Hand Plane Comparison: Stanley vs. Veritas

Page 2 of 4  
AAvK wrote:

I had this more in mind:
WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]
furtive adj 1: marked by quiet and caution and secrecy; taking pains to avoid being observed;
Especially "quiet" and "caution."
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan < snipped-for-privacy@users.sourceforge.net>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The adjective "furtive" has 2 senses in WordNet.
1. furtive, lurking, skulking, sneak(prenominal), sneaky, stealthy, surreptitious -- (marked by quiet and caution and secrecy; taking pains to avoid being observed; "a furtive manner"; "a lurking prowler"; "a sneak attack"; "stealthy footsteps"; "a surreptitious glance at his watch"; "someone skulking in the shadows") 2. backstair, backstairs, furtive -- (secret and sly or sordid; "backstairs gossip"; "his low backstairs cunning"- A.L.Guerard; "backstairs intimacies"; "furtive behavior")
Yes considering all those options, we can make what we want out of it then, ay? http://www.hyperdictionary.com/ Says:
1.. [adj] secret and sly or sordid; "backstairs gossip"; "his low backstairs cunning"- A.L.Guerard; "backstairs intimacies"; "furtive behavior" 2.. [adj] marked by quiet and caution and secrecy; taking pains to avoid being observed; "a furtive manner"; "a lurking prowler"; "a sneak attack"; "stealthy footsteps"; "a surreptitious glance at his watch"; "someone skulking in the shadows" Definition: \Fur"tive\, a. [L. furtivus, fr. furtum theft, fr. fur thief, akin to ferre to bear: cf. F. furtif. See .] Stolen; obtained or characterized by stealth; sly; secret; stealthy; as, a furtive look. --Prior.
A hasty and furtive ceremony. --Hallam.
Related Terms: artful, back-door, backstairs, calculating, chiseling, clandestine, collusive, conspiratorial, covert, covinous, crafty, cunning, deceitful, doggo, false, falsehearted, feline, finagling, foxy, fraudulent, guileful, hidden, hidden out, hidlings, hole-and-corner, hugger-mugger, in ambush, in hiding, in the wings, indirect, insidious, lurking, on tiptoe, private, privy, prowling, pussyfoot, pussyfooted, quiet, scheming, secret, secretive, sharp, shifty, skulking, slinking, slinky, slippery, sly, sneaking, sneaky, stealing, stealthy, surreptitious, treacherous, trickish, tricky, two-faced, under cover, under the table, undercover, underground, underhand, underhanded, under-the-counter, under-the-table, unobtrusive, untrustworthy, waiting concealed, wily
Alex
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Buy a vintage stanley plane on ebay. If you're just looking for a basic model you could probably get a Stanley #4 or #5 for less than $10. You might have to buy a new blade though. That's another $20-30. Get one from Ron Hock. The old planes are far superior to anything Stanley or Veritas make today.
Or better yet buy a wooden plane from Knight Toolworks (knight-toolworks.com) or Gordon (hntgordon.com).
Or even better still, make your own wooden plane. I have several home made planes that work beautifully.
Mike H. wrote:

I don't

to get

to the

best
price
wood
anyone out

smooth
fellow
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Comments interspersed below: I use old planes and new planes; my "go to" plane is the Veritas low angle smoother ( I have, and use, the HA blade also).
--
Alan Bierbaum

Web Site: http://www.calanb.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A vintage stanley for $10????? When is the last time you shopped on ebay? Nothing has been going for less than $50 for months, as I've watched it. I must be missing something.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep, $10 - $12 4's and 5's fly by aaaaaaallllllllllll day long. My #5 was $9.99 and it is a beaut! My old type 19 #4 was $7.99, needs a bit of tuning on the sole and sides.
Alex
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ranted:

