I think that there is a bit of a rift bewtween the folks who buy high end tools exclusively, and those who make do with yard sale (old) tools.
I’m definitely a BIG fan of GOOD trools. Junk tools belong in the rubbish. But I think there are a large number of woodworkers who are producing good products using what many would consider to be old JUNK.
I guess I’m curoius to see what people are really using for hand tools. Are you a hand tool elitist, and have to have the best of evrything? Or do you make do with whatever you can pick up second hand?
geoff
Replies
Not all good tools are expensive, or new. If a tool is capable, and does what you want it to do, it needn't be expensive.
Some of the most prized (and expensive) tools came into being because they fulfilled a need. Lie-Nielsen handplanes are an example. They were based on old Stanley designs, but Stanley no longer made them. Thomas Lie-Nielsen saw an unserved market, and began manufacturing high quality planes using these original designs to meet the need. His company has refined the designs and materials over the years, but they are still pretty much based on the original designs. If you can find an old Stanley in decent shape at a flea market, you can fettle it and have a very good tool, and avoid the expense of a LN.
My major concerns in buying a tool are: how often will I use it, and will it lead to more consistent results, and thus save me time and stock. I have a Festool router because I cut a fair number of sliding dovetails, and I think it with its guide system and precision it saves me time and wood. Others will use a different approach which yields the same results in their hands.
My father had a 40 yo Craftsman #5 plane, that always seemed kind of clinky and never planed very well. I was looking it over one day and thought it actually looked pretty well made. So I took it to my shop and spent perhaps 90 minutes fettling it. When I was done it was cutting wispy 6 inch shavings with little effort. It's just an old Craftsman (not a Bailey) but can't see how it could do a better job.
Brand quality is another issue. I would rather buy a 30 yo Unisaw in good condition and put a new motor in it, than buy a new Unisaw today. With General, I'd have no problem buying their new cabinet saw.
Just my 2p,
Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Geoff, undoubtedly there are people out there who can and will only have the best tools,especially if they are the most expensive.
HoweverI see nothing wrong with finding tools at "junk" sales as long as they are basically sound-for those with ability this is a good way to go-easy example being the older Stanley which cleans up like new, then is up graded with a better blade.
I'm not an elitist-it's counter-productive- but I get the best I can afford, and feel chuffed when I find a rough diamond and re-build it into good working order-applies to machines or hand tools.
But I have seen one or two old boys doing superb work with tools in really bad order , and wondered what effect decent tools would have on the quality and efficiency of their work....
Hi Phillip ,
You struck a nerve with me . I have been collecting old flea market yard sales tools for a long time and have some dandies. But as you spoke of the old boy's who do superb work with tools that are not perfect it was really the point . It is not what you have that produces good work it is what you know , that is the determining factor in the work you produce . I would be the first one to agree that there is something very special about the feel of a quality tool in your hands , but you need to be able to guide it to the end result . Example : I know a fellow who, with only his pocket knife can create carvings that most of us even with an entire layout of the worlds finest carving tools could never come close to .
regards dusty
Here's something to think about - when I was much younger, and somewhat poorer, and trying (with some sucess) to make a living as a bespoke furniture maker, I couldn't afford the best gear, and I made do. It was OK stuff, but only just. Partly, this was because I didn't know any better, but mostly is was lack of capital.
Now - quite a few years later - as I start over with mostly new gear, I'm getting the most joy from a few really good tools and machines. Not setting up a commercial shop, although it is commercial-capable.
It's not elitism. Good stuff is nicer to use, easier to set up, and does (all things being equal) a better job. But it is more than just utility. Lots of us - people who get satisfaction creating artifacts with our hands - appreciate the great tools and machines that other craftsmen create. I love my HNT Gordon wooden planes because they are beautifully made, and they function beautifully. If they'd fit in the box, or even in the hole, I'd ask to be buried with my MiniMax machines!
Malcolm
Elitist may be the wrong word. What I mean is the feeling you HAVE to replace a perfectly good Stanley with something new and expensive because the old tool is somehow not good enough. It doesn't fit some ideal that in order to produce REALLY good work you have to have the best, (most expensive?), tools available.
I was definitely heading down this path. I have some old tools that with a bit of effort now work fine. I was pretty sure I was going to have to replace them because they weren't good enough.
On the other hand I'm not advocating that people buy old junk and make it work. I love a good tool as much as anyone else. But I think that there are many people replacing good old tools with shiny new ones, when they really should be buying something they don't have. Something different to experiment with.
How many people are replacing a #4 Stanley with a #4 Lie-Nielsen instead of using that money to experiment with a L-N Rabbet Block plane, or one of the low angle smoothers?
Re-reading that, I feel like I'm preaching. Sorry about that. Sorry also for focusing on hand planes so much. I have planes on the brain. :)
One slightly different perspective-
I am more interested in spending my (limited) time using tools to make furniture or other projects than spending my time at auctions and yard sales looking for old tools then spending more time fettling them.
I've never really enjoyed fixing up old planes all that much, I've done it twice- once to a Sargent smoother (my grandfather's) and then to a yard sale Stanley No. 7. Both times the planes came out very well and are both good workers. But I have no desire to do it again. I think it's great when others do it, but it doesn't give me the kind of pleasure and satisfaction that it clearly gives to others.
But I do like using high quality, well made, well tuned, working tools. So I buy Lie-Nielsen when I want a plane that I don't already own. It's not really a status thing, it's just that when it comes out of the box and after honing, it goes to work.
I like to be able to support companies (through my purchases) that care about quality as much (or more) than they do profit, it is a rare thing.
