Old(Vintage) vs. New Tools?

[steven c newman]

Not every old plane iron is laminated....

Bent irons can be easily straightened in a machinist's vise...DO NOT use a hammer to try to flatten the old irons...they WILL shatter...

What caused that bend..was having the frog too far back...simple as that.

Have seen this on a few of the planes I have rehabbed....frog was sitting all the way back....along with the chipbreaker being on the wrong face of an iron....are 2 of the things I tend to find. Leave an iron clamped down hard for a few years like this, before someone comes along and buys that plane....then complains that the plane is "junk"?....no, just the owner before you wasn't "up to speed " on how a plane is supposed to be set up. First thing I look at, is the mouth. If I don't see the bevel down...will take it apart, and see why, BEFORE any cash gets used.

Rant over.....

[David Carroll]

Since you flipped the iron the point may be mute, but the length of the iron along the slot is not hardened, it can be bent.

Also, if your iron is of the laminated steel kind, the other side is not tool steel. It won't take nor keep an edge.

Yeah, this was a later type. I've never bothered to remember the types, but it was post WW2 so I believe it was not laminated.

DC

[David Carroll]

What caused that bend..was having the frog too far back...simple as that.

Have seen this on a few of the planes I have rehabbed....frog was sitting all the way back....along with the chipbreaker being on the wrong face of an iron....are 2 of the things I tend to find.

I think that's why this particular iron was bent. So when I adjusted the frog properly, the iron stayed where it was accustomed to being. This left the last bit of the iron unsupported and it chattered. The new iron fixed it and it's now one of my favorite users. As for the old iron, If I find a plane that needs one, I'll bend it back straight. But at this point I have enough planes, well unless I see something really pretty...

DC

[Rafael Herrera]

Yeah, this was a later type. I've never bothered to remember the types, but it was post WW2 so I believe it was not laminated.

I've been quite lucky, I suppose, none of the vintage planes I have refurbished chatters. Finding one that does it consistently would be pretty interesting. One of the first things that gets repeated when advocating for Bedrocks or thicker irons is that they don't or prevent chattering.

Can anybody make a plane chatter? can you post the instructions on how to do so on a Bailey pattern plane?

[Warren Mickley]

Chatter is a harmonic motion that occurs when the plane iron is not well supported. The end of the iron hangs out and when it encounters resistance it bends back a bit, then releases periodically and repeats the cycle. It shows up as a regular series of ridges on the timber being planed. We often see it on old moulding planes where the iron is a little bent so it does not sit firmly on the bed.

If you want to make a Bailey plane chatter, put a narrow shaving crosswise on the bed, maybe an inch above the mouth. The iron will then sit on this shaving and not be supported by the bed at the mouth, so it will wag.

Years ago many confused chatter with tearout. They thought that the purpose of the cap iron was to stiffen the blade so it wouldn't chatter. Quite a few people made thick irons, like 1/4 inch and more, thinking that this would solve the tearout problem. There are still manufacturers who brag about the thickness of their irons or even the thickness of their cap irons, as if this were a major consideration.

[steven c newman]

Very easy to do...simply move the frog forward ( the old "Closed Mouth Myth")....doesn't take much...all you have to do is move the iron off of that ramp at the back of the mouth, so that the end of the iron is just hanging in midair...

[Rafael Herrera]

I've moved the frog forward on a Bailey no.4. The plane would not chatter, granted there wasn't a lot of length to move.

I put a strip of shavings across the bed as suggested by Warren. On my Oak test piece, mainly the plane started to dig in and stop on its tracks. Retracting the blade to take finer shavings allowed me to take some shavings. It was still difficult and in one of the passes the plane chattered.

Oak
20230412_225538.jpg

Pine. It was not as hard to push the plane and get some shavings. It also chattered.
20230413_002855.jpg

It's got to be pretty extreme, the lack of firm contact of the bottom of the iron to the toe of the frog, for the plane to malfunction. Yes, thicker irons and chipbreakers at first seem like a good thing, but only because there is a lack of understanding about how the plane works not only from the users but also from the manufacturers.

Rafael

[Rob Luter]

Simple question ... are there new hand tools better than tools of yesterday? And in reverse are there old tools better than what's being made today? For example, it's my understanding that Lie Nielsen's hand planes, which apparently were patterned after the Stanley Bedrock planes are better in quality. On the other hand it's my new found understanding that vintage hand saws, i.e Disston, Simmonds, etc. are better in quality than what is currently available by the limited number of makers today.

I wish there was a simple answer. I guess much depends on the tool and what "better" really means to you.

Like many, my hand tool journey started with old tools I picked up at garage sales and antique malls. My budget was modest and I couldn't afford "the good stuff". Over a few years I amassed a pretty sizable collection of hand planes, saws, chisels, and other odds and ends that I had cleaned up, refurbished, sharpened, etc. It was all serviceable stuff and I considered myself fortunate.

With respect to hand planes, I had a pretty good selection of Sweetheart Era Stanley bench and block planes. I had refurbed them all. They worked well. That said, they were all a little fussy to set up. When my Daughter got married I was looking for a gift for the Father of the Groom. He was a woodworker. I chose a LN Bronze #4. When it arrived I was stunned how different it was from the vintage stuff I had. It prompted me to order myself an iron 4 1/2. Right out of the box it out performed the Stanley 4 1/2 I had spend hours fettling. That began a campaign of gradually selling off my vintage stuff and purchasing modern versions. They all worked more predictably, were easier to set, and had more heft. Let's face it, they looked cool too.

As far as hand saws go, The old Disstons I have can't be beat. New saws are shinier but they are crazy expensive and don't cut any better. I found the opposite for back saws. I had quite a stable of Disston, Jackson, and others sharpened both rip and cross. Again, they were all vintage that I'd refurbed. They worked OK but had pretty thick plates and didn't leave what I would call a refined cut. I was surprised what they were worth to collectors and wound up selling them off and fully funding the purchase of a LN Dovetail, Carcass, and Tenon saw. These were all improvements by any objective measure. They worked better. The three do anything I need.

I think I can go either way on chisels. I've had a hodgepodge of old stuff. Some were fine and some were meh. I settled on a set of Irwin Marples Blue Chip firmers from when they were still made in Sheffield and a set of LN Bevel Edge before the prices went up. The Blue Chips because they would take a bashing and the LN because I couldn't find anything else with sides ground fine enough to clear dovetails without bruising the wood. I like that within each set they all fit my hand the same. My vintage pieces were sold to woodworkers rounding out sets.

My old Braces and Eggbeaters can't be beat. My vintage hammers are the same.

[Eric Brown]

Perhaps you should look at it a different way. There were some very good tools made in the past and the makers may have had hundreds of different tools to offer. Todays makers have a fairly limited selection. So they limit their offerings to what is most profitable. Take auger bits as an example. New ones are relatively expensive and the quality is not as good as in the past. Of the vintage bits you will find opinions that say Russell Jenning is best, or that Irwins are best for rough work. The truth is that there are other designs that are even better (of course, that's my opinion). One such bit is the single twist bits made by Ford Auger Bit Company (later bought by Millers Falls). They don't jam up like the others. Joy to use, especially in deep holes more than a few inches deep. Forstner bits as originally patented, had a solid rim and are a joy to use with a hand brace. But, because they were being used in factories with "power" tools (line-shaft driven drill presses), they were burning up. So Forstner had a second patent that split the rim into two sections, in effect putting cooling slots into them. Later they changed them again. In the end, all the modern Forstners I'm aware of require a drill press. You can no longer use a hand drill except for ninety degree holes. If you try to bore at an angle the bit will jump out of the hole. So yes, some of the old tools are better than what is currently being made, but some of the new tools are also better than the old. Most of the tools made by Lie-Nielsen, Lee Valley, the custom makers are all better. However, with the new you must pay for that convenience of a tool ready to go with a little final sharpening. With an old tool you may have to spend time restoring. That requires more tools and other things.

So, if you want to build things now, buy new or maybe restored. If you decide to restore tools yourself, be prepared to spend time and money as well.

[Jim Koepke]

Perhaps you should look at it a different way. There were some very good tools made in the past and the makers may have had hundreds of different tools to offer. Todays makers have a fairly limited selection.

Another way of looking at things is that just because something is old doesn't mean it should be set aside. Some older tools do take more time to put back into service than others, many do not require a lot of work.

