What happened to Stanley

Re: I don't think anything happened to Stanley!

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>But I think Todd's point is that the Stanley tools were substantial competitors, not that they were "the best."

The LN/Stanley link

Bob Hackett

>If I`m not mistaken those LN planes that everyone raves about are merely copies of a Stanley design,the Bedrock.

I`d be curious if anyone could shed some light on whether the Bedrock was an original design developed by Stanley or was it a patent they absorbed when they bought someone else out,just like the Bailey patent.

Mainely,Bob

Re: The LN/Stanley link

joel

>Justus A. Traunt was the inventor of the Bedrock.

and a longterm Stanley employee and massively prolific inventor.

Re: I don't think anything happened to Stanley!

Todd Hughes

>Granted an infill plane may be better at the highly specialised job of smoothing figured dificult wood but does that make it a "Better" plane then a Stanley no. 4 ? No doubt a two seater Italian sportcars car can be finely made and be able to go 200 mph now does that make it a better car then a Dodge minivan? I guess it does...unless you have three kids, a dog and a wifey to take to Grandmas on the weekend. Stanley took over and sold millions of planes because wood workers of the time thought they were the best planes for what they needed. Not that they were the best for a specialised use that a plane like an infill might be better at but because they were better for what these wood workers used and bought them for.

Actually Stanley never made any planes befor getting the Bailey patents I don't think.....Todd

Re: The LN/Stanley link

Todd Stock

>Bob:

Having owned/used Bedrocks, I'd qualify the comparison by saying that the LN is essentially a Bedrock executed without regard to the cost engineering and machining limitations that Stanley had to work with back in the day.

As to the Stanley Works, I once wrote Tom Lie-Nielsen a note re: 289 patterns, and he indicated that Stanley had burned all of thier out-of-production tools when they moved plant locations. He also indicated that it was unlikely that he could have used any of them without modification (to fix problems and add features - e.g., thicker castings).

I'm sure Stanley could produce new tools that would be of high quality, but other than their Al framing square, combo square (the UK one - and just for my tool belt), and Fat Max tapes, they are not really trying.

Some of the best advice I ever got

Bob Hackett

>Was to sort out what it was I REALLY needed to do the job,by sort I mean do I need a combo plane or just a scratch stock.After deciding what is needed,buy the best you can afford at the time.

Stanley used to fit well into this approach back in the pre-WWII days.Many people still seek out these old tools because they`re the best they can afford.(Keep in mind we`re talking user type tools here)

IMO Stanley just de-evolved themselves out of the picture.Thier focus changed from making good tools to making tools cheaply.At a certain point a tool fails to work without alot of user attention,when this happens the user looks at other alternatives.Nowadays that alternative is a power tool to work the stock and then a power sander to remove the damage that the first electron eaters caused.

WWers new to handtools are most impressed by the the fact that handtools are:A-often faster and more efficient B-leave a better quality surface C-more fun to use,as in,not as scary(when was the last time you heard of someone losing a body part to a handtool?),your hands don`t hurt or go to sleep due to vibration,you can still hear the radio while you work. C-a whole lot cheaper than power tools.

If someone had put a well tuned and sharpened plane or even a card scraper in thier hands to start I feel there would be a whole lot less electron eaters packing hobby WWing shops.

The problem today is that most newbees pick up a Stanley product of recent production and get the idea that all handtools are like the one they`re holding and there`s no way quality work can be done with them.

Stanley needs to do us all a favor and either take afew steps back to those quality tools we used to get or just do like alot of other conglomerates that have hashed the job have done,get out of the non-construction handtool(as in planes,etc.)end of things.You can only flounder for so long before people give up on you,Stanley past that point over half a century ago.

Mainely,Bob

Re: Some of the best advice I ever got

Jonathan Peck

>With Stanley's introduction of the Four Square in 1923 and the Handyman in 1957 it's not hard to see the writing on the wall. Not sure when they dropped the Handyman label and just started calling them "Stanley" planes, which is what we see in the big box stores today.

Was the Handyman plane an even more dumbed down version of the 4 Square?