WoodCentral Forums

Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge

An open letter to Rob Lee

Posts

An open letter to Rob Lee

#1

An open letter to Rob Lee

Mike-in-Havertown

>Dear Mr. Lee,

I am must say that I am disappointed. I was working in the shop last night and I needed to smooth a table top to remove the planer marks. After sometime with your low angle smooth plane and even less time with your scraping plane I can no longer justify adding a drum sander to my workshop. The results I got on the curly cherry are the best I have seen and felt.

I know that it sounds like I am complaining about you and your company making an outstanding tool, and I am. You have just saved me about $1000.00 in new equipment and accessories.

I am also mad at myself for not allowing myself to experience the joy that is handplaning a tabletop with planes.

So please Mr. Lee as you can see you will be costing some powertool companies revenues and jobs if you keep making these wonderful tools.

Thank you for your time,

Mike-in-Havertown.

Re: An open letter to Rob Lee

#2

Re: An open letter to Rob Lee

Todd Hughes

>Boy now think of the money you could have saved if you had bought some vintage planes, eh?....Todd

Re: An open letter to Rob Lee

#3

You Bad Boy!

Hoa Dinh in Alameda

>I'm trying to convince myself that I don't need the BU jointer.

I don't need another LV plane. I don't need another LV plane. I don't need another LV plane. I don't need another LV plane....

-- Hoa

Re: An open letter to Rob Lee

#4

Re: An open letter to Rob Lee

ydb1md

>I don't think he'd have enjoyed the process near as much if he'd used a vintage plane.

Re: An open letter to Rob Lee

#5

Re: You Bad Boy!

Brent Smith

>Yes you do !!!!

Re: An open letter to Rob Lee

#6

Resistance is futile...

Denis Chénard, Orléans, Ont.

>

Re: An open letter to Rob Lee

#7

Why?

Todd Hughes

>Why do you think it is not as enjoyable to use a vintage plane that perhaps you found on your own then a new plane which you just get out a credit card, pay for it and it appears on your door stop? ....Todd

Re: An open letter to Rob Lee

#8

Ha Rob

ernie miller

>Put one up in the benifet auction see how fast he jumps on it.

Re: An open letter to Rob Lee

#9

Re: Why?

James Watriss

>Depends on the vintage.

I have some gorgeous old stanleys at school. A 1st Gen 608C, with the old round-top sides, and a lie-nielsen replacement blade (this is a common theme).

I have an old 2 1/4" bladed 5 1/2C, stuffed with a LN thin replacement blade, and LN chip breaker. It's one of my favorite planes, but the cast iron in this one has a mind of its own. The corrugations are noticably thinner towards the front, due to all the flattening I had to do when I got it. And now it's crowned across the middle, as witnessed by the two, wispy, perfect curls that came from each side of the freshly sharpened blade yesterday. The middle of the sole kept the blade from getting contact... I verified that with a starrett rule.

A low-knob 4 1/2C, with a Hock blade and chipbreaker, and it's younger brother, a WWII vintage 4 1/2, stuffed with thicker, stock LN 2 3/8" blade and CB.

There's quite a bit of backlash in this last one, due to the overly thick blade, but I have ideas in my head to modify a chip breaker so that it reaches down to the yoke, to help alleviate this issue. Aside from that, it's clear why these planes marked the beginning of the end for Stanley, and there are the first rumblings of the now-standard voids that people see on frogs when they take the blade out. But it does work well, and it has the nifty grey metal yoke nut with a plastic knob that marks it decisively as a WWII plane... Brass was being horded by the army at the time for shell casings. For that knob alone, I think I'd keep the plane.

A #4C, tuned to perfection, and yes, stuffed with a LN thick blade. It works as well as my LN high angle bronze 4C.

Not one or two, but 3 #3s. 2 of them are sweethearts, one corrugated, one not. I'm always amazed at the quality of tool Stanley used to make... everything is machined so precisely, and works so well. And there's a funny thing about that old 3C. It's marked "Imperfect," on the side of the body, just above the sole. I think it's funny how much Stanley used to care about their products, because I'm damned if I can find a thing wrong with this plane, and it's well above and beyond what they've made in recent years. Maybe when it was new, there might have been some small aesthetic thing, who knows. But the 3C is fully tuned, while the smooth soled one is not, yet. ( I can't wait to do this, to run a side by side on both these and the 4.5s to see if the corrugations help, hinder, or do nothing. Stock blades, etc in these two... so far.

And then the later, 60's era 3C, again stuffed with LN. This was the first time I took a plane through Charlesworth's recommendations, which go above and beyond what they teach us at school... flattening the sole I knew about. Flattening the frog... no. Bedding the frog with a magic marker, scraper, and silicon carbide powder... no. Filing the front of the throat, also new to me. I went to town on that little plane, and I liked the results. It was the plane that turned me on to the joys of the old stanley #3. (I don't like the handle on the LN 3) That said, it's got those voids in the frog, the frog doesn't fit like the older ones used to, the handle is painted pine, and while I love the feel of a #3, it just doesn't feel quite as nice as the older ones do.

All of these planes are workhorses. They all will take fluffy, continuous shavings, and the old stuff just feels right in the hand somehow.

On the other hand, there are my old woods. I have a 29" razee jointer that still refuses to cooperate. I'm having a devil of a time getting used to the tapered irons in conjunction with wedges. A 22" fore plane with an old Sorby iron. Gorgeous plane, with light spots due to LOTS of use from the previous user. I screwed myself on this ebay find, by winning the auction, and then noticing that it was in England. Shipping is murder when you're trying to get a 22" heavy wooden beast across the pond. It's a gorgeous plane, but the iron is getting short, and again, devil of a time getting used to the tapered iron thing. I love the way those planes feel in the hand, but I still, for the life of me, can't get them to cooperate fully. But it will happen. Flattening a tabletop with those would have been a nightmare.

My old mathieson is a little better. The new Hock iron it had when I bought it takes a great shaving. But something is dirty in the old plane, and the blade drags on one side when it's being adjusted. That said, it's a beauty, and a joy to use... but too short to flatten a table top, and I still have to ease the corners on the blade. (The shaving is great, and the cut is glassy smooth. But the tracks left on either side are a major irritation., and the left side of the throat sometimes gets clogged. I think at some point, once I figure out the left side drag and clogging issue, I'll shim the blade with construction paper or something, to get that last bit of gap out of the mouth. Not necessarily because it's required, just because I'm a pinhead.

So... which vintage? Old Stanleys? Or even older, much more cantankerous monsters that have to be tamed first?

Re: An open letter to Rob Lee

#10

Re: Why?

ydb1md

>I love vintage tools. I think they're, in general, more aesthetically pleasing than their modern counterparts (Lie Nielsen excluded.)

But, when it comes to using, I'd much rather use my Lee Valley planes and look at my vintage Stanleys. The setup involved in getting my Stanley ready to go as a smoother takes 4 to 5 times as long as my Lee Valley. When it's time to sharpen the blade, I'd rather grab a different plane than take off the breaker, remove the blade, sharpen and go through the set up all over again.

My Lee Valley's give repeatable performance and very easy setup. I can remove the blade, hone it, get it back in the plane and ready to take .0005 shavings in less than five minutes. I enjoy working the wood, not swearing to my antiques.

Re: An open letter to Rob Lee

#11

Re: An open letter to Rob Lee

Rob Lee

>Hi Mike -

Thanks for the comments - I'm glad they worked out well for you!

Cheers -

Rob

👍 This page answered my questions

Your vote helps other woodworkers quickly find the answers and techniques that actually work in the shop.