The fact that his planes are beautiful is an added bonus, it is for that reason that I don't buy Veritas, which I understand are equally good, but to my eyes aren't as traditional looking or pretty.
Best Regards,
David C
Geoff,
You raise a number of good points, and a touch on a few sore spots. A year ago, I realized I was guilty of spending more money on tools than wood. That made me wonder whether I was more a woodworker, or a tool collector.
Since then, I have made an effort to put more time into actual woodworking. It is easy to get obsessed in having "the best" tools, as though that will get you admired by other woodworkers. What will get you admired is doing good work.
By your note, you seem to be realizing this early. Good for you!
Regards,
Dan
I think there is a point to consider beyond just the utility of a fine tool. Many in this hobby/profession are tool geeks. I am (in addition to a tool geek) a fishing geek. I have almost as much fishing equipment as I do tools. And let me be the first to say...I am a better fisherman than woodworker, even though I go home empty handed a lot. Does a $400 spinning rod and reel catch more fish even though it is smooth as silk and a pleasure to use? Not necessarily, but it is a pleasure to use, and if you can use it more, and it breaks down less, and cast further and more accurately...maybe it will put more fish in the boat. Plus there is the factor that many in both of these hobbies (with respect to you professionals in both endeavors) are collectors and connoisseurs of the equipment used in both. Case in point is the "user" and "collector" class of antique tools. Plus, there are some tools that are being made on par today with the tools of yesteryear, and thanks to technology, some are better. I think you can be a woodworker and a collector of tools simultaneously. In fact, I think it's kind of inevitable. to go back to my fishing analogy, I can go out Muskie fishing and have enough tackle in the boat to start a small tackle shop, but I can only use one lure and rod at a time. I have forced myself to simplify because I realize what a fishing geek I am. Let's face it, who doesn't have more tools than they really need? Unless everbody is working out of a traditional woodworker's tool box you can carry, this means you. I don't think it is about elitism, but rather, it is just what most people to work wood are into. Some people collect wood like the library of Congress collects books and will never put a tool to half of their stock, but, they will make some great stuff with the other half. But, there is no substitute for skill. Fast Eddie (Felsen that is) can take out the Balabushka all he wants, but he can still get hustled by a guy with a house cue.
When I decided to get started as a WW hobbiest a few years ago, I had a conversation with a more skilled craftsperson that shifted my direction. I first assumed that I had little talent and would have to rely on machines for "machine accuracy." This guy convinced me that hand tool use was not out of my reach, and that I should start by getting a really well tuned plane. He told me to Len Lee's sharpening book as the bible.
With this encouragement, I dug up my (late) father's Stanley, not sure which. It was a cheap US product I think may have been called "contractor grade" or some such. Based on size it was about a #6. I bought a piece of glass and a lapping kit from LV and went to work. After about 6 hours I got the thing nice and flat, and with a 1000/2000 waterstone the iron was reasonably sharp.
I found next that the bed of the plane was not square to the sole, meaning the only way to get anywhere close to an even shaving was to skew the blade. At this point I decided that shimming, machining, or otherwise repairing the bed was beyond what I was interested in. So I gave the plane to my brother (who is very happy to have such a super sharp tool) for odd jobs, and bought a LN #4.
If doing it over I'd save some $$ and get the LV rather than the LN. The decision at the time was based on not wanting to spend time on fine tuning tools, so I can spend more of my extremely limited shop time on using the tools.
Is that elitism? I know I've been "guilty" of it in the past ... hard to judge. At this point I think I'd try the used Stanley route again, as an economical way to round out a decent plane collection.
Sorry if this ramble is too long. -robert
Planes on the brain mainly in Spain (sorry) I replaced my old Stanley # 4 with a LN #4 and I think it was worth it even if it was just an incremental improvement. But it is fun getting what looks like an old junker at a garage sale and turning it into a jewel. Hard to resist either. Troy
I think that there is a bit of a rift bewtween the folks who buy high end tools exclusively, and those who make do with yard sale (old) tools.
I have LOTS of them that I made do...
I THINK I do OK at least and sometimes REALLY NCE!
Hey Will ,
I guess it's like a Ford Fiesta and a Lincoln Navigator , they both will get you to the super market , but if you didn't know how to drive , neither would get you there , if you know what I mean.
regards dusty
NOTHING wrong with Quality tools... Buy them if you like them...I have MANY high quality wetal working tools.. Probably cost ALOT more than my house! Gee....I hardly ever use them anymore..I just spend what I have at the time.. I'm so sad these days... LOL
bm
Almost everything I build gets the smoother treatment instead of sandpaper. I have a pretty extensive plane collection. I have an almost complete set of Lie Nielsen planes, saws, scraper planes, and spokeshaves. The Brian Bogg's shaves were better than any other that I have used, and I have plenty.
That being said, I also have a near complete set (no 601, no 602, as they're too small and not for working) of Stanley Bedrock planes. Each and every one was either a yard sale or Ebay purchase. I have spent the numerous hours required hand lapping and tuning. They all work tremendously well. In fact, I keep the 603, 604, and 604 1/2 right next to my LN 4 and 4 1/2 so that I don't have to stop to sharpen, especially on a large table top.
I will say this, I have more time in each bedrock than $ invested in the LN planes, if I calculated what I pay myself per hour tuning each one. I've been working on a particularly nasty 606 for the past few months, a moment here, a moment there. I've been lapping the sole for over 3 hours, and it's still not perfect. A labor of love, I guess.
If you want a tool ready to, though, purchasing the best is always a great way to go, as long as you can afford it.
