This LN#3 Has to go back

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

Todd Hughes

>No doubt that a generic hardwood like cherry can make a suitable tote, after all Stanley used maple for some of thier cheaper planes like the no. 40 scrub. Also I am sure a powder coat finish is quite durable , that is why I believe it is the preferd finish for iron fencing and if you tend to leave your LN planes out in the rain and weather it is probably a better choice for you then jappaning.

...But again my point wasn't about the LN performance or that a Cherry tote or a painted finish doesn't work as well as a rosewood tote or a jappaned finish but rather these are just examples of what tradtionaly would be thought of as what is found on a lower quality , lower priced plane, [Think Stanley Handyman line]. Of course LN ofering the rosewood for an added cost suports this I think.I believe if they offered an option of a tradtional jappaned finish they would have to charge a good bit more too if they could even do it.....Todd

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

paul womack

>traditionally

Now we're into the territory of "modern" signifiers of quality against "traditional" signifiers of quality.

Neither is always correlated wih quality they are used as a proxy.

BugBear

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

Todd Hughes

>Yes I agree with you....and I do think it is a bit sad that a powder coat paint job and hardwood handles have devoloped as a sign of a well finished plane.

As I said in my first post it was the comparison between LN and the ones they are copies of that show how the originals are better finished and that tradtionaly it was the cheaper planes finished like the modern LNs. Now Since I was comparing LN to tradtional planes ,[the ones they copy actually!] I thought it only makes sence to compare the two using tradtional indications of signs of quality....or lack of it

Have to confess I never thought that anyone would use the augument that a plane is better finished because it is painted and uses a cherry tote instead of jappaning and rosewood....But hey somebody is buying those LN planes, eh? Todd

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

Dean Lapinel

>I find this topic fascinating and I love the demeanor of the responses. Usually passion and tempers would prevail when questioning an icon such as LN.Congrats people!

I would hope to see photo comparisons of a near new vintage Stanley compared to the castings of the LN. Anyone able and willing to do this?

All my Stanleys are well used.

Dean

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

Todd Hughes

>Hmmm....I sort of thought there might be an uproar from "questioning an icon such as" Stanley.....well not really

Personaly I am convinced if LN was in bussiness 75 years ago making planes like they do today and if Stanley made them today like they were made 75 years ago, and if you could pick up an old LN for $25 at the flea market and the new Stanley cost $400 there would be quite the chorus of how much better finished the new Stanley is by those in line to buy them! ....Todd

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)

>Todd

You appear to have been careful not to claim that the Stanley planes you refer to actually work wood better than the LN planes of today. Clearly the better finish does not necessarily convert to equally fine performance. Or do you also view the early Stanley planes as being constructed to higher tolerances than the LNs? Is the only difference between them, that may account for the unarguably better performance of the LNs, down to the thicker LN blade?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

Todd Stock

>Todd:

More durably finished and more comfortably handled is a pretty good argument. I accept the notion that a Stanley copy (e.g., Superior Tools #601...nice 'repro' of a non-existent plane) might be judged by the fidelity to original materials and methods; however, such is not the case with the LNs or the LV planes. They both are improvements on basic metallic bench plane design, rather than 'badly' executed repros. Would either be a better tool if rehandled with BZ RW and japanned? Not in my view.

Same argument with any 'in the spirit of' improvements on a wide range of manufactured products. Is the new Mustang a poorly done repro of the original Boss, or is it a quicker, safer, and more durable GT that draws inspiration from a well-loved classic? Granted - the new 'Stang def does not have the 'soul' of a well-restored 390, but does that make the new GT somehow a lesser automobile?

Todd

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

Todd Hughes

>While some may express opions on what they don't have experance on I am always very careful to comment only on what I have actual experance with. Since while I have seen and examined more then a few LN planes I have never used one so I do not think I am qualified to comment on how they perform in comparison to a vintage stanley. I did say though that by all accounts they perform very well , and I am sure they do.

