Hand Plane Comparison: Stanley vs. Veritas

Steve has been selling them on eBay recently at a good- sized discount.

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.

my advertising money well spent (G) hey I have been playing around with some/new planes for my first of the year planes

Ba r r y wrote: ...

You have any particular recommendations? I've been watching for a while but haven't leapt as I'm not sure what is/isn't value and/or desirable models...

I do mostly medium to larger size work...right now the driving forcie is finishing the rebuilding of the barnd doors...they are full-size 2x6 first growth southern yellow pine w/ hand work beveled edges around a tongue and groove base w/ an "x" on the upper half. The originals were simply nailed together and they've lasted about 80 years so far, but a couple have sufficient water damage that several pieces are beyond repair for restoration...they look good from the outside still, but when taken apart the interior is all punky and there's so much volume it's just not practical to reconstitute them, unfortunately. I'll keep the originals for the "museum" of collectibles I've discovered during the restoration process...

Anyway, when re-building I'm using loose tenons in the main corners to hold them and putting solid tenons on the replacement parts...these are

After that, more modest sized work would be the norm...

If I had a place to post them, I'd put a couple pictures of the old barn and progress up (if, of course, anybody cares... :) )

Alex is correct in his observations and to a lot of people those factors all mean a lot. They may not to you though, and not all of them are reflective of the usefulness of the plane. I'm still using the iron that came in my Stanley plane and I don't consider that I have to touch it up an excessive amount. Be assured, I have to touch it up more than if I had a better iron in it, but it's not like I have to stroke it after every 5th pass. You'll get reasonable use out of the stock iron. You'll get better use out of better irons, but that does not make the standard product a bad product.

I have no problems with the machining on my Stanley body. Sure, as Alex says, it's not precise machining, but it's imprecise in directions and areas that do not matter to the use I put the plane to. I don't care that the sides are not square to the base within .001 inches. That does not affect the plane's ability to smoothly remove ribbons of wood from a hunk of rough cut, or to true up the edge of a board. Even the most ardent plane folks have commented that too much emphasis is placed on some pretty irrelevant pursuits when it comes to hand planes.

Plastic totes - yeah, one of mine has them. They're ugly. I don't like the looks of them. But then, I don't like synthetic gun stocks either. Do they work? You bet. Would a nice wood tote be better? Nope. Prettier? Hell yes. But the point is, there is nothing inherently wrong with a plastic tote. Nor should one necessarily shy away from a plane because if it gets dropped hard enough, it will damage the frame. That can be said of any tool, and the objective is not to drop your planes on the floor. Any tool that meets a minimum standard of resiliency is all that should be expected of tool. The rest is in the hands of the operator. Having said that, Alex is again correct in stating that you can buy better - it's a question of whether you need to.

Alex has a certain interest in particular aspects of his planes and that's half of what owning tools is all about. I too have tools that I hold that type of interest in and have purchased when something else would have worked just fine. But, to be fair to the Stanley plane, it does work. It's utilitarian, and it can benefit from some upgrades (mainly the iron), but it can be made to work extremely well pretty much right out of the box. Put the iron down on some sandpaper and do the Scarey Sharp thing, and you'll be surprised what a tool it really is.

You can do it for free here and post the URLs. ;-)

I quite agree with you on all your points but this one. I own a few Record planes and all the ones that get used a lot had the totes replaced because *I* have found a plastic tote truly miserable when used for heavily. Your hands get sweatier, they are uncomfortable and feel awful. Wood is much much more pleasant to use if you are doing a fair bit of planing. I would agree there isn't much difference if you are just using them for a couple of quick swipes though.

PK

I got some serious lucky at that local junk shop, a good condition type 10 #8 (early with no frog adjuster) for $50!

Alex

Steve, considering developing new planes I have le challenge for you... why not

Alex

Duane Bozarth wrote in news:41D4160E.70777853 @swko.dot.net:

Either of the Veritas shoulder planes is a great place to start. I have the medium, because of the scale of the work I do. I've briefly tested the large, but I don't (yet) need one that big.

I have the medium, bullnose, and large Veritas versions, and I love them. The medium would be an excellent first shoulder plane. I've also used Clifton 410 and 420 shoulder planes, they're excellent, but I do not think they are worth the price difference over Veritas. The LN versions were everything one would expect them to be when I tried them. However, they don't make a medium shoulder plane.

I think a good, medium shoulder plane is a great second plane, after a low angle block, for a shop with power jointing and thicknessing equipment.

Barry

On 29 Dec 2004 14:10:29 -0800, "Bob" calmly 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.

-----------------------------------------------

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 07:14:47 GMT, Steve Knight calmly ranted:

Hehehe. I got those planes fair and square for weeks of work on a previous design incarnation of your website. Speaking of which, the site is 2 years old now (date-stamped 2002.) It's time for a new design, Steve. (I should talk, my site hasn't been updated in that time, either. )

Ah, I can tell those are counterfit. They're already marked 2005 and it's only 2004 now! ;)

Ooh, jointer planes? Let's talk! I still don't own a Normite jointer and I never really got fully comfortable with that bigass oaken bastihd of your earliest design.

----------------------------------------------- I'll apologize for offending someone...right after they apologize for being easily offended.

-----------------------------------------------

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 07:06:30 GMT, Steve Knight calmly ranted:

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.

-----------------------------------------------

been there dunit (G) I have made a few low angle planes. but there really is not much need. metal planes benefit from a low angle because they have blade vibration problems that limit what woods they can handle. were a woodies does not. Plus I found them very hard to adjust. I made them with a steel plate epoxied to the plane iron bed. I had made paired of skewed shoulder planes at 45. but it is a paid to need two planes for a job like that and they are a pain to set.

Mike Marlow responds:

Generally, I agree with your observations, until you reach the above. The planes I've had with plastic knobs--rear totes were fine--all had raised seams, and after a bit of use, I could always tell what was wrong with them. Or my hand could.

Charlie Self "A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground." H. L. Mencken

That would be a good point. I haven't hit the point where the plastic bothers me, but I can see where it could be a problem.

Oh man Charlie - that would bug me to no end. Any tool of mine that has a molding seam like that gets an immediate treatment, whether it's a plastic molding seam or a wood joint. I *hate* it when that starts to wear into your hand after some use. Just one of my (many...) personal nuances...

Isn't it something the way these things work on us. There's absolutely nothing quantifiable in what you posted Mike. It's all subjective. But... it's the way things go. I have a Remington 870 that I use just for deer hunting. As hunting goes, I much prefer bow hunting than gun hunting, but when shotgun and rifle season comes around I find myself anxious for it, and loving it when I head out into the woods with that 870. I just love the feel of that gun in my hands. Nothing quantifiable about it. The 870 stands on its own as a first rate firearm, but I'm talking about a love affair that goes way beyond the merits of a shotgun. Where I hunt one could make a good case for having a 30-06 in the gun cabinet, but I just use that