Jeff
Just an observation, Stanley never made a 601. Patrick Leach does currently
That could explain why I don't have one. What I really meant was that as a user, a #1 or #2, bedrock or otherwise, is not a tool that I would ever purchase. Especially at the rediculous prices that the collectors pay for them.
Jeff
BTW, I don't have a 605 1/4, either. Another useless endeavour, in my humble opinion.
I think the time to tune an old tool is a key from some people (as well as the knowledge of how to tune an old tool). Planes and saws I think are prime examples. Planes because of the amount of time you can devote to flattening soles, etc. The saws because of setting teeth.
I've got a pretty limited time to devote to the hobby and pretty limited (but growing) knowledge. It's all well and good to respond to new woodworkers questions about buying tools with a statement about being able to get everything you need (particularly hand tools) at a garage sale.
The first plane I bought was from Sears about 5 years ago and the first saw I bought to hand cut dovetails was from Home Depot. I gave up on both and became a devoted 'Normite' relagating my few hand tools (with the exception of chisels) to a shelf.
I later started experimenting with Veritas and Lie-Nielsen handplanes and saws and wow. I now find hand tools are quicker for non-repetitive things and just more appropriate for a great many things.
At this point, now comfortable with handplanes and how they should work, I could probably go back and make my Sears hand plane functional. But, I'm still not sure that I want to devote the time to it.
I guess the point of all this is I don't think it is irrational for newer woodworkers to devote their budgets to tools that work well out of the box versus fixer-upper tools (whether new or of the flea market variety). It may save some of the time wasted figuring out whether its you or the tool causing problems.
For now, if I decide a need a new plane of a particular variety, I'll probably buy one from Lee Valley or Lie-Nielsen. By the time you find the right plane at a garage sale or sift through e-bay auctions for a trustworthy seller with an appropriate plane and fettle it, depending on how you value your time, you very well might find you're spending more on saving money than just biting the bullet in the first place.
I think new hand tool users should, if possible, focus on learning how to use and sharpen their tools and shouldn't have to worry about fixer-upper tools at least at the beginning.
For those people who enjoy the hunt for a bargain tool or enjoy rescuing an old tool from death by rust, I think that's great. But, it doesn't make the opposite, paying a premium for a new, ready to use tool, irrational.
Just my two cents.Matt
Count me in the crowd who doesn't pud-off to their tools. I need something that gets a job done. Usually, that's a better brand but I've made do with less than the best.
Edited 9/12/2005 12:41 pm ET by ProWoodworker
It's funny that this thread came up now.
Last night I was poring over the new Lee Valley catalog. Since I happily own a lot of LV tools, I find it interesting to see what they've put out since the last flyer.
I'm what you would call an "early adopter". I often buy a new tool right away if it has that "click" for me, to fill a need or niche. I also try to buy the "best" so that I only buy once. Best sometimes means a cheap tool that can pay for itself on one job, and then exist for free.
I noticed a number of changes to some of the Veritas tools, that have occurred since my buying the first-runs. Nothing major, nothing ground-breaking, but small enhancements or improvements. The new Bevel-Up jack and Low Angle Smoother have new handle designs (like the scrub plane) that I find a lot more comfortable than the old blocky design. I'm torn between A: seeing if LV is selling new handles that will work on the "older planes"; B: buying a block of Bubinga and milling a new handle; or C: just leaving it be. The tools DO work as well as any others, its lust a matter of aesthetics.
The Veritas Dovetail markers are another example. The set I have flare out (the angle is >90 degrees) for marking the tails. The newest sets have acute angles (less than 90 degrees). Not a big deal, but it makes a big difference in how you mark your half-pin at the edge of a board.
I guess sometimes, cutting edge is bleeding edge, if you're the type who likes to improve and upgrade tools. Looks don't make the tool, details don't usually make big changes, but sometimes you long for the total package.
Well, that's my rant for the day.
The older I get, the better I was....
Actually, another point that I wanted to make. Completely in the face of my prior post....
Duncan Phyfe, H.O Studley, Thomas Sheraton, George Hepplewhite. None of those guys had a Lie-Nielsen. Or a Bedrock. Or even a Bailey! I don't see where their work suffered for the hardship.
In the end, it is the archer, NOT the arrows.The older I get, the better I was....
You're right, but they did have well-made wooden planes and many would assert they they were/are better than any of the brands you mentioned.
That's the point.
The wooden planes were well, made, but even better-maintained. Looked like hell in many cases, but that doesn't really matter.The older I get, the better I was....
Dear All
There was this great FWW article about 8 years or so ago. It was stuck way in the back where the corporate sponsors were less likely to see it. This woodworker was on vacation somewhere in the far east (Malasya?) and found these guys making incredible pieces out of the most reprehensible looking tools. Beat up planes, handsaws, etc. I think one fellow had a tool literally made out of steel from an old bicycle. Maybe someone else remembers the reference? Anyhow, this American was amazed to see such quality from this third world shop. I thought it was a hoot!
Frank
Edited 9/12/2005 10:49 pm ET by Biscardi
Actually, I think that developing skills making your own tools, especially planes, leads to better skills using those tools.I can see why apprentice programs work so well learning woodworking. You can read all your want and talk all you want, but to become really skilled you have to work. No matter how detailed a book is, until you start cutting wood, you aren't going to progress very far.I'll give an example. (Don't laugh, I'm new at this.) I've finished a few books on woodworking including Tage Frid's book. Last night I was planing a board smooth before working on the joints. It's a piece of plain sawn oak. (I think it is plain sawn.) The grain changes direction in the middle of the board. If I try to plain from one end of the board to the other it goes fine until I hit the grain change and then hangs up. It sounds different and the plane feels completely different. You can literally feel the tear out in the second half of the board. To plain this board I have to work from each end to the middle.In order to learn that I had to work with the wood rather than just read a book. Working it by hand taught me an important lesson about how to work wood. To me it was a valuable lesson.I'm rambling... The point is that you are much better off working some wood, preferably with a hand tool, than focusing on expensive tools. Well, at least while you are learning. I think.
geoff
True. But I bet they wouldn't have turned down a Lie-Nielsen if it had been available to them.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Who would?
That's a no-brainer.The older I get, the better I was....
For those interested it might be worthwhile looking at the Midwest Tool Collectors Society.
>> That's a no-brainer <<
Apparently not. What I thought you meant in your post is that Phyfe, Sheraton et al turned out beautiful pieces with older, less advanced tools. This is undoubtedly true in that metallurgy really came of age in the late 19th century, and with it the ability to make fine edged tools that led to the original Stanleys and English handplanes.
The debate, however, is not whether it is possible to make furniture using 18th century or 17th century tools- it sure is. Tage Frid could probably have made beautiful pieces out of rock maple and teak with fint tools. The question is whether they (or we) would/should pass up the chance to use a good tool because it is new and perhaps expensive. I think it is a personal choice. If it is up to me, I'll buy a tool depending on: how often I would use it, how well it does the job and will it save me stock and time. Since Hepplewhite, Sheraton et al were in business to make money as well as great furniture, I suspect that the last argument carried great weight with them- less time, more profit.
The example I fall back on is my Festool router and guide system. I have made a number of cherry bookcases with sliding dovetail joints holding the shelves in place. With the Festool, it is really hard to screw up the alignment of the corresponding tails, even though you have to change from a straight to a dovetail bit, and the depth setting is very accurate. No doubt others have accomplished the same end by different means, but in my hands the Festool saves me money by consistently turning out one exact cut after another. I think I probaly paid ~$125 more for the system over a Bosch or PC, but given the price of cherry, it saved me more than that in wood in its first few months of use.
BTW, by my estimation the most "bang for the buck" belongs to my favorite tool- the cabinet scraper.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
"...What I thought you meant in your post is that Phyfe, Sheraton et al turned out beautiful pieces with older, less advanced tools. This is undoubtedly true in that metallurgy really came of age in the late 19th century, and with it the ability to make fine edged tools that led to the original Stanleys and English handplanes..."Huh? Wooden bodied bench and molding planes predate infills and Stanley planes by a few hundred years. Wooden planes continued to be commercially produced in Great Britain until the 1960's, past when infill planes ceased production and the decimation of Stanley's line. If you're looking for a parallel to the life of commercial production of wooden bodied planes, look at the history of bench woodworkers. In Great Britain where traditional bench trades continued until the 1960's so did the production of wooden planes. It's house carpenters who were the market for the mass produced Stanley type planes which suffered the compromises of mass production.The choice of cutting geometry was the territory of wooden planes except for the very low angled planes where metal has a structural advantage. The plane making firm that began with its founding by William Maddox in 1748 continued through a number of different owners until the final company, William Marples & Sons, ceased production of wooden planes in 1965. Think of that, a firm that offered essentially the exact same line of planes with very few changes for 217 years. Show me a metal plane company with a comparable history or a metal plane with a comparable span of production. Just look at a smooth plane. At this point in history, you can finally have a choice between three bed angles. Traditionally, a wooden plane was available in four which allowed the woodworker to match cutting geometry to the structure of the wood being worked. Actually, the low angle smooth plane available today is a block plane and technically not a smooth plane so there is really only a choice of two bed angles.In spite of their deceptively simple appearance, wooden planes were the product of a couple hundred years of evolution before the 1700's. They were and are highly evolved in design and function. Even most of the steel in the early plane irons was a serviceable as today's steels. They are far from primitive tools and, in performance and efficiency, can hold their own against today's supposedly "more advanced tools."
You REALLY need to write a book. Let me know when it is done so I can be first in line to buy a copy. :) (As long as it isn't too expensive. ;) )
geoff
I have nothing against wooden planes, I don't consider them "primitive" and I use them. If you like them and they work for you, OK by me.
But you miss my point. Metallurgy led to the development of better edged tools (including "wooden" planes). As far as I am aware, wooden planes still require the use of iron or steel cutting edges (haven't seen any planes with maple blades or ash chip breakers). It was the improvement in steel alloys, and particularly the accurate control of carbon content, nickel, manganese and chromium (and later vanadium) mixtures as well as advances in heat treating, tempering and the related physical (phase) chemistry that led to these superior steel edges. Sophistication in steel manufacture took off in the second half of the 19th century, and there was a reliable, consistent and relatively inexpensive supply of steel for tool making. Andrew Carnegie was the reportedly the first steel maker to employ his own metallurgic chemists. Your statement that the steel of 250 years ago is "was as serviceable as today's steels" is more Luddite romance than fact.
The ability to make cast iron planes (e.g. the Stanley) and the ability to make exact copies and to refine designs to close tolerances (making the blade a few thosandths thicker, the throat a few thousands tighter) allowed for large and varied models and new designs. Since hundreds, and then thousands of a model could be made, companies like the Stanley Works would get feedback on a particular design, and would modify it to satisfy particular endusers (cabinet makers, finish carpenters, boat builders, etc). Some innovations, such as certain adjustments, were only practical on cast iron, not wooden planes. Stanley and other cast iron planes were never limited to "house carpenters" (who, in any event were and are quite skilled).
