After reading the thread on Wood River hand-planes I thought I would begin a new thread with another option and some discussion. I have two LN planes(3 and 4) on my bench that I borrowed and I have been working with on some maple and walnut. I have been working with them in preparation to make a comparison of the LN with the working qualities of a Stanley fitted out with tuned up Hock blades and Hock chip-breakers. <!—-><!—-> <!—->
I have used Hock stuff before and I trust the quality of Ron Hock’s blades. With that level of trust and experience, I opened up the high carbon blades(made in France) to find blades/chip breakers that were going to need some moderate lapping. Surprise… the blades were NOT flat. Coarse grinding on the diamond stones and some elbow grease. What else is new?
Is this any better than WR? Don’t know. On to the job. I like HC blades and they hold an edge as long as I can hope for within reason. I can not get my A2 blade as sharp after mucho work so I lean towards the HC for now. After a bunch of flattening and a good bit of honing, they were ready to be set in the old tuned up Stanleys. No surprises here, they worked very well as expected. Just as good as the Rolls Royce models from Maine. <!—-> <!—->
I can not detect any difference in the re-fit Stanley/Hock and the LN. None. If you have an old plane that feels good in your hand(I like rosewood a whole bunch more than cherry by the way) and it’s an old friend on the bench…. Consider a Hock replacement blade and CB before you run out and buy a whole new plane – at any cost.<!—-> <!—->
I know this is an old debate but I thought I would add an evaluation from the field. I enjoy FWW evaluations but I am NOT convinced that they get it right all of the time. At times they miss the bull and the rounds are not always a tight group to the right. Remember that clamp thing? 1,000 pounds of pressure?? ‘Nuf said. <!—-><!—->
later<!—-><!—->
dan<!—-><!—->
<!—-> <!—->
Replies
Dan,
I just came up from the shop having spent the last hour polishing the back of an A2 French 2 3/8" Hock blade. The blade is flat, but the tooling marks are deep. I bought two 2 3/8 blades, the first one being in much better shape taking about 25 minutes. I love the end result after the Hock blades are prepared, I just hate spending so much time doing it.
RE: the Wood River blades. I have a WR block and a #4. My experience is the the blades are one of the weaker features of the Wood River's as they come out of the box. The back of my block plane iron was slightly concave and took forever to flatten; the blade was also out of square and needed to be ground true before honing. The #4 blade was square but again had a slightly concave back. My opinion is that the Wood River plane, as a "new-out-of-the-box-tool", is a very good value.
-BUT-
A vintage Stanley, Bedrock, or Millers Falls plane, properly tuned up, and sporting a Ron Hock blade and chipbreaker, is a thing of incredible beauty. I am very, very happy with my "old 'arn" and I agree that the Hock blades are a first-rate product. Bullseye!
-Jerry
Hmm... Dan, while I don't necessarily disagree with your findings you're showinga n incredible bias in your 'test'. Comments like "No surprises here, they worked very well as expected. Just as good as the Rolls Royce models from Maine."
As an owner of LN, Veritas, and many more vintage planes (with replacement Hock blades) I have not had the same experience. I do however enjoy using the vintage planes...
What about the 1000 lbs of pressure?
Dan:
I'm a big fan of Hock irons & chipbreakers. I use to flatten new plane irons on a 220 grit waterstone. I tried a course DMT diamond stone which took too long. I now use 180 grit sandpaper on a granite lapping plate and then proceed to finer grits. For me, the sandpaper took a 30 to 45 minute job and reduced it to 15 minutes tops. I flatten only 2" back from the edge since the chipbreaker covers all but a fraction of an inch back from the edge.
If you are skilled at tuning up an old Stanley plane, either Bailey or Bedrock, you can come close to or match the performance of a LN with the 45 degree frog by upgrading the iron & chipbreaker. I must say though that you have finer depth and lateral adjustment control with the LN than any old Stanley I've ever used. I'm not saying you can't get the Stanley's set properly, it just takes a little more adjusting to hit the sweet spot.
I own a bunch of Stanley's which I've acquired over several years. I have all of them well tuned and was always happy with the results they gave me. During the last few years I've acquired some LN bench planes, #7, #4, BU jack and BU smoother . I now reach for the two BU planes to do all of my smoothing work because I get better results with them than I ever got with my bevel down smoothers (including the LN #4 which has the york frog). With the exception of my #5 and #5 1/2 the Stanley's pretty much sit on the shelf these days.
gdblake
I now reach for the two BU planes to do all of my smoothing work because I get better results with them than I ever got with my bevel down smoothers (including the LN #4 which has the york frog).
This is a new area of planing for me. I have only tried the bevel up LN for a minute or two on another man's bench on wood I don't use much in my work. The jury is still out on this.
"...a Stanley fitted out with tuned up Hock blades and Hock chip-breakers..."
"...blades/chip breakers that were going to need some moderate lapping..."
"...the blades were NOT flat..."
"...After a bunch of flattening and a good bit of honing..."
"...old tuned up Stanleys..."
I haven't purchased a Lie-Nielsen plane in several years, so I can't speak for the quality level of their recent offerings. But I can for Lee Valley's planes: I can order a Veritas plane online, have it delivered to me in about two days, take it out of the box, take the blade out of its box, insert the blade into the plane, and start cutting. No fiddling, no flattening, not even any honing. The thing just works. That level of attention to detail is worth a few bucks to me. I want to be a tool user, not a tool maker.
-Steve
I have twin sets of Stanley vintage bench and block planes with replacement blades, and similar L-N planes. I use them side-by-side, but I have to say the serious strokes are all made with the L-N planes. Virtually the only advantage to vintage Stanleys would be acquisition cost. If you are a fan of antiquities, they have a leg up there, also.
If I had only the Stanleys I would probably be content; but I also would be living without the #9, the #164, the Preston-style shoulder planes the rabbet block plane and so on, that I could not afford in vintage good condition. Of my Stanley planes, only the 605 is truly equal in performance to the equivalent L-N plane on mild woods. My L-N jack allows me to use a toothed blade, an adjustable mouth, and variable angles of attack (bevel up), or different frogs (bevel down);none of which the 605 can duplicate. It's just a jack plane.
All-in-all I enjoy the two makes of planes, but for different reasons.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled