First and last Stanley handplane restoration

[Patrick Chase]

I think the weight issue is a bit overblown both ways. A few ounces doesn't really make a difference in comparison to the force required to plane off some material. Heavier weight means maybe you don't have to bear down as hard but I doubt this is really a big deal. Lighter means, under no load, that its easier to push - someone should figure out the actual planing force as compared to sliding / static friction for a number 4 plane - my bet is the cutting force will be significantly higher. If you use a plane all day, every day, you may be sensitive enough to actually feel a bit lighter plane but most of us (80% maybe) don't care.

My own "don't care" threshold is about 1/2 pound. I notice but don't mind the difference between, say, a Stanley #4 and a Veritas Custom #4 (3.75 and 4.25 lb). I find the bronze L-N #4 (4.5 lb) to be notably heavy, and the Quangshang/WoodRiver #4 (5 lb) to be unusable. I'm sure everybody has their own pain threshold, though.

EDIT: Veritas' claimed weight #s are accurate, but it turns out that L-N "rounds down" a bit. That bronze #4 is probably a bit more than 4.5 lb, which would explain why I can tell the difference from the Veritas Custom #4. And here I always wondered if that was my head playing games with me :-).

[Patrick Chase]

If lighter was necessarily better planes wouldn't be made of cast iron and bronze. And Lie Nielsen planes would not be in such demand.

As just about any experienced designer can tell you, "better" and "in demand" are at best weakly correlated. The fact that the clueless herd prefers heavy planes doesn't say anything about whether that's functionally better.

[Patrick Chase]

I will disagree, weight can make a difference when working wood more than a stroke are two. After 15m or so with the LN #8 I'm nackered. With a Stanley #8 I'm good for 45 or so minutes, with one of the wood stock planes even longer. If your cutter is sharp you shouldn't need to "bear" down, the cutter should pull the plane into the wood.

A quick fact/reality check is in order. The classic Stanley #8 weighs 9.75 lbs. The L-N #8 weighs 10 lbs 6 oz (they claim "10 lbs" but I weighed mine just now and that's where it came in).

If that 6% weight difference drops your endurance from 45 min and 15 min, then you either have highly unique physiology or the exhaustion you feel with the L-N is of the psychosomatic variety.

This happens over and over and over in these "plane weight debates" BTW. People make assertions about how heavy modern plane X is compared to classic plane Y and how much longer they can work with the classic plane, but when you actually look at the data the difference turns out to be far too modest to support the claims.

EDIT: Replaced L-N weight with actual measured value as opposed to spec'ed

[Rick Malakoff]

Did anyone respond to the OP's original question?

Truthfully I don't care how much a plane weighs as long as it gets the job done.
Rick

[steven c newman]

Until you USE said planes for an afternoon....I routinely move from the bigger Jointers down to the #5-1/2 sizes as the day goes on. Shoulders and arms tend to get a bit tired, otherwise. Nice when the surface is right next to you, as you plane merrily along...but when the centers of the panels you are trying to plane are at arm's length away.....makes for a very tiresome day.

I normally work 2-5 hours in the shop....try doing that with the heavier planes, not just a few wispy passes, talking about standing ankle deep in shavings to go from rough sawn to finished surface, before you call it a day...less weight I have to shove around, the better I feel at the end of the day. My #8 is nice, but I quickly move to either the #7 or the #6.....Sometimes, even a 5-1/4 will get used. I tend to hate those Charlie Horses that happen at the shoulder blades...

[Patrick Chase]

Until you USE said planes for an afternoon....I routinely move from the bigger Jointers down to the #5-1/2 sizes as the day goes on. Shoulders and arms tend to get a bit tired, otherwise. Nice when the surface is right next to you, as you plane merrily along...but when the centers of the panels you are trying to plane are at arm's length away.....makes for a very tiresome day.

That makes complete sense. Dropping from an 8 to a 5-1/2 reduces the weight from 9.75 lbs to 6.75 lbs. It also reduces the contact area and therefore any "suction" effects. That's well over my threshold of noticeability, and I suspect it is for basically everybody.

What I'm harping about here are the claims that switching between two near-equal planes makes a significant difference (say, a Stanley 7 at 8.75 lbs and a Veritas Custom 7 at 8.6 lbs - note that this is a case where the newer plane is lighter)

[Patrick Chase]

Did anyone respond to the OP's original question?

Truthfully I don't care how much a plane weighs as long as it gets the job done.
Rick

Several of us did. We (Jim, me, others) all said the obvious:

- If you place a high value on your time then by all means buy new.
- If you're willing to spend the time (or enjoy spending it) then you can obtain terrific tools by restoration.

The O-P's point had been addressed as much as it ever will be by about the 5th post :-).

[Rick Malakoff]

Thanks Pat, guess I forgot because that was so many posts ago.

I'm in this camp " If you're willing to spend the time (or enjoy spending it) then you can obtain terrific tools by restoration."

Rick

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Did anyone respond to the OP's original question?

Truthfully I don't care how much a plane weighs as long as it gets the job done.
Rick

I think we've moved a little bit, to whether there are non-economic reasons that make the older planes worth repairing.

[steven c newman]

Don't know, but ones like these ain't all that cheap..
big planes.jpg
That #8 was listed as $110...that is a #6 on the left side of it....The #4s were "cheap" at around $35 each...YMMV

[Andy Nichols]

As just about any experienced designer can tell you, "better" and "in demand" are at best weakly correlated. The fact that the clueless herd prefers heavy planes doesn't say anything about whether that's functionally better.

The "weakly correlated" concept diminishes greatly when the "herd" is not completely clueless...LN and LV sell to very specific and limited customer base, which for the most part are skilled craftsmen with knowledge of the tools and their usages. Even more so when one considers the mean cost per tool ;-)

Have a herd of Stanley's, plus many LN's, a good selection of wood planes and a kit of infills.... Very happy with with all the old Stanley's in my tool chest or they wouldn't be there.

However my disabilities do cause me to drop planes more than the average individual, and in those instances the LN & LV planes are even more appreciated.

Won't argue which works best, however I have never had a "bad" LN or LV hand plane, they are exceptional tools built to exacting standards with excellent QC & QA and outstanding customer service.

Do still rescue an old plane when they come along, can't stop myself,

Andy

[Patrick Chase]

The "weakly correlated" concept diminishes greatly when the "herd" is not completely clueless...LN and LV sell to very specific and limited customer base, which for the most part are skilled craftsmen with knowledge of the tools and their usages. Even more so when one considers the mean cost per tool ;-)

Please.

Just a few short years ago the thundering clueless herd was in full stampede towards bevel-up and single-iron planes of varying sorts, to the point that LV was considering offering the custom line without cap iron (per Derek's account of the development/testing). Go back and read some SMC posts or magazine articles from c. 2010 and you'll see what I mean. Warren was one of scarily few voices of reason on that point.

Herds made up of "informed" people are just better at coming up with plausible sounding justifications for our groupthink. We are all subject to the pitfall (it's human nature), and really the only antidote is to challenge assumptions with hard data wherever possible. I say "we" here because I was one of the many who were caught on the wrong side of the cap iron fiasco. I had to go through that !@#$ video frame by frame to finally reset my thinking.

[steven c newman]

Random Plane Photo...
IMG_0890 (640x480).jpg
Stanley #4c, T-20, Made in England..
IMG_0891 (480x640).jpg
Will just have to do..
IMG_0887 (640x480).jpg
Millers Falls No.8,T-2 was a hair too narrow..
IMG_0888 (480x640).jpg
That is why I went with the #4c
IMG_0902 (640x480).jpg
Yep, just a cheap old plane....

[Stewie Simpson]

Please.

Just a few short years ago the thundering clueless herd was in full stampede towards bevel-up and single-iron planes of varying sorts, to the point that LV was considering offering the custom line without cap iron (per Derek's account of the development/testing). Go back and read some SMC posts or magazine articles from c. 2010 and you'll see what I mean. Warren was one of scarily few voices of reason on that point.

Herds made up of "informed" people are just better at coming up with plausible sounding justifications for our groupthink. We are all subject to the pitfall (it's human nature), and really the only antidote is to challenge assumptions with hard data wherever possible. I say "we" here because I was one of the many who were caught on the wrong side of the cap iron fiasco. I had to go through that !@#$ video frame by frame to finally reset my thinking.

Patrick; your comments reminds me about the story of the 2 bulls.

There's two bulls standing on top of a mountain. The younger one says to the older one: "Hey pop, let's say we run down there and ____ one of them cows". The older one says: "No son. Lets walk down and ____'em all".

____ (abbreviation for kiss).

[Stewie Simpson]

Discussions on old vs new, bevel up vs bevel down, a close set cap iron vs a high angle approach, a wooden plane vs a metal plane, it all counts for zip. Its the grain direction and species of timber that will have the final say.