The "decimation" of the Stanley line was brought about by a desire on the part of the company in the 1950s to go after a mass market of customers who were primarily interested in power tools, or more basic hand tools (hammers, tape rules, etc). There was more profit in that large market, than in the smaller group of customers who did handcrafted furniture.
The fact that Stanley's of the early 20th century are collected , restored and used is well- res ipso loquitur- of their lasting value. That LN used these designs to launch a revival in high quality hand planes underlines the point, as does the continued refinement in design by LV, LN and others. The use of newer steels ("A2" and cryogenic treated) continues to advance the design and quality.
The original "planes" were really chisels mounted into wooden housings, they were refined by craftsman into fine wooden handplanes. Cast iron was a later stage of development and a highly successful one...Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Glaucon, I assume that you know LWilliams is Larry Williams of Clark and Williams - the plane making firm.
I had guessed he wasn't working for Stewart Spiers.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
"Metallurgy led to the development of better edged tools..."
Hi Glaucon,
I don't disagree with the impact of modern metallurgy in factory produced cutting tools, but I do have a question for you: Is your statement intended to include hand-forged Japanese cutting tools?
I was speaking to an extraordinary Japanese blacksmith (through an interpreter) whose specialty is hand-forged cutting tools (spear planes, chisels, plane irons, etc.) for whom traditionally made laminated Japanese blades, hundreds of years old, remain the ultimate in craftsmanship. And, while I don't know the extent of Funatsu-san's knowledge of modern metalurgy, it I find it diffficult to imagine finer cutting tools than some of the ancient blades in his collection.
-Jazzdogg-
"Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive, and go do that, because what the world needs is people who have come alive." Gil Bailie
I don't pretend to be a craftsman, or even a hobbyist. I don't know all the names and materials that tools are made of. I know that tool steel needs to be strong and hard, adn that tools that are high quality last a very very long time.
Since I am starting a shop, and will be learning, I am buying up a lot of tools right now, but I haven't bought any new. The reasoning behind my thinking is this - If I buy at auctions where the tools being sold are from craftsmen who did high quality work, then they will have used quality tools.
This past weekend I spent close to $250 CDN at an estate auction and came home with a #2 Record Vise, 6 Record Clamps (8 - 24"), a mittful of HSS and Carbide Saw Blades, a 6 inch "wobble type" Dado Blade, a number of German and Swiss Chisels, Measuring tools (all Starrett) and a few odds and ends.
Now maybe used tools are less expensive, but I don't think that any of what I bought could be replaced with much that is of better quality, and I think the blades can be resharpened, and the clamps and vices will not wear out or break in my lifetime. Trouble is I am trusting someone else's judgement of what a high quality tool is, and trusting the bidders to set the prices (to my max). As I go I get to know more about the tools and brands, and decide on what is worth getting to me. Major buys I try to research.
DagwoodView Image
You gotta call me to go to these auctions with you. You always find the best ones!
There was an auction in Innisfil a few weeks ago that I wanted to check out.The older I get, the better I was....
"...I don't think that any of what I bought could be replaced with much that is of better quality..."
Hi Dagwood,
You've scored some great bargains with the Starret tools.
Please let us know if you feel the same way after you've spent some time using your new 6 inch "wobble type" dado blade.
-Jazzdogg-
"Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive, and go do that, because what the world needs is people who have come alive." Gil Bailie
Edited 9/13/2005 8:36 pm ET by jazzdogg
Heh, I was reading that post and thinking the same thing. "One of these things is not like the others..."
About the Dado blade...
Tried it last night in my saw and It won't fit the arbor. Not a great loss since at a previous sale I had picked up a Freud stacking Dado. I am curious though about the difference in ability of these two blades. View Image
I'm no expert but this much is uncontroversial. A wobble dado, due to simple geometry, cannot cut an entirely flat-bottomed groove/dado across the range of widths it cuts. Stacked dados generally can and do cut a much more flat-bottomed surface.
Hopefully someone else will kick in with any other differences you might see, such as tearout, cut smoothness, possible blade deflection, difficulty of setup, groove/dado width precision, and reasonable cut depth and feed speed.
Hi Dagwood,
I had one of those old wobble-type dado sets twenty-odd years ago - installed in a small, inexpensive, direct-drive Sears tablesaw. When I fired it up, I thought the doggone thing was going to shake, walk, and vibrate its way right out of the workshop! Just to show you how dense I was, I actually used the thing for a mortise & tenon project - once!
The results were consistent with the shake, rattle, and roll; cuts were irregular, sloppy, and frightening to perform.
Good luck with your new tools!-Jazzdogg-
"Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive, and go do that, because what the world needs is people who have come alive." Gil Bailie
Not sure I can answer that, as I haven't had much experience with Japanese chisels (or chisel makers- or chiselers for that matter). My guess is that the original artisans were akin to western smiths, although their (lamination) techniques differ. Given Japan's preeminence in steel production and manufacturing capability after WWII, it would make sense that high quality alloys would be available to todays craftsmen; whether a particular Japanese blacksmith uses them or not I couldn't really say.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Nice thread, but......
One thing that seeems to be missing is, how do you know if you've fettled a nice old tool properly unless you have tried a good L-N or LV?
Now that I have sunk a bunch of bucks in a L-N #7 and a L-N #41/2 and a LV scraper, I know what a good plane can and should do. (BTW, I already had sharpening skills in hand).
With no good woodworking class/school around, my skills rest on self taught and book/internet learned.
With my L-N tools in hand I can now buy any used plane and know where I want to take the thing. Until now, I had no idea as to where "there" was.
Chris
"One thing that seeems to be missing is, how do you know if you've fettled a nice old tool properly unless you have tried a good L-N or LV?"
I don't mean to be a wise ####, but my answers would be:
1. Fettling a plane is not rocket science. Flattening surfaces, sharpening a blade and setting the blade securely with the right opening in the mouth are really the only critical elements. I don't deny there is a learning curve for sharpening well and for finding optimal settings, but both are required of LN and LV planes. I guess my question is, what is it that a LN 5 is going to teach you about fettling a Stanley 5 from the 1930's?
2. You know if you've fettled the plane properly by observing your results in planing the wood. Smooth is smooth, square is square, tearout is tearout, etc.
Again, I'm not trying to be a smartass. I have many vintage planes I've fettled. I can't imagine a LN producing better results. Easier and quicker as far as time from purchase to working the wood, no doubt, but end results, nope.
That said, I'm happy to hear what i might be missing. What specifically did your LN's teach you?
I didn't mean to imply that owning a L-N will teach you how to fettle an old Stanley. It won't. What it will do, especially for one low on the learning curve is allow you to know that if the results are not working out as you like, you can pretty much know it ain't the planes fault. It's either the wood or your technique.
For example, I recently planed down a bunch of aspen, a wood exceptionally prone to tearout. On some pieces I simply could not avoid significant tearout, no matter where I set the throat, or how fine a cut I took, or which way I planed the piece.
With some confidence I was able to toss the really bad stuff in the scrap heap. Had I been using some old restored plane, I might have gone off and spent hours flattening, sharpening and whatnot in an attempt to get the plane to "work right".
Hope that clears up my point.
Chris
I think your point really boils down to: How do you know your tool is "good" until you've tried a good tool".
It's like asking how sharp is sharp (or sharp enough?)
Edged tools, and planes in particular, suffer in the eyes of amateurs who have never had the opportunity to try a well tuned, sharp instrument. I know I did. My Dad's plane was 30 years old, had the factory edge on it, and still had the lacquer on the sole. (insert shiver here) I sure didn't expect good result from using that- many of my friends had the same experience. When they try one of my planes now, they freak at how effortless it is, and how incredibly smooth the result is. They wondered why I would reach for a plane instead of a sander.
That's why there were apprenticeships in the olden days, and why many people have to attend seminars, shows and classes now, I guess. They just don't know what results to expect, and what level the tools should perform at.The older I get, the better I was....
Thanks, that exactly the point I was trying to make.
Chris
I don't know Glaucon, I've seen some of those old edges hold up a lot better then the new "better" stuff. Best chisel I have predates the industrial revolution by a bit. I'd hazard to say that the advancements in metulurgy increased the consistancy, and therefore the profitibility of mass producers of tools. There have been some folks in Eskiltuna, Sweden that have made excellent steel for a very long time for example. Larry's response will no doubt be educational.
Steve
I've been delayed getting back by deadlines and my 30th wedding anniversary, sorry to be so slow replying to your post at
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-knots/messages/?start=Start+Reading+%3E%3EI'm willing to say there have been advances in steel but it's been in the areas of red hardness and steels that are better suited for mass production. I disagree that there are now better steels for cutting edges in wood. Yes, some of the new steels make fine cutting tools but they also require very exact handling in heat treating and other processes.As mentioned in this thread, those who favor Japanese tools have some reasons to prefer steel made of just wrought iron and carbon. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a steel that has a better combination of fine grain and hardness after the initial quench. The other end of the spectrum are some mortise chisels, just coming on the market, made of D-2 steel.D-2 is an incredibly tough modern tool steel that is highly alloyed. Actually, it's a die steel intended to stamp parts from relatively thick steel. It's also coarse grained and doesn't make for the finest of cutting edges. It well take a suitable edge but it's a bear to sharpen. It is also very difficult to machine and these chisels are made by shaping with abrasives. The dealer introducing these chisels cautioned me not to try to sharpen them on water stones suggesting diamond paste instead. While the edge on that chisel will never be as sharp as Japanese chisel, I'm sure it will last through substantial abuse and pounding.I happen to have an oscillating diamond grinder, something you won't find in your average wood working shop. With my grinder and a considerable investment in time, I can flatten the back of the chisel and put an edge on it. Why would I do that? I'm not afraid of sharpening, I do it all the time. What good is a chisel that will hold an edge for a long time if I have to invest more sharpening time for the same amount of use of a chisel that requires more frequent sharpening but is far easier to maintain? I think these are being marketed to people who can't sharpen on the promise you don't have to sharpen nearly as often. The down side is that they're nearly impossible to sharpen without a $1000 diamond grinder. The only thing these "improved" chisels will accomplish is proving to people who haven't learned to sharpen that sharpening is very difficult. The result is that a lot of new woodworkers will be turned off and give up. This is a real good example of the trade-offs involved in steel selection for tools.There are five basic properties of steel: hardness, toughness, wear resistance, grain size and red hardness (ability to withstand higher temperatures in use). You can add alloys to improve steel in any area, but it involves trade-offs. What you gain in one area, you lose in another. Highly alloyed steels are usually air quenching so there's less distortion in heat treating. This is a good thing for mass production. It's problem is that all the austenite doesn't transform to martensite immediately at room temperature. In fact, it can take up to six months to completely transform from the quench. Cryogenic tempering speeds this up to a couple hours. Cryogenics have no value with water hardening or oil hardening steels. There is an author floating around who would have woodworkers send 100 year old water or oil hardening steels for cryo treatment. It's just more of the mystique around tool steels and people fall for it when they see it in magazines and/or books.The big problem with modern steels is that edge tools for woodworking represents a very small percentage of the market. We don't get mass produced steels designed for us. Vanadium is an example. It adds toughness at the expense of hardness. It makes for better screw drivers but soft curling cutting edges. Look at the steel available on the market and it all has more vanadium than I would prefer.I wish we could get water hardening steel with just iron, carbon and traces of manganese and silicon. We can't. There's not enough demand in the market. It's pretty close to what Japanese tools are made of but the tempering on Japanese tools is intended for soft woods and they're too brittle for my taste. They're also so hard they're difficult to sharpen. I'd put 'em in an oven if they were mine and trade a little hardness for toughness.I think people should review the patents issued to Stanley over the years for their Bailey line of planes. What would become obvious is that many of the patents were for very minor changes. Often they pretty insignificant changes. They were intended less for improvement than for design protection under the patent laws. During its heyday, Stanley never offered much of anything without a current patent date stamped on it. It was to discourage people from copying designs, even those who's patent had expired. It wasn't until the 1950's or 60's that all the patents expired on the Bailey planes. Stanley was a very aggressive company and their history is one of hostile takeovers and predatory behavior. Even Leonard Bailey had heated battles with Stanley and during one of his early fall-outs founded the Defiance Plane Company, if that tells you anything about the relationship. It's thought that Leonard Bailey was also one of the founding forces behind Birmingham Plane Company that Stanley forced out of business with patent infringement legal actions.I'm often taken back by implications of notions of technological Darwinism when it comes the evolution of hand planes. People seem quick to claim gimmicks and compromises are improvements. Often, those supposed improvements don't stand the test of time.
