I was dismayed that Fine Woodworking took up space this month with an article about Konrad Sauer’s handmade planes. You neglected to mention that these planes cost about $4,000 each.
Normally, I am interested in knowing what the ultimate is. This is not that. This is about tools as jewelry, as markers of wealth. In addition to woodworking, I am also a musician and an audiophile. I’ve seen the same phenomenon in those domains, even more so. Very wealthy people, often hedge fund types, get interested in something, figure, hey, I want the best, and then throw ridiculous sums of money at their passion. A 1957 Les Paul for $455,000, a turntable that costs $300,000, and so on.
So what, you ask? This kind of money works its way down the chain and drives the prices up for the rest of us. The article acknowledges that, noting how Sauer was drawn to the infill market because the old ones were expensive and hard to find. Now they will be even more so.
I don’t mind you covering Lie-Nielsen or even Blue Spruce Toolworks, who maybe are closer to Sauer than not, because they do show you what a little more will get you and you can decide if it’s worth it. I’m not the cheapest guy — I don’t mind spending a little more if I get a little more. But a $4,000 plane? Who would even risk using it (oh, no, I dropped it and dinged the side!) other than someone for whom that sum is meaninglessly small? Please don’t repeat such tool porn — it doesn’t speak to me and I suspect much of your audience would agree.
Replies
I certainly respect your opinion but as a subscriber I want the editors of Fine Woodworking to know that I like to see this type of article. While I will never buy a $4,000 plane, I appreciate that someone makes tools of this quality and enjoy reading about it. I hope to see more articles like it balanced of course with information on more affordable tools as well.
I think beginners (and we all were) are blinded by the bling, whether it be hand tools or machinery. For me these days, the simplest tool and the simplest technique brings the most satisfaction. It would be nice if we all looked back a little at the woodworking tradition instead of looking for ways to do it easier with automation or overwrought hand tools. There are plenty of inexpensive new tools and vintage tools that will do the job. Promotion of expensive and unnecessary tools pays for this magazine.
In Mr. Sauers defense, making beautiful, fine tools have always been a tradition. I'm not sure the collector's market will affect the price of tools that I would use.
I really enjoyed this article. While I, too, will never buy this tool or anything close to it, the article wasn't promoting the tool, it was the story behind the tool, and that was what made it so interesting. That a couple of young guys could take an idea from scratch, run with it, make something beautiful that also works well, is a good news story, and it seems he is finding a market. I'll never buy a Lamborghini either, but its interesting to look at pictures and read about it.
I thought it was a fine article, but I agree with this critique. As the editors and staff at Fine Woodworking know well (and model in their own workshops!), excellent furniture does not require an extravagant set of tools. While we’re on this conversation, I want to add that I really liked the article on folding sawhorses this month, in addition to the mesmerizing (but also unnecessarily extravagant) living room workbench on wheels.
This has been going on since the 90s. Perhaps longer but