A Different Question re: Old vs. New Planes

Re: A Different Question re: Old vs. New Planes

Joe Rogers, Northern Virginia

>Welll...

1. new planes by both L-N and LV are made with better materials. Ductle Iron not grey Iron.

2. LV uses patented improvments in bedding of the cutter. L-N uses only Bedrock bedding of the frog.Both are superior IMHO than run of the mill old Stanleys.

3. A lot of the planes you can get resonably priced from the new producers are not economical to buy due to rarity of the origionals. (well maybe not a lot but some very notable ones)

4. The irons are better almost across the board. Thicker with improved alloys or quality control on the carbon steel cutters.

Thats just my take. I also like to support manufacturers that are responsive to us and haven't caved in to the cost accountants.JR who is anticipating Todd H's response.

Re: A Different Question re: Old vs. New Planes

David Barnett

>"My question is: OTHER THAN TIME VS. MONEY TRADE-OFF, IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR REASON (SUCH AN ADVANCES IN A PARTICULAR DESIGN, MANUFACTURING PROCESSES, OR MATERIALS) TO BUY THE NEW LN OR VERITAS VERSION OF A SPECIFIC PLANE, RATHER THAN AN OLDER, USED MODEL MADE BY STANLEY, SARGENT, MF, ETC. ? If so, is it true across the board � i.e., a new LN model is better than every equivalent Stanley � or just true for particular models (maybe true for LA blocks, scraper planes, and shoulder planes, but not true for smoothers and jack planes)? Why? What makes the new one better?"

The redesigned and better-machined versions of bench planes from L-N (own several) and LV (don't own any... yet) with metallurgical improvements to both plane bodies (esp. thicker ductile iron) and thicker O1 or A2 blades, will get my dollars over the old ones anyday, and like you, I have a fair number of them, pretty as they may be. The L-N low-angle smoother and jack were my first two newer planes, and I don't think I've bought one older Bailey since.

Re: A Different Question re: Old vs. New Planes

Kevin French, Warner, NH

>The way it was "explaned" to me by a nationally recognized ww'er was "If you don't mind putting the work into them and add a modern blade to them, for the money they will do anything you want them to do. With the following exception: buy the LN 4 1/2 and the 60 1/2"

I'm still working on the Stanleys and have no plans as of yet to get the LNs, as a matter of fact I just bought a stanley 60 1/2 and an 18 so my LA block planes are covered for a while.

Re: A Different Question re: Old vs. New Planes

Jim in Burlington Ontario

>I think the new LV low angle plane is a fantastic plane due to price and useability would recommend it to anyone. You can quickly pic up on how adjusting the throat affects the cutting action. I really like the mechanisim on LV planes there appears to be no slop in it as well. I dropped my LV block plane onto the cement only a dent an older one might have broken or cracked. With replacement blades for older bedrock planes that ranks them a little behind newer planes but the price is right. There is a reason why they copy old bedrocks. For final smoothing I have a LN 4 1/2 and although the plane needs no tuning the iron does about 3 hours worth.

Re: A Different Question re: Old vs. New Planes

mike recchione

>OK, I'll take a contrarian view, since the "new planes are better" point of view seems to be well represented. First a question: How good does a plane need to be? I'm an engineer in real life, so I'm biased in favor of the least expensive solution that meets the requirements. Consider the suite of planes, i.e. scrubs, jacks, smoothers, block planes, trying planes, rabbet planes, plows, shoulder planes, routers, and specialized stuff like compass planes and molding planes.

For the common stuff like scrubs, jacks, jointers, etc., I can't personally justify the price of a LN or other high-end plane when all I need it to do is a low-end task. I feel the same way about routers, plows and rabbet planes - if they work at all, they probably work well enough to do what you need them to do, so it doesn't pay to spend a lot of money on them. We get into a slightly more contentious area on block planes - for me, a block plane does the typical carpentry kinds of things (for which almost anything is good enough), but I also use them as tiny smoothers from time to time. I'm completely happy with the performance of my old Stanleys in both these roles, so I haven't been tempted to try a high end version. For molding planes, I can't complain about how most of my garage/flea acquisitions perform after minor tuning, but I have gotten some lemons from eBay. However, my cost per plane (even adding the price of the lemons into the mix) has been much lower than it would have been to commission a bunch of molding planes.