Larry, I have not been following the steel part of this thread very closely, but your comment about D2 caught my attention:-
To the best of my knowledge D2 is not a modern steel as you say-it was developed in time to produce bayonets for WW1. I used to make hunting knives from D2 and also had reason to "modify" a few bayonets from that era , so was able to confirm that the steel was D2by comparison to my stock of virgin D2.It also had the British government insignia and the stamp D2.I had the heat treatment professionally done, ending at a hardness of 58 to 60Rockwell-and this was suitable for honing on decent oil stones at the time-1980's.
So I cannot see that D2 is not good for woodworking chisels-it has to be hardened and tempered to suit, and certainly can take and hold a very sharp edge (for woodworking).Chisel manufacturers these days want to use steel that is fast and easy to work-so D2 doesn't fit the bill there, so only the specialists like Ashley Isles will use it and charge a serious price for it.
Slight deviation from the original subject....Philip Marcou
Philip,Historically, D-2 is a modern steel.Just and wootz Damascus steel is prized for hunting knives and swords intended for cutting fleshy things, I can see where D-2 would make a great bayonet. The impurities of Damascus steel and the coarse grain of D-2 would both result in an almost microscopically small serrated edge that's efficient at cutting flesh. However, that same kind of edge isn't desirable for most woodworking applications.D-2 is tough stuff and I'll be able to chisel the bumper off my truck with that D-2 chisel. That same toughness makes it more than difficult to sharpen. My problem is that it's being marketed to people who have limited sharpening skills on the promise that sharpening will be infrequent. Each sharpening though, will represent a considerable investment in time and sharpening supplies. I wonder if people who aren't aware of the sharpening challenges involved will be successful at sharpening D-2.Do the inevitable trade-offs in steel choices make sense in this case? I'm not so sure it does for most people.
Edited 9/16/2005 9:38 pm ET by lwilliams
Go for your option (B). I don't mind if you copy mine ;)
For the benefit of the friendly psychologists I do this sort of thing when I should be sleeping or watching too much tele.Philip Marcou
I think that this is a very interesting topic. First of all, many of the best tools availible are 50 years old ( Radial Arm Saws, 12" jointers, 14" Table saws, giant band saws, etc.) Often they are much, much less that a new machine. However the tool elitist in me actually considers those old machines to be the superior tools regaurdless of price. Most of us buy what we can afford. I know pros who use Ryobi and craftsman stuff. They also tend to make stuff that I consider...... unrefined. then there are the people around here that turn out amazing work with humble machinery.
On the other hand there are those with lots of money who collect tools more than they use them. I think that this is who you are refering to. They will buy a $600 morticing jig for their router even though they maybe make 20 mortices a year, at the most. In that case they wasted more time figureing out the machine than they would have spent choping them all by hand. They have to have all the jigs, and fru fru accessories on the market, digital table saw height/ angle tools, digital planer thickness scale. Yet with all those tools they likely only have 20 board feet of lumber on hand.
Gotta go,
Mike
I know pros who use Ryobi and craftsman stuff. They also tend to make stuff that I consider...... unrefined. ???Dang THAT HURT! LOL LOL.. Good one.... Talkin' about me again?
Since many people are mentioning planes in this context ...
How many of you can look at a piece and determine what plane was used to make it?
I expect the number who can is zero.
I use 3 $30-50 wooden planes. I prefer 8-9" of length. I can surface boards as flat and as smooth as those whose use half a dozen planes of different lengths and who pay $200 or more for each plane.
Generally, the only thing that can be determined is the amount of camber you used on your blades and only then if a scraper was not used last.
A general statement could be made, and is frequently made, if the surface lacked the refinement implicit in the style. Then, serious collectors and conservators attribute the problem to the labor or to perhaps and out of tune tool.
A POS plane can have lots of attention lavished on it until it does serviceable work. The difference lies with the individual woodworker - do you want something that works pretty much out of the box or do you have time to rehab an old tool or rehab cheap current production stuff.