I picked up a #6-C for $15.49 in September, Bob. A 1910 #78 went for $5.50 on 12/10, a #4 for $5.50 on 12/15, a #5 for $7.99 on 12/25, several #110s for under $8 in December. Tons of wood, iron, and transitional planes have been sold for under $10, and I've paid under $30 for each of my half dozen Stanleys (other than the pair of 45s) in the past decade.
You just haven't been "shopping" for them. Pay 'tenshun, boy. ;)
----------------------------------------------- I'll apologize for offending someone...right after they apologize for being easily offended. ----------------------------------------------- http://www.diversify.com Inoffensive Web Design
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

$10? <G>
The best I've ever done on eBay for a COMPLETE Stanley #4 or 5 is about $40 + shipping. None of them were all that great when they arrived, with pitting, filed mouths, cracks. etc...
After a Hock iron and shipping, I typically spent a total of $80 to $100, and then faced HOURS of work to get a Stanley cranked up.
I wish I had your luck!
Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

all good suggestions but for the first plane a old one may be a hard way to go since the person has never used a plane and does not really understand how it all works till he does. same with making one. I know I did both and it was a pain in the rear (G) it's nice to start with a working plane so you know how a plane should work.
--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 07:06:30 GMT, Steve Knight

Agreed. First, buy a good, old, working plane. Then learn how to tune it up and to properly sharpen it. Then build your own if you must. (This last part said to them, not you, Steve. ;)
----------------------------------------------- I'll apologize for offending someone...right after they apologize for being easily offended. ----------------------------------------------- http://www.diversify.com Inoffensive Web Design
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If you want to see reviews, start looking in this UK forum.
http://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums /
If you dig around you will find a section which has reviews of planes. I cannot find the link to this section.
One of the reviewers owns L-N as well as Veritas. I am not sure about Stanley.
The typical response about a new Stanley vs a Veritas appears to be : a) The Veritas are flat and true out of the box. A Stanley needs to be flattened - if you desire your plane soles to be flat. Some folks do not care. I bought a new Record #5 about 2 years ago and had to spend the time to get its sole flat. b) Quality of the blade. A Stanley has a normal steel blade, which will hone to a great edge, but will not keep the edge for long. The Veritas blade is a harder alloy which will keep its edge much longer.
I have a hand-me-down Stanley 9-1/2 and bought an old Stanley #3 from a friend. Both of these were not flat. The #3 was used by a carpenter for all his life and so even had significant wear scratches on the sole.
I have spent a lot of time tuning these tools. The 9-1/2 is now flat and has a recently sharpened, but original blade. I have considered getting a upgraded blade, but the ones I have seen have a 5/8 slot, whereas my plane being US built has 7/16 slot. The 9-1/2 is now working acceptable well for the light duty it is used for.
The #3 is another story. I do not have the sole as flat as desired perhaps due to the amount of wear over the years. I will have to spend another hour or two to get this to my desire.
The blade has been sharpened, but even after all my work, the Record cuts much better than the #3, and most people claim the Record blades are not very good.
Neither the Record or the #3 work as well as a recent Veritas purchase of the Low Angle Block Plane. Even without any honing the Veritas cut with ease.
The workmanship on the Veritas is very good. I prefer the ductile iron body over cast iron, just in case this is ever nudged off the bench onto my concrete floor.
Some people feel the Stanleys of 1950's or before are superior to present day. This may be the case, but I expect a Veritas to hold its own compared to any equivalent Stanley.
Dave Paine.

don't
get
the
out
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...
Pretty much all of the Veritas planes are really well made. You won't be sorry with one.
Modern Stanley planes are really not very good. The castings are inferior, the tolerances in the blade and adjustments are far worse than previous Stanleys. They can be tuned to work, sure, but then again so can the Anant planes.
If you go with a Stanley, get a vintage one off of Ebay. Some of the old ones are very good. I have a Sweetheart Stanley #3 (ca 1920?) with a Hock blade that is my favorite.
What plane are you thinking of getting? IMHO the most useful is a low angle block plane, followed by a shoulder plane, a scraper plane, and a #3/ #4 smoother and a #5 jack.
Hope that helps.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
n snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com says...

And if you want a #8 jointer plane, used is the only choice you have. Unless one has come out recently that I don't know about.
--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

A year or two ago somebody was selling new #8s, I *think*. Maybe they were #7s. I had one in my shopping cart for a long time at whatever place that was, but never bought it. I have a "Stanley Tools Sheffield England" fold-out sheet right in front of me, from a new #9 1/2 that was too cheap to pass up ($10), and it only lists bench planes from the #3 up through #7C. So you're probably right, and I'm probably dreaming.
#8s are damn hard to find used too.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan < snipped-for-privacy@users.sourceforge.net>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I got some serious lucky at that local junk shop, a good condition type 10 #8 (early with no frog adjuster) for $50!
Alex
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Drive by: I got my #8 on ebay in November for $42. Complete, and in good condition, although I haven't tuned it yet. 'course, shipping was another $17, but hey, others in this thread are reporting those prices for 4s and 5s! So, shop around.
--
Prof. Chris Hartman | "To use bad English is regrettable,
University of Alaska Fairbanks | to use bad Scotch is unforgivable."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I don't know much about Veritas planes, so I can't comment on them. But as far as a new Stanley versus a pre 1920 Stanley, I would go with the vintage plane every time -- even if it takes a weekend of tuning it up. You'll probably end up spending that much time in frustration with a new Stanley. The only exception I can think of is Stanley's small, low angle block plane -- I can't remember the model number off the top of my head. It's not that bad for about $35 -- but be prepared to spend some time flattening the bottom. I just replaced mine with a Lie Neilson and the LN is much nicer of course.
If you've got a drill press and a band saw or table saw, I would seriously consider making your own plane. It's really not that difficult, although it does take some time. Check out David Fink's (sp?) book. There's nothing like making your own tool. I've made four of them in the past six months -- 45% and 50% smoothers, jack and shoulder. My neighbor thinks I'm nuts. : - )
Nate Perkins wrote:

won't be

inferior,
previous
Anant
old
Hock
low
a #3/

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

#3/
I was gonna get a #4, then I was gonna get a standard block plane. That was my original plan. But based on the amount of reading I've been doing, the low-angle/shoulder planes makes sense to buy first. But I will not have a joiner or a planer, so I was going to use hand planes to smooth all of my rough sawn wood. That's why the #4 was first on the list.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Flattening and thicknessing rough sawn wood with hand planes isn't an easy undertaking. If you are serious about doing it by hand (the neander route) then you'll probably want a scrub plane, a jointer plane, a jack plane, and a smooth plane.
Good luck
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Perkins wrote:

Having come up through this myself, due to space as the overriding consideration, with money a close second, I can say that you *can* do it all with a #4 if your projects are smallish. You spend forever re-adjusting it. A #4 and a #5 is better. Two of each, better still. The advantage is in having more planes so you can leave them set up different ways. Or perhaps an easy-to-adjust Veritas might make up for some of this. Changing the mouth on a Bailey type is tedious, and it's better to set it and leave it alone.
I don't have a jointer yet, but I do have a Sargent #6 that I hope to get in service soon (as soon as I drill a tote hole correctly :). I also caved and bought a benchtop mechanical jointer because I really suck at getting an edge *exactly* perpendicular to a face, no matter how many gadgets I employ to help me in the process. (Shop built jointer fence followed by a real LV jointer fence.) It's useful for getting stock consistently flat too. This one leaves a horrible burnished and washboarded finish on the wood, but I haven't bothered to tune it up. It saves me from the parts I can't do very well, and then I can go back in with hand planes and make the wood look puuuurty without screwing up the flatness and perpendicularity too much in the process.
Not the real Neander way, and a lame excuse for Normism too, but it gets me there. Only the results matter, right? :)
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan < snipped-for-privacy@users.sourceforge.net>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.