James Watriss
>Hi Denis.

***
Sorry in advance for letting this response get out of hand. I've been in a huff lately, to the point where it's begun to get me in trouble in certain areas of my life. It's time I started writing more, so as to get such things out of my system.
***

According to a quick scan of google results, Stanley Sweetheart planes (and other tools) were made around 1919-1932. I'm not a history buff when it comes to my planes, so this is only as accurate as my 2 second sweep of the results page.

Basically, I find the following features in evidence among these oldies but goodies:

-The sweetheart logo has "SW" inside a heart shape on the iron. These old irons were in fact laminated steel, much like the japanese tools everyone prizes, as well as the old, tapered irons that are also prized from old woodies from "back in the day." More succinctly, these irons were made as well as stanley knew how to make them at the time, instead of being made as cheaply as they could, which seems to be the case these days.

-The surface of the frog is perfectly flat. No carved out recesses, such as you'll find on any of the current baileys, or bailey clones. It's a solid, smooth frog.

-The handles were actual rosewood, and generally were shaped a lot mroe pleasantly. This is, of course, a matter of taste, but the cross section was a little more ovular, instead of the "flat board with a half round on each edge" that many of the planes were handled with after WWII.

-As I mentioned, the frogs generally seat a lot more solidly, and squarely. When loosened, they slide back and forth very precisely.

-As I also mentioned, Stanley had, somewhere in their possession at the time, a quality control division. They themselves were in possession of a stamp that would leave the impression "rejected." (Or something similar, it's been a while since I looked at that stamp on my old #3, so it might be a different word.)

There are a lot of these planes on ebay. Many of them are ugly. Almost all of them have been used. But many of them survive, with intact and usable irons, usable if not flawless handles, and solid castings. But no, they're not so shiny anymore. I've got a couple of #3s, one of which is corrugated, and is one of my favorite planes all around. It's also the one that failed QC. I have no idea why.

To be fair, I did eventually upgrade to a Hock iron, with a Hock chip breaker. Thicker blades do make a difference, and so do thick chip-breakers, which do a remarkable job of springing the blade. There's something about the old SW iron, though, that leaves a surface on hard maple that looks almost burnished. It's almost reflective, and really quite remarkable.

A couple of hours with a Charlesworth book, and a little effort on my part, resulted in a #4 plane with a very well bedded frog (better than when I got it, which was already pretty good) and with a very sharp iron. Put up against my L-N 4, blades beign more or less equal, I really couldn't tell the difference.

And so on.

I am aware that my experiences aren't the norm. Not everyone has the time or training or the need to sharpen as often as a full time woodworking student. I wouldn't inflict the flattening woes I had with an old 5 1/2c on anyone. The corrugations are tapered now. I've been sharpening things at least as far back as my army days, which would be 15 years ago. (I'm 33) I also took a quick workshop learning about japanese planes, and how to tune them up. I've built a couple of wooden planes, and a wooden spokeshave, and spent a lot of time getting an old transitional to work. Some of my original issues with transitionals may be in my technique, but one way or another, I did get it to work. Wedged wooden planes were a lot easier to figure out than I'd originally thought, and one of them is actually the best smoother that I have.

At the end of the day, the business end of a good plane is the blade. The blade itself has to be of good steel, that can be made to be sharp, and preferably, that can retain that sharpness. And the blade must be held stable, in whatever fashion is appropriate to the plane.

Yes, I'm a confessed plane geek. The news I bring back from my obsessions isn't really news to some folks, but it is heartening. A little time, a little effort, and a lot less than $300 can provide you with a really, really nice plane, which will do very good things for you.

One of the intended points of my original post is that anyone with a willingness to learn doesn't have to believe the hype.

You don't need a Lie-Nielsen plane to do the best work possible. It helps, to be sure, but even then, only if you know how to sharpen. I knew a guy in school who had a chest full of L-N stuff, but at the end of the day, sharpening was the bane of his existence. He had a really hard time figuring it out.

Likewise, you don't need a 3000 pound european bench with God's Gift(c) Super-Jesus pattern vises. It helps, and lord knows they're sexier than a swimsuit model. (almost) But not necessary. I built some of my early projects on a pair of 2x12s and some sawhorses.

At this point, I think I'd need a happy medium. My bench at home is closely related to Ian Kirby's bench; Flat surface you can clamp to, a front vise, and a pop up plane stop. I use drywall screws to secure small plywood fixtures like shooting boards and such, but even those are pretty minimalist affairs.

I've seen some off-the-wall bench designs proposed in here at one time or another, and I really start to feel for some of the beginners in here when they seem to genuinely believe that their bench design really needs to have (at least) one tail vise, a twin-screw vise, a shoulder vise, and maybe a pattern-maker's vise. But all you really need is a way to hold the work. Roubo was a master craftsman, without such a fancy mechanical bench.

(note: some of us would rightly consider a good roubo-style bench to be a fancy, wonderful thing. But I tend to believe that in the days when they were dragging the logs in and pit-sawing them up, sawing thicker planks for bench tops saved some poor sawyer a lot of work. It was certainly much less hi-tech than slicing, jointing, and laminating to imitate a quarter-sawn slab.)

You don't need to have a shop that looks like it should be in the glossy pages.

I hear what you're saying Denis, I really do. There's something to be said for expediency when it comes to setting up shop, and getting your tools ready. My own perspective is kinda skewed. North Bennet Has Spoiled me.

Once my "professional" shop space is settled, and my basement is cleaned out, I plan on trying to prove, to myself, and to some poor publisher, that this isn't all nonsense. The plan is to embark on a series of articles, or a book, documenting the steps I would take, knowing what I know now, if I were to become an upstart woodworker on a shoestring budget. There are a lot of people who have more time than money, and there are a lot of people who have a fairly even distribution of both.

After 2 years of School, I have to believe it's possible to start small, and start simple. Minimal tools, minimal budget, and a fair bit of work, and at least a serious attempt at creative thinking.

And after 3 years in woodworking retail (for 2 different companies), I have to believe there's a better way than some of the stuff that has been sold to the general public.

Old planes are usually far superior to any of the budget or contractor grade bailey clones that are out there now. And they're usually cheaper, too. Anodized wonder-widgets have been promising superior results to novices for a while now, and I have to wonder who's kidding who. And I think some of the jigs that are out there has taken a lot of the thought, sweat, and tears out of learning some very valid techniques that used to be, and can easily be done by hand, if you're willing to learn.

There's a wealth of information and opinions to be had for the asking, but it's dangerous, and never-ending. To take another random example, I don't think it takes a dissertation on Oil stones, v Water stones v man-made v natural v diamond paste, in conjunction with a metallurgical analysis, to understand why your chisels aren't cutting like they should. Some of these conversations are academic to the point of being almost arcane. That's not to say that the information isn't valid, or that it's not worth pursuing if it's your thing. Progress comes from such investigations. But it has to be daunting for some poor guy who's still trying to pay the rent to decide between Norton and Shapton and cast iron lapping plates with diamond paste.

Old tools. Simple equipment. Time, attention, and a clear and open mind. I think these things are more important, even if they don't make for good copy.

Easy for me to say?

Well, we'll see.

Good night all.