I suggest that the answer to your question lies in what the user really wants to get out of the tool. For me, woodworking is a hobby and what I get out of it is the shear enjoyment of creating with my hands. That does not have to happen quickly and I don't count on production to pay the mortgage. In fact, a slow process may be more rewarding. It is in the process more than the outcome. I enjoy restoring a tool from a pile of rust that I find in the bottom of a drawer at an estate sale. Budget issues asside (and part of the rift you sense is probably the jealous have-nots and the gloaging haves) - I don't fix up old tools because I like them better for woodworking. I fix up old tools because I enjoy that process and find it rewarding, and that it adds to the enjoyment I get from using the tools, which is what it is all about for me. But that is my luxury.
Just my perspective -
I would maintain that if you can walk up to a board and take a nice wide, thin shaving off your plane is doing what a plane should do. It doesn't matter if the the plane bottom is off flat by .001 inch or if the handle isn't made out of rosewood.
Frank
baldmountain,
great question.. I own both really cheap stuff because it works well enough and really expensive stuff because it makes me feel better and as a result maybe work a little better..
For example I buy Grizzley power tools which price wise are at the bottom of the price scale, and yet I own four Lie Nelson hand planes as well as several others..
I own a Sears lathe and the finest gouges I could find.. I own both a Tormex system and scary sharp.. (another words a bunch of sandpaper and a glass plate)
Baldmountain is right, junk tools belong in the rubbish.
The caveat to that is that what may appear as a junk tool may have intrinsic value well worth the cost of repair,
But as to differentiation between high end tools and "garage sale" fodder, well, the axiomatic perspective is that you buy the tool you deserve.
The "tool god" sees to it that this happens. He puts the junk tools in front of you to see if you can be tempted, and when you are ready for high quality tools, he will see that your diligence in searching for them is rewarded somehow.
if you do not work at finding high quality tools at lower prices, the "tool god" will also see that they do not fall in yer lap.
I've seen junk tools sold at garage sales at prices above "new" whilst on the same day I've purchased tools of high quality which are no longer made.
Methinks that the distinction of quality based only upon the source i(garage sales vs high quality tool dealers) is , well, I don't want to say it, but really it is naive.
Disston has long since discontinued it's full line of handsaws. Just go to the Home despot and ask for a handsaw which will cut through nails and see what kinda reaction you get. Only source to go to is the "old tool" dealers, or straight to their source- garage sales.
Or What about the specialty planes- dropped like hot potatoes in the fifties and sixties of the last century, -high quality tools where the only reasonable source is garage sales. or if the need is immediate and urgent, the "old tool dealers" on line.
and even Normitic devices. A recent acquistion of a makita power planer (20 bucks) that listed at 550$ new, and came with mis-installed carbide blades tells me that if you know yer tools, high quality tools are out there intermixed with the junk.
Another recent score was a Rigid s-4 pipe cutter. Lists out at over 600$ CDN , I won't tell ya what I got it for at a garage sale, but only tell you that it was a lot less less than 5 cents on the dollar.
But I will tell ya that I would never have bought it at list price from a retail purveyor of "high quality tools", my needs just would never have justified the cost.
In my case, I could flog the s-4 pipe cutter for enuf dineros to purchase a kreg-jig or two, or maybe even a Knight plane. as if I needed any more.....
Bottom line is that if you know yer tools good enuf, garage sales often afford you access to high quality 'stuff" in more variety and substance more often and at greater savings than buying it "on sale" at yer local "home despot" store.
But to each his own... those were just my thoughts.
Eric in Cowtown
In my time I've taken a bit of stick for buying so many L-N tools rather than scrounge around the junk shops looking for a "steal"... here's the kicker... in my neck of the woods there are no second hand tool stores unless I buy online / mail order... having been burned a time or two with questionable quality, that's a route I choose not to go down again...
Similarly... I've learned the pitfalls of buying new tools from manufacturers with supposedly good reputations... Way back in the day, granted, Record and Stanley were the manufacturers to buy... but those days are long gone
So why L-N.?? Simple... I want a tool that's guaranteed fit for purpose... I want a manufacturer that cares about build quality, about customer satisfaction... When I'm using the tool, want to be asking "is it me or the tool that's doing something wrong here?"...
Simply owning a bunch of Lie Nielsen stuff doesn't suddenly imbue me with the required knowledge of how to get the best from them; I still gotta learn that for myself. They don't suddenly gift me with master-craftsman experience... I still gotta do that the hard way, by doing the mileage...
Granted there's other ways to achieve the same end, most of em cheaper. Irrespective of whatever way you decide is right for you, the one thing that counts is that you end up with a tool that's capable of getting the job done properly... In that respect, there's no grounds for elitism...
Bottom line... it's not about the tools; they're always secondary to the results that you produce with em....
Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Baldmountain,
I don't have a production shop. I'm just a part time woodworker.
I choose the best tools I can afford. I have a pretty good set of my Grandfather's metal planes. I've find I don't like most new chisels, drawknifes and a few other cutting handtools that are being produced today.( this doesn't include planes) So I buy good older handtools, and tune them up, replace the handles and such. I don't try to fix a bad tool, just improve on a high quality older tool. When I think a new tool is the better tool, I'll buy it.
IMO most older marking tools and squares are not worth my time. They usually have rounded edges, and have been bounced off the floor a few too many times.
I have only found one older handsaw worth buying in my life. But then I don't like many of the new ones either.
Time is money, even for this part time woodworker. I don't have time for poor quality tools. For me older tools doesn't always mean poorer quality.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled