoyable nor is it much of a learning experience. It simply isn't worth the often minor savings up front. There are definitely great deals to be had out there, and I've gotten lucky on some tools in great condition for $10-15 or so, but those deals take a lot of time and effort to find. You won't find them on ebay or in an antique shop--you have to put in some hours digging through flea markets and estate sales. So if that kind of thing isn't worth your time then finding old tools becomes much less financially advantageous.
    Last edited by Matthew Hutchinson477; 07-10-2017 at 8:50 AM.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michiana
    Posts
    3,047
    My core user set of planes is made up of Stanley Sweetheart era and older restorations (#18 and #65 blocks, #3, #4, #5, #6, & #7 bench planes) and some new (LN #102 & #60 1/2 Block, LN #4 1/2 Smoother, LV #62 1/2 LA Jack). The new planes perform marginally better than the restorations. They are typically reserved for finer work. That said, the restorations work pretty well. New Hock Blades for the #3, #4 and #5 made a huge difference.
    Sharp solves all manner of problems.

  3. #18
    I use a Bailey #3 plane that is about 100 years old. I have used it for 36 years. I would not trade it for a Lie Nielsen plane.
    It is superior to the LN plane because

    1. Better cap iron. The LN cap iron was designed by people who did not know how it worked.
    2. Better iron. The steel is finer; easier to sharpen and takes a finer edge.
    3. Lighter weight. The LN plane is too heavy for serious use.

  4. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Mickley View Post
    I use a Bailey #3 plane that is about 100 years old. I have used it for 36 years. I would not trade it for a Lie Nielsen plane.
    It is superior to the LN plane because

    1. Better cap iron. The LN cap iron was designed by people who did not know how it worked.
    2. Better iron. The steel is finer; easier to sharpen and takes a finer edge.
    3. Lighter weight. The LN plane is too heavy for serious use.
    What Warren said.....But in todays market finding a good base plane is hard and it is even harder finding good cutters and cap irons. All my primary use planes are either Stanley/Bailey, Record, or wood stock, the LN and LV stay on the shelf for the most part. That said, if someone starting out wants to work wood then new is usually a better option. Rust can take too much time to fix, the burn rate can be high even if you know what to look for, and if the cutter or cap iron needs replacing (they often do) there isn't a lot of savings. over a new Woodriver v3.

    ken

  5. #20
    Chip Breaker: Isn' t that why we take the time to fit CB's? 30 seconds of file work and a quick lick with some 600 will do the trick...less work than what I often had to do for vintage restos

    Blade: After the first few swipes, the advantage to O1 in taking a better edge is lost in much of the stock I work in as a luthier, and then it's all about edge retention. Cherry, pine, mahogany and walnut are easy - any alloy will do just fine. Not so much in tropical abrasives like flamed anigre, ipe, etc. Customers being customers, I go for what works in the stuff they want their instruments built with.

    Weight: I can see this as being a concern for some...if the extra 4 ounces of weight (60 oz vs. 64 oz on an iron #4) is truly an issue, maybe a move to a #2 or #3 is in order. Three of my four female students - all of whom have been quite svelte - preferred the #3/#5-1/4 combo. The odd woman out was a 5' 2" former power lifter that has no issues with anything in the shop, including the #8. If you tend toward the smaller glove and shoe sizes, these smaller planes are awesome!
    Last edited by Todd Stock; 07-10-2017 at 12:13 PM.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    South central Kansas
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Luter View Post
    New Hock Blades for the #3, #4 and #5 made a huge difference.
    Ah, I knew I forgot to mention something! Not only do the Hock or LV blades function better, in my opinion, they also save quite a bit of time if you have an old blade that isn't flat or has pitting that would need to be ground out.

    To follow up on my above post (because I finally feel like I've encountered a subject I can offer a helpful opinion on!), I want to point out that little things like that might be the difference between someone thinking that the old Stanleys are vastly inferior to new planes or them realizing that a properly-tuned Stanley can hold its own. For those of us that are on a tight budget, the realization that you can set up a very nice plane with a little bit of work and knowledge opens up a whole new realm of woodworking.

    For me, I probably wouldn't have even gotten into hand tools if I couldn't restore and fix up my own tools. When I first got into this whole ordeal I thought I wouldn't be able to get into hand tool woodworking. I knew I couldn't afford the nice tools that I saw a lot of craftsmen on the internet or in magazines using, so I figured it was out of my range. That idea probably seems silly to a lot of you with experience and good mentors early on but I remember being a beginner (well, even more of a beginner than I am now at least) and really not knowing these things. I thought hand tool woodworking was expensive and was some niche for people with a lot of time and money. But now I have 3 finely-tuned Stanley planes that work about as well as anything out there with less than $200 invested in the lot.

    So circling back to the original post--if the OP really just wants to learn how to work wood with hand tools, is short on time but not on a very tight budget then ya, I can't argue that you shouldn't throw down some money on nice tools from LN or LV. But maybe your experience in restoration could be more enjoyable if you changed the way you went about it, and maybe it could open a whole new realm for you.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,151
    In my previous post I may have sounded like I have no use for old planes. That is not so. A well tuned old plane works just great. I just don't have the patience for it now. I still have all the tools needed to do them up right. I do love my new planes tho. I have some extra funds because I had to give up some other vices, hunting fishing, old cars. Now I have the extra to spend on woodworking. And yes I would rather be woodworking than plane rebuilding. I had a #6 Stanley out yesterday flattening a nice cherry board for a new project. It worked just fine. The board had a knot and it was just as nice to grab my LVLA Jack with a 38* blade and make easy work of it. Rehab is the way to go if you can't find the funds.
    Jim

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Luter View Post
    My core user set of planes is made up of Stanley Sweetheart era and older restorations (#18 and #65 blocks, #3, #4, #5, #6, & #7 bench planes) and some new (LN #102 & #60 1/2 Block, LN #4 1/2 Smoother, LV #62 1/2 LA Jack). The new planes perform marginally better than the restorations. They are typically reserved for finer work. That said, the restorations work pretty well. New Hock Blades for the #3, #4 and #5 made a huge difference.
    As much as I hate to agree with Warren, I think that many people are too quick to dispose of the original irons when then fettle old planes. IMO if a Hock makes a huge positive difference then we should ask whether our tuning or planing techniques could be improved.

    Using my new-to-me #20 as an example, some previous owner had managed to crown the back of the iron (such that it was slightly convex in both length and width) and dub both corners. I had to grind off about 3 mm to get rid of the worst of the dubbing, and then lap out ~3 mils of center thickness to get the leading ~1/2" of the back flat. All of that took a bit of time and effort, but the iron now takes a great edge and doesn't chatter in use. I've had similar experiences with other old Stanley irons in the past.

    I'm sure that an O1 Hock would do just as well (if you could fit a 3/32" thick iron to an unmodified #20, which you can't) but why replace what isn't broken to begin with?

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Chase View Post
    As much as I hate to agree with Warren, I think that many people are too quick to dispose of the original irons when then fettle old planes. IMO if a Hock makes a huge positive difference then we should ask whether our tuning or planing techniques could be improved.

    Using my new-to-me #20 as an example, some previous owner had managed to crown the back of the iron (such that it was slightly convex in both length and width) and dub both corners. I had to grind off about 3 mm to get rid of the worst of the dubbing, and then lap out ~3 mils of center thickness to get the leading ~1/2" of the back flat. All of that took a bit of time and effort, but the iron now takes a great edge and doesn't chatter in use. I've had similar experiences with other old Stanley irons in the past.

    I'm sure that an O1 Hock would do just as well (if you could fit a 3/32" thick iron to an unmodified #20, which you can't) but why replace what isn't broken to begin with?
    Why would you hate to agree with Warren? He has been doing the same thing, with the same tools, and the same techniques for the last 40 years and is totally happy with all of the above.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    twomiles from the "peak of Ohio
    Posts
    12,120
    I'll just stand back and watch......and maybe go back to smoothing out some Curly Maple with a "old" Millers Falls No. 11....with the original iron. Was using it on Poplar, wasn't much effort needed there.

    Lost track of how many planes I have rehabbed over the years.....does NOT take all that long to do one plane....usually an afternoon for me. Wonder what the OP was doing all that time....milking the job? Glad I don't pay him by the hour.....

  11. #26
    Patrick, I agree that we shouldn't fix what's not broken.

    Like other posts, I've replaced old Stanley blades with a couple Hocks and LVs. These make great replacements but can also introduce new problems. Now, I do my best to restore the original blade and chip breaker and only replace sparingly. When a vintage blade is crap, I don't hesitate to replace; but like others, I've found the good vintage blades to be genuinely very good. So, if it ain't broke.....

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Barry View Post
    Why would you hate to agree with Warren? He has been doing the same thing, with the same tools, and the same techniques for the last 40 years and is totally happy with all of the above.
    That was mostly a joke.

    Also, while I think that old Stanley irons are quite good and (less strongly) that coarse-grained high-alloy steels aren't a panacea, I don't believe that everything that is new and/or made by L-N is bad :-).

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    NW Indiana
    Posts
    3,078
    Patrick Chase....I found the comment about coarse grained high alloy steels to be interesting. I had thought that most high alloy steels are made fine grain and only have coarse grain due to poor heat treating. Perhaps, you could give a reference or explanation of which steels you are mentioning. Thanks

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    So circling back to the original post--if the OP really just wants to learn how to work wood with hand tools, is short on time but not on a very tight budget then ya, I can't argue that you shouldn't throw down some money on nice tools from LN or LV.
    One of my often said lines, let having more time than money or more money than time be what determines whether to pursue new tools or old tools.

    For me fettling old tools is an enjoyable pursuit. If one finds it frustrating then by all means find a way to purchase new tools or those that have already been restored.

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

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    South central Kansas
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Koepke View Post
    One of my often said lines, let having more time than money or more money than time be what determines whether to pursue new tools or old tools.

    jtk
    Dammit why can't I just have both?! Time and money, that is.

Posting Permissions

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