That leaves smoothers and shoulder planes. I think these are the two types of plane that might justify going with one of the new high-end planes, though I confess I haven't worked hard at finding high-end old ones in good shape. I mostly use an old Stanley #93 to trim shoulders, and it works fine. I use some old #3s, #4s and some old woodies for smoothing (as well as some old knuckle-joint block planes as my #1 and #2 substitutes), and they work OK for most woods. Then there's scraping (I use an old #80 & #12 and card scrapers to do the job), and sandpaper for the cases where nothing else cuts it. This combination works for me. But I confess I'd like to try a high-end smoother at some point, just to see what I'm missing.

- Mike

Re: A Different Question re: Old vs. New Planes

Ross Canant - NE Texas

>I had this discussion with Mario Rodriguez last week at the FWW/Colonial Williamsburg seminar. It was a slightly different question, why is a bedrock better than a low knob Stanley. His answer had nothing to do with quality of cut (low knob Stanley's are bedded much better than later models). He pointed out that, just as many woodworkers won't take 3 minutes to change a bandsaw blade when they need to make a different type of cut, they also won't pop the blade to adjust the throat. With the bedrock, you can adjust the throat without changing anything else, therefore you will be more likely to make the appropriate adjustments. As bedrocks are priced near LN planes and provide the same features, take your pick. I like old stuff.

Interesting

Dan Donaldson

>I had an old Stanley block plane and eventually bought a LN version of basically the same thing. The Stanley worked OK and I used it for about 25 years, but when I got the LN and compared, there was no comparison. Now that may have been the particular Stanley that I had or something, but there was definately a difference. I have a #4 LN, and #5 and #6 Stanleys (not bedrocks). I have tuned the two Stanleys and replaced the blades with Hock baldes and chipbreakers. They work well, but are still not the same as the LN. I definately am no expert on handplanes, but I can sure see the difference. One thing that I have not tried yet is the Lee Valley planes. They are less expensive and I have heard very good things about them. That might be a bit more cost effective.

Re: Interesting

William R. Duffield, on the Cohansey

>I've gotta agree strongly with Dan on this one.

I have two Stanley and one LV adjustable mouth block planes. Everything about the LV is vastly superior, even after doing everything I could to perfect the performance of the Stanleys.

I have an early Stanley #62 and a L-N #164. While not directly comparable, they are similar enough that the performance differences are revealing. Again, there is no comparison in performance. The L-N also works better than my Stanley #3 and three patent date #4C.

I have a L-N #7 and a WWII Stanley #8. Again, there's no contest in performance. The #8 works good, the extra width is necessary at times, but mostly I use it in harsh environments, when I might do some harm to the L-N.

The same trends are clear when I compare my L-N #073 to a Stanley #93. Lie-Nielsens and Lee Valley tools just work better. I'm not talking about quality of blades, or time to tune up, or durability. That's just icing on the cake.

Depends

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

>I think it reall depends on what you want it to do. DO you want a plane just to rough boards or are you looking for a plane to be a finishing plane rather then sandpaper.

If your looking for a plane to get you to a "No-Sanding" point you may want to consider a Bedrock style metale plane suchas a Bedrock, LN or Veritas just keep in mind that if you buy the Bedrock you will probably need to buy a Blade and a Chip Breaker to compete with the newer LN and Veritas planes.

If you are surfacing boards you can get away with an old Stanley or Record #5 with or without a new blade/ Chipbreaker.

It all depends on how much sanding you want to do.

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

What about Clifton Planes?

David in Mangum

>I am reading this thread carefully since I am looking for a really good quality smoother. No one has mentioned Clifton. Pricewise, they are between Veritas and LN, but I am looking for quality as well as price. Any Clifton users?

Re: A Different Question re: Old vs. New Planes

Ernie Miller Topeka

>I don't know if todd's response will add much to the topic on this matter. Todd is a dealer and knowes his planes but Dan, J.R. And Sir William are tool users and have used many differant tools for many years. I think they would be the athority on this question. Me I'm a bottom feeder and have mostly old tools and get by just fine. May I gould get by better with new tools but that will have to wait. If you are thinking about a 112 get the LV cheeper than old and man is it nice. My advice fallow your budget and buy new when you can afford it.

Re: What about Clifton Planes?