I am always curious when LN planes are talked about as if they had major improvments or even a different design over the originals Stanleys they copy. Other then having a malleable iron or brass casting and a thicker iron what exactly are these improvements? The ones I have seen certainly didn't seem to be better machined then a Stanley Bedrock they are copies of. Does anyone really think that thier planing performance is being held back because of the poor machining of thier Bedrock? Is it a big deal to put a thicker blade in a Stanley? While it may be true that you can drop your LN plane on the floor maybe a little safer then an old Stanley something tells me most LN owners are pretty careful not to drop them....Point could be made as well that for the price of a LN you could afford to drop and replace a few Stanleys....Todd

messing with everyone...

john jesseph

>I think it is time to make a list of pro's and con's of LN planes, and just put a link to it every time this topic comes up. Kind of wears me out just rehashing this. The whole argument is a moving target...

it's like arguing that...

HC Sakman

>...the sky is green, not blue!

Chico...

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

Todd Stock

>One way to look at this is whether, with 10 minutes prep each for a NIB 604-1/2 and 4-1/2's from LN and LV, which tools would be likely produce sub-.001 full width shavings in curly maple?

I disagree....

Todd Hughes

>While not what I personaly believe, I think that a person could make a more reasonable argument that a LN is better finished then the plane it is a copy of then they could that the sky is green......Well maybe .....Todd

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

Todd Hughes

>Huh?....Guess that might be a good test if we were ever talking about which plane would perform the best [at least if you take the ability to take thin shavings as an indication of that] in the shortest amount of time....But who was talking about that? certainly not me!

Hmmm I guess you think my made in China power saw is much more well finished then my circa 1900 Disston no 12 saw too.....Hey I can cut a 2X6 in half lots faster with the electric saw ! ......Todd

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

paul womack

>Heh. I think yer' foolin' with us, Todd, but it's a fun game, so I'll continue to play.

One of the traditional signs of quality is when something is done better than it strictly needs to be.

For example, many fine London shotguns are elaborately engraved, although I don't think too many people would regard this as improving their shooting characteristics.

And, clearly, beech handles would fulfil the "need" of a handle, but one might choose a more aesthetic wood.

Clearly and enamel plaint finish would fulfil the need to protect the casting from rust.

But a finish which is water proof (even if it doesn't need to be, since we don't leave our planes in the rain) is better than it needs to be.

And a malleable or ductile iron body (and Stanley certainly had access to the former) that doesn't break is clearly better, even though noone (intends to...) drop their plane.

Do you know the tolerance and process by which Stanley made their soles flat (enough). I know there's a discussion about how flat a sole needs to be, but clearly a sole which is flatter than thi (even though it doesn't need to be...) would indicate "quality".

And Stanley certainly tried to skimp on their blades. According to most plane afficionadoes, the better planes have thick blades, certainly 3/16" or more. THis practice was universal amongst the ellite plane makers (Preston, Mathieson, Spiers, Norries). One could probably argue in this instance that Stanley weren't even fitting blades that fulfilled the need, let alone exceed it.

So: LN have precision soles, better casting materials, better blades, and a more effectice decorative coating.

(old) Stanley's have handles in a timber you prefer, and a thicker decorative coating.

Shall we take a vote?

BugBear (having fun)

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

Todd Hughes

>Good points!....I now know my $100 Mossberg shotgun with it's unbreakable plastic stock, non rusting aluminum reciever, and 5 shot magazine is a higher quality gun then my $10G 1870s English Purdy double shotgun with it's fine walnut but breakable stock and easy to rust steel parts and only 2 shot capability!....Todd

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

Bob Hackett

>Since when does the price tag guarantee quality,especially when dealing with collectables,antiques or the latest trend?

I know if it came time to get down to work with one of those shotguns then I`d want the Mossberg in my hands.Especially if there were more than 2 dirtbags coming thru my door.

Mainely,Bob-Who has been to the LN shop and knows that the fit is far superior to the old Stanleys.The castings are rougher because they are sand cast in small batches.I`m guessing the Stanleys were die cast,judging by the smooth surface and quantity needed.

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

Todd Hughes

>Once again there seems to be some confusion between Quality and Functionality...using Bobs augument the entertainment consol bought at Walmart is a higher quality piece of furniture then an 18th cent. Highboy because it is better suited to hold his stero and TV set. Me I think while the Walmart wonder may be the more functional of the two but it's functionality , like my cheap Mosberg shotgun's, really has nothing at all to do with it's quality or lack of it.

