Your opinion of Stanley's competition's planes...

Re: Your opinion of Stanley's competition's planes

Angelo in Cornwall, NY

>Doug, I like the Unions b/c of thicker irons, and the Sargents usually have thicker castings, kinda like the WWII era Stanleys. I also like Fultons, extremely inexpensive (read cheap!) and work well, as well as some of the older craftsmans(usu made by sargent) for the same reason. Just my .02

Re: Your opinion of Stanley's competition's planes

Jim DeLaney, Tustin, CA

>I use Sargents, Stanleys, Keen Kutters, and the occasional Millers Falls (and one Ohio) pretty much interchangeably, and don't really see a whole lot of difference between them. If I had to have a preference, I guess it'd be for the "K" series Keen Kutters, which are the same as the early, round-topped Bedrocks...

Re: Your opinion of Stanley's competition's planes

Cameron

>V & B (Vaughan & Bushnell). All of the advantages of Stanley Bedrocks, but virtually unbreakable - apart from the wooden handles of course.

My Craftsman #7

jim_reed@marietta

>Beats almost every plane on my user bench. It has a corrugated sole and just zips down the wood. The blade adjuster wheel is large and a little quarter spin from the finger will move it down by what seems to be 1/128". It is nice and solid, has a stout tote, and the price was exceptional (I think I paid less than $20). The older Craftsman planes were well made and work well. They are great bargains because nobody wants to be caught using one!

Re: Your opinion of Stanley's competition's planes

Neal (San Jose)

>Most of my users are Ohio Tool. I regularly use #07C and #08 jointers, a #05 1/4 jack, #04 1/2 and #04 1/2C smoothers, and a #0140 block rabbet. I have a bunch of other Ohios that I use now and then, including a #0113, a #066, and a couple of block planes whose numbers escape my memory for the minute. Mostly, I appreciate the thick, laminated blade which seems to hold an edge forever. However, I have to admit that I also regularly use a Stanley square side Bedrock 5 with a Spehar (or is it a Hock?) aftermarket blade as well as a couple of Lie-Nielsons.

Re: Your opinion of Stanley's competition's planes

Roger Nixon

>Like Jim D., I like the K series Keen Kutters but they are Stanley made. Non Stanleys I like are the Sargent VBM's, Marshes, and early Miller's Falls.

Re: Your opinion of Stanley's competition's planes

walt quadrato

>I've had and used an assortment of Union, Sargents,Stanleys, Defiance, MF,KK's, Winchester's, Vaughn & Bushnell's and a host of unknowns Birminghams(Derby CT company) Metal Products(another small CT maker), Metallic and a bunch of the so called "lesser brands" Fulton, Monkey Wards, Craftsman Lakeside...I'm not in the right area for Ohio's; they're pretty esoteric for me..

But the way I figure it..if it's tuned and works right..it's a good plane. Yeah, I know Stanleys are the benchmark plane...but Union's are just as good as are Sargents and V&B's.Stanley has just lasted longer and has made more planes over the last century. Figure also they made planes for most big companies too. Seems like I can kick over any rock here and find Stanleys..but I still get excited when I find a Union(got a Union #8 this weekend) or a Sargent. If it works...it's good...

IMHO

walt q

Re: Your opinion of Stanley's competition's planes

John, NY

>I use a Sargent #4 mixed in with my Stanley #4's and prefer it, I also use a Millers Falls #6 which is heavier than my 1910 Stanley #7... I have a few other Millers Falls and even an Avant which I am generally happy with.

My priceless Great Neck No. 4

David Charters from Durham NC

>I inherited a Great Neck No. 4 from my grandfather. I remember seeing it among my dad�s unused rusting tools all my life and had no idea what it was used for. About a year ago I asked my dad if he was ever going to use it and he said I could have it. My first plane! I cleaned it up and put some kind of an edge on the blade and boy, it worked! It still needs some tuning, but wow! I have just invested in a Veritas sharpening jig and I am putting a mirror edge on my chisels (all 4 of them), my plane blade is next! How on earth do you set the chisel in the jig perfectly square? Also, does anyone else know anything about Great Neck tools, and planes in particular. I know mine is priceless, but about the others�

One to avoid...

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA

>Shelton planes... Run don't walk away from them. Far, far away.

Re: One to avoid... *LINK*

walt quadrato

>Forgot about those..Shelton CT about 10 minuters from me on Rt.8 south....interesting adjustment design..sort of like a cheap Gage. You can tune them..but it really won't make a difference. I've got one representative sample of a #3...don't use it though.

walt q


old planes

Re: My priceless Great Neck No. 4

Jack Guzman from Maine

>I don't know about great neck but as to your chisel,draw or cut a line 90 deg from the edge of your bench(or a small block of wood)and push the guide against the bench using your line to square the chisel in the guide.---Jack

another consideration : consistency in use

John Fitzpatrick

>Although not necessarily a disadvantage, one other point to consider : I grew up on Stanleys, and most all of the Bailey-style bench planes in my stable are Stanleys, so making adjustments on them is second nature to me.

A few years ago, a really sweet, finely tuned Sargent (No.3 equiv) found it's way into my shop. Unfortunately, the threads on the depth adjuster were the opposite of Stanley's ! I could never get used to it, and kept retracting the iron when I wanted to advance it (and visa versa). I got so frustrated with the plane that I sold it. I don't know if all Sargents are threaded this way, but this one was.

Re: another consideration : consistency in use

William Duffield on the Cohansey

>At some point in their development of the bench plane (approximately in the Type 7 era, 1893-1899), Stanley also changed the direction of its depth adjusting threads. It is very frustrating to have to run through the type study every time I pick up one of my vintage planes. What is even more frustrating is that the threads on the Stanley #164 also work bas-ackwards, and Lie-Nielsen didn't bother to fix it when they made their version. This is most curious, since production of the #164 was not begun until 1926. Stanley used the left handed threads on this plane, but the depth adjuster makes a right angle somewhere between the adjuster and the blade, so turning it clockwise retracts the blade.

Don't you hate that?

John Fitzpatrick

>I'm sure your tonque was in your cheek when you said you 'checked the type studies' before switching to a different plane.... but seriously : did you ever get proficient at switching back and forth between the left- and right-hand threaded Bailey pattern planes?

Re: Don't you hate that?

William Duffield on the Cohansey

>Yeah, I've finally gotten proficient at it, but I realized I had to stop acquiring new old planes, or I would have to use dayglo orange japanning on all the backward ones :^) What is even more frustrating is the plethora of lateral adjuster designs, and kludges.