About the Stanley 90, 92, 93

Re: About the Stanley 90, 92, 93

Denis Ch�nard, Orl�ans, Ont.

>Well, I had the 90 in my hands for such a short time (promptly returned it) that I can't answer your question.

Everything was so rough that there was no way I would have kept that plane. Unfortunately it was a gift, but the "giver" was understanding, and I switched that "thing" for a LV apron plane. I wanted a good tool, with so few planes in my possession at the time I had many "holes" to fill...

I'd say, save your money and get the LV bullnose plane, unless old Stanleys were better made back then than they are now (very possible and even probable, I hope!).

DC

Re: About the Stanley 90, 92, 93

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)

>Hi Bill

I have the #90, 92 and 93. Mine are a mix of vintage USA-made (#92) and vintage UK-made (#90 and 93). They are identical in quality. In general, based on a limited number I have seen, I would say that that the vintage UK versions are a safe purchase. That is, you can expect everything to line up correctly.

I used these planes for several years (the #93 was purchased about 10 or more years ago, while the #90 and 92 were obtained about 5 years ago). If I had not used anything else, then I would have been perfectly happy to keep on with them. They work well. They are good planes. It is only in comparison to others that their limitations become apparent. This is not in their ability to take precision shavings. They can do this as well as the others. As you suggested, it is in in their setting up and adjustment that they lag behind the opposition. In nutshell, the Stanleys totally loss their settings when the blade needs to be re-honed as one has to take the plane apart. The LV Medium, by contast, is simply light years ahead in this respect - removing the blade is a doddle. Re-installing it is equally easy, with no alteration to any setting at all. There are a few other similar issues, such as handling and balance. Have a read of my review of the LV Medium for a pictorial demonstration. Link is in the earlier thread.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: About the Stanley 90, 92, 93

Mike Fitterling

>I don't mind the adjustment, but my 93 just does not feel good in my hand. I would love to try the new Veritas shoulder plane.

Re: About the Stanley 90, 92, 93

Phil Albany,NY

>Like Derek, I have all 3 too. They are vintage. I'm sure that the LV, Preston, LN, etc. are better in all or at least some respects but these do the job well. There will always be better product out there. If I chase every new, cutting edge (sorry) product out there whether it be a plane, computer, tv, mp3 player, house, car, bike, countertop, etc., I'd be broke in no time and my passion would no longer be about enjoying the moment. It'd be pursuing something that doesn't exist. I do not think that it's a waste of time to do reviews of new tools or to buy tools that improve your work or even save you time (gulp!) if that's important to you. Honestly, I don't care if it takes a couple of extra minutes to set up my shoulder plane to fine-tune my tenons. I know this might sound rediculous but I like fiddling with the plane. It's part of the experience. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should save our money and buy crap tools but if I already have a tool which works well, they're going to have to sell the hot rod to someone else.

Phil

No not realy...

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA

>Yes Bill, You have to remove the top/front bullnose piece of the plane to remove the blade, just like a Record or alike plane. You don't need to remove it to adjust the blade depth. The Stanleys have a seperate piece that locks down the blade that is hidden under the bullnose peice.

Also, these beasts (including the 94 which you left out) have a set screw in the front/bullnose piece to keep the mouth of the plane set when reinstalling it. Hope this helps.

Re: No not realy...

Phil Albany,NY

>That's right Scott. That's the screw that's notoriously frozen. When I got mine I had to work them free very carefully. Again, all part of the fun...ok, maybe that part wasn't that fun.

Phil

Yep!

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA

>I've had the same thing happen. Not alot of fun... :^(

I Agree

Dave Thompson

>I think it's important to keep in mind the context of the use case. Tenon sizing is about as demanding in precision as a jack plane.. perhaps even less so. Tenon's are so small, that I just don't hold it for very long. I make so few tenons a year, that my non-A2 iron only gets sharpened once a year.... and that's more out of routine maintenance than because it needs it.

Ductile iron is great, but I can't remember the last time I've seen a shoulder plane broken. On the flip side, bullnose planes are probably one of the most common broken planes I've seen that could benefit from ductile iron.

With all that said, I do own a LN073 and enjoy it very much, but believe I could just as well get by with a lesser one.