Sure a new LN #3 would look and in some ways work better than either of my Stanley/Bailey #3s. The wood or the end product wouldn't show any difference. My two #3s were less than a third of the price of the new #3 and only required a little work to put into great working order (one actually came pretty much ready to go).

jtk

[David Carroll]

I have spent a lot of time over the years pondering this question, vintage tools vs. new premium tools. I've purchased both. My impression, at least with LN and LV are that the tools are essentially ready to use, with just a light honing. But I suspect that in the past this was not the case with the big manufacturers (Stanley, Sargent, Millers Falls) who were supplying a commodity, to a skilled market. While today, LN and LV are selling to high level pros who understand the value of quality tools, but also to hobbyists, with differing levels of experience, and of course collectors.

The reason that I say this is because over the years I have purchased more than a few New Old Stock tools from Stanley and others, including an unused No. 5, still in it's original sweetheart era box, a James Swan 1-1/2-inch chisel and a few others. most of these tools needed a lot of work to get working properly. The plane iron was roughly ground, the chip breaker fit was awful and needed a lot of work, the edges of the body casting needed deburring, and the whole thing wanted to be tightened and fettled. Same with the Swan chisel. Some of this could be because they were 50 - 80 years old when I got them, but much of it left the factory the way I got it.

I think that the manufacturers back in the day, both tools date from ~1920 - 1935 knew their customers were skilled workers who would be able to tune the tools to their liking. They were selling tools primarily to tradesmen, essentially in kit form.

Some years ago I bought a cache of brand new Snell Forstner bits, still in the original boxes and they needed a lot of work. They were soaked in cosmoline, dull as spoons and in rough shape generally. A half hours with some fine files and stones and they are now a joy to use. But if my expectation was that they would be ready to use straight from the box, I would have been sorely disappointed.

Of course, these old manufacturers would sell to anybody. Some of the tools were "used once and put away" as the fancy used tool merchants are fond of saying. In these cases, I bet the tool was purchased by somebody who didn't really know how to fine tune the tool, it was tried for its intended purpose and it didn't work very well. So they tossed it on a shelf, or used it until the rough ground iron got too dull and abandoned it.

So this is my longwinded way of saying that old tools will need some work to get singing, but they likely always did need this work, even right out of the box. But the modern makers (the quality ones) do the bulk of this work for you.

DC

[John Erickson]

I have both oldish Stanley's, LN and LV planes but tend to go for my LN planes first. Yes LN and LV has superior quality in all aspects but also very gratifying to know how lucky I am I can gift these tools to my grandson or granddaughter.
On another note, there are many other tools which are better crafted than in years past. The Blue Spruce coping and fret saws are the finest examples I have seen and used. Another is the Red Rose Reproductions dividers, I was so impressed by the 5" I bought the 7" as well.
These companies stand out to me for their quality, function and beauty. Knowing many other tool manufacturers have equally as nice tools, layout, chisels, sharpening and so on.
Let's share our thoughts on tool manufacturers that today make tools that are equally as nice to use and to have on display.

[Eric Brown]

Good idea about current manufacturers. I will start the topic.

https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread....32#post3253232

[kenneth hatch]

Jim,

I have a few Bad Axe saws, they are good saws and really nice eye candy. More than half the time when reaching for a back saw I grab one of the Veritas. But then I'm a little weird, a full rack of LN planes plus most of the Veritas ones all gathering dust. Stanley Bailey type planes with original iron and chip breaker work as well or better and are more enjoyable to use so they get used and the LN's are good dust catchers. Same with chisels give me a square tang Marples and I'm a happy camper.

In answer to the OP's question, Nope, maybe better fit and finish but somewhere along the line many new tool manufacturers lost sight of what makes a tool work well.

ken

ken

Can't answer that since a Bad Axe saw has never been in my hands. Though I can say one of my most pleasing saws to use is a dovetail saw made from a kit purchased from Ron Bontz:

Attachment 499438

The handle was made by me from a piece of scrap rosewood.

Next to that a Veritas 14ppi dovetail saw bought for my grandson was so impressive a 20ppi version was bought for myself.

jtk

[steven c newman]

7@ 1 x 6 x 10' Ash planks needed to be sawn to fit into my Equinox's trunk....now have 14 1 x 6 x 5' Ash planks sitting in the house....all cross cut with a Disston No.7 ( with nib) 7ppi


My "Cardio" for today.....film when I can get it processed...total cash amount...$30.00 plus the gas money (1 gallon..maybe) for the round trip...

handle of the 130+ yr old saw fit my hand like it was made just for my hand...

YMMV, of course....