Is humourous to me when I make my point that a vintage Stanley is better finished then the LN that copies it people always start to talk about how much better the LN performs as if that has anything to do with what I said. It would be a weak augument indeed if I took that approach and said the Stanley performed better because of it's jappaning and rosewood tote ....Todd

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley? *LINK*

john jesseph

>Some people prefer a shiny paint job, some prefer matte. I don't think a jappanned surface looks terrible, that's what they had to work with back then. Not sure what that has to do with finish "quality".

Rosewood makes good handles for kicking around in toolboxes, and some people don't mind the color I guess. I like the "generic" hardwood, have made lots of nice furniture from it :)

Here's a link to see photos of mint Bedrocks (click on "bedrock planes"). I may have to sell a couple of my Lie-Nielsen planes to get one... or maybe Todd will sell off some of his stack of Bedrocks at his cost... ;)


mint bedrocks

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

paul womack

>Well, Todd, if you're going to deliberately mis-represent what I said, I'm not playing any more.

It's been fun.

BugBear

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

john jesseph

>I just read Paul's message and reread some others. I guess I am just not too smart. I don't know what quality is. If a quality finish is one that is shiny and doesn't really protect the casting in the long run, and chips and flakes off and lets things get all rusty, well there you go... :) :)

I gotta admit...

Bob Hackett

>you`re good Todd.

I should have known better than to try and derail your train.Thought it might be fun to try though.

Mainely,Bob

Finally got through to ol' Todd. :-)

Joe Rogers, Northern Virginia

>

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

Todd O. Cronkhite Maine Native in FL. Exile :~(

>I think that we may be talking apples and oranges here. I think if you come right down to it Todd is talking DESIGN while everybody else is staling IMPROVEMENTS.

As far as LN improving DESIGN than the answer is clearly NO they haven't.

As far as making improvements than YES thay have. i.e. thicker blades, ductile bodies, heavier planes, which is due to the different type of material and I feel was just an "accidental improvement". I also think that they have improved the totes as well. Anybody broken a LN tote yet? As was mentioned about the flaky japanning I think that spray paint is an imrovement as well, as it won't flake off. Not as pretty as japanning, but more effectice, and I'm sure cheaper. No question in my mind about the improved fit and finish as well.

As far as Design goes, no. Leonard Bailey got it right, so much so that Stanley bought him out. I think if it was said outright, Stanley was nothing more than a "Crank 'em out" mass manufacturer, and if they could beat you they'd buy you. Overall just a A$$hole mega-corporation. There are many manufactures of old that made good quality planes(and other tools) as well, but don't have the name recognition that Stanley does, therefore they are overlooked even today. I will say that none of the other manufactures of old improved Ol' Leo's DESIGN either, but did make minor improvements in other areas such as Ohio's thicker blades for example.

If asked the question: "Dollar for dollar do LN's perform significantly better than Vintage tools to justify their price" I'd have to say No. So, why did I buy some? Because I wanted too. I liked them, they are beautiful to look at, they are made in Maine, I am from Maine. I am human, can you explain Human Nature? If I had to do it again, I probably wouldn't buy the common LN bench planes, but would buy more of their Specialty planes of which I couldn't possibly afford an orginal of. However, at the time I was buying the common bench planes they wearn't offering the Specialty planes that they are now. I will never forget how my breath was taken away when I held in my hands my first LN. It was the Scrub, and it was so Beautiful that I hated to use it and ding it up, but I did. :~)

Todd O.

Re: Finally got through to ol' Todd. :-)

Todd Stock

>I have to admit that Todd was right - there is a significant difference in the quality of machining between Stanley and LN Bedrock-style planes. To the experienced eye, there are many subtle differences.

Here's a body shot - I had to use a LN 4 and a Stanley 605 for the shots to ensure a 2" common frog width - my 604 elected to crack next to the mouth, so went on the block for parts or repair.

The Stanley is a Type 7; the LN is a 'First 100' #4 with a HA frog. the #4 was the one that spent 4 hours on the bottom of the Chesapeake after a 60' drop from the masthead. Fortunely, it hit the spreader on the way down and bounced far enough out to go 'splash' instead of 'crash' (forward skylight was directly under me. Next time I'll use a lanyard...very tough it was not to dive after the plane...

Another Comparison Shot...

Todd Stock

>Here's the surface of the frog on which the plane plade rests...