Tom Williams

>David,

I have a Clifton and two each of LN and LV (and a couple of woodies). My short answer to your question is that Clifton quality is comparable to LV (very good) but probably not as consistently perfect as LN. Aesthetics are even more subjective, of course, but I'd put Clifton far ahead of LV here and close to LN. I'm not certain but I don't think Clifton uses the ductile iron for their castings that LN and LV have gone to, and similarly they don't use A2 for their blade steel. They do have a unique cap iron design that works well. The rapidly declining dollar vs. Euro has pushed the Clifton's and LN's to comparable prices lately, so the LN's would probably be the better value between these two (if you can use that word with LN), with LV easily beating both in performance/cost ratio. So for new planes I'd buy LV for the common stuff, LN for the less common, Clifton when they go on sale, and by all means get a wooden scrub!

The bottom line though is that all of these companies are making excellent planes and it is hard to not love any of them.

Tom

Re: What about Clifton Planes?

Ross Canant - NE Texas

>I love my Clifton cap iron on a Stanley #4 1/2. In general, I think the Clifton's are very good planes.

Ditto Tom's response on Clifton

Russell Seaton

>I have a few of the Clifton bench planes. Actually all of the Clifton bench planes. They are very nice. For me they work better than my 1930s Stanley planes. Do a search on "Clifton" and my name in the hand tool archive here and you will get a few more of my responses on Clifton planes.

But in summary, they work wonderfully but do require more tuning than Lie Nielsen. If you can buy the Cliftons for 1/3 to 1/2 the comparable Lie Nielsen plane price, then buy Clifton. If you are talking somewhat similar prices, then get Lie Nielsen.

Correction *LINK*

Tom Williams

>It has been pointed out to me that TheBestThings has a Clifton 4, 5, and 7 package for $635 - about 2/3 of LN's cost and comparable in cost to an LV 4, 5.25W, and 6 set. Perhaps they have older stock but that's a very surprising price to me. Lee Valley has introduced some functional design innovations that may swing the balance for some vs. Clifton's better aesthetics, but I really shouldn't claim that LV will easily win the value contest over Clifton.

Tom


Clifton at The Best Things

Well......

Todd Hughes

>I think new made planes provide some vaulable alternitives for some people to the original planes they often ape.....Some planes like a Stanley 212 are just to rare and valuable to use while a LN copy is an affordable tool to use....Second while ebay has pretty much negated this, to many people that don't want to go to the trouble of looking for an original tool it is easier to just get out the credit card, look in a catalog and order what they want. While I happen to enjoy looking and hunting for things I want whether tools or other antiques I do know some people for example are perfectly satisfied with being able to walk in a store and buy some new made furniture instead of taking the trouble to make it or buy an antique piece, if that is what they want then good for them...... Guess new made tools also provide to some people that have that need to have the "Latest, Best " an item that they might have read about in some magazine and who believe if they only had that "Better Made" new tool thier work would be just so much better.

I am always amazed when people say that new made tools like LN and LV planes are made better then the older originals.I think alot of this comes from guys whos experance with older planes is some rust bucket no.4 they found at a flea market,sort of like telling some young guy about Bridget Bardot who only has seen pictures of what she looks like Now.... I once took a friend,[an acomplished wood worker by the way] that collects,[and use's] older planes to a show where they were selling LN planes, he had never seen one befor in person and being exposed to what a Excellent or Mint condition older Stanley looked like he couldn't believe that people would buy somthing so poorly finished.In particular that they were painted and inside of the castings were so rough,Shocked he said that he had better finished Shelton planes at home.

There is no doubt that many new made tools work very well, maybe some even work better then the originals they are repos of though in something as simple as a plane I don't get how they could really be all that much better performers but this is all beside the point. With me I enjoy, whether doing blacksmith work or making an axe handle using an antique spoke shave , just working with and owning original tools instead of using some new made tool whether a LN plane or a new bandsaw,[not much difference in my mind]....I once went on a Dove hunt and took my Purdey double shotgun that was made in 1873 and this other guy,[who had a new Remington auto] asked me why I was using a shot gun like that.I told him if he had to ask me that I could never explain it to him......Todd

A different take on the subject....

Mike Agee

>My 5 yr old son wanted a new bike for Christmas...

We tried out all of the new bikes at Toys R US and Wal Mart etc. and he found his fave at TRS.Wasn't especially better than the others he had seen,this one just was THE ONE for him.Later while out & about we saw several used bikes of much higher quality that only needed a little work.He wouldn't even look at them!He HAD to have his OWN new bike.

FYI my little one car garage shop is not mine, but is my son's and my shop according to him.He piddles around in it when I am out working on the latest project.He is my pal and always goes with me to the ww stores and even gives his opinion when we buy a new tool.Key words here are "new tool".

I am not sure if a prewar Stanley is better than a new Lie Nielsen or not.I am sure that when Christmas morning came,and when I opened two boxes containing new Lie Nielsen planes that no one had ever owned before,my little boy was just excited as I was about our new shop additions.I hope he tells his kids about the time Dad & he got the new planes that will be out in his garage.

By the way the planes work great! My son loves his NEW bike and thinks OUR NEW planes are pretty cool too.

Mike Agee

But..

mike recchione

>My point was, how good do most planes have to be? I'll grant you the smoothers and the shoulder planes (although that's got to be more ergonomic than anything else - my old 93 trims tenon shoulders straight and true), and maybe even the block planes if you use them for more than trimming plywood. But for stuff like scrubs or jacks or even jointers (or routers or rabbets or plows, etc, etc.), I have a hard time imagining better performance than I'm getting - my scrubs remove a lot of material quickly, with no more effort than I'd expect. My #5s do a fine job for dimensioning stuff quickly. My #7s do face and edge jointing just fine. What would spending several hundred dollars more per plane on these things get me?

Again, the smoothers are a different story. I haven't sprung for a high-end one yet, but I recognize that this is an application where high-end might make a meaningful difference.

I'm curious about what you find so much better about the LN #7 vs the Stanley. I don't have a #8, but my #7s seem to work just fine for jointing. For edges that need to be joined, they're the last plane I use. For faces or edges that show, I follow them with a smoother (unless I use my SW #6, which doesn't need to be followed by anything :-) ). How much better do they need to be?

- Mike

Re: A Different Question re: Old vs. New Planes

Brent Langdon, Sterling, VA

>I have to admit that the threads over hear on the hand tool forum can be fairly interesting (but they can sure make me want to spend money).

I was hoping that the resounding answer would be that any vintage Stanly plane could be tuned to work as well as a $$$ new plane. I have not had a lot of luck with an off-brand #4 that I picked up cheap on the bay (made by Sargent?). I have been debating about purchasing a replacement blade, a Stanley #4, or maybe saving my pennies for a LV (or maybe one of Steve Knights smoothers...hmmm...).

At some point, I think I need to buddy up with someone here in Northern Virginia that is willing to mentor me on hand planes. My guess is that 90% of my problems with hand planes is cause by lack of skill. Wait...no...I mean all my problems would be solved if my wife would let me purchase $1000 worth of LN planes. ;-)

- Brent

Re: A Different Question re: Old vs. New Planes

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Why not buy just one LN and see how it goes for you? There's very little risk, they sell for almost full price on ebay, sometimes more than full price (honest, go figure); so if it doesn't work...

Pam

Re: A Different Question re: Old vs. New Planes

Russell Seaton

>Is it correct to presume the #4 plane is your only and first plane? If so this may not be the right plane to learn with. A longer plane is easier to use for normal planing. I find #5 planes to be easy to use. That extra 4" of length matters. A high quality plane is also easier to start with because it will produce the expected shavings the first time you use it. Sort of instant gratification. You learn what you are after and then when picking up an older plane you will have an idea of what it should be able to do. Giving a plane that does not work and needs considerable conditioning to someone who does not know anything about using a hand plane is not a good way to encourgae them to use planes.

Now thats the right attitude !:-)

Joe Rogers, Northern Virginia

>

Re: But..

William R. Duffield, on the Cohansey

>The L-Ns and LVs are better. That's my answer to Lewis's quesstion, and I'm sticking to it. That does not mean that the improvements are critical to their operation. Everything I have to get done, I can manage to do with the old Stanleys. I just have to spend more time tuning them up, sharpen them more often, twiddle with the controls more, make more adjustments and measurements, take smaller shavings, watch the grain direction a lot more carefully, get out the scraper or the sandpaper sooner, take a breather more often, etc. None of this is critical to getting the job done, but the small to medium aggrevations add up. How long it would take for all these little annoyances to make up the difference in price is really hard to gauge. In the case of the #7 vs. #8, probably a very long time. In the case of my 60 1/2 vs. the LV, however, the Stanley was a really, really bad deal. The only reason it has any value at all is because I'm stubborn and refused to give up on it before I made it start to act like a plane.

Re: A Different Question re: Old vs. New Planes

William R. Duffield, on the Cohansey

>When you decide on an L-N, you need to take about 10 minutes and go see Lee Richmond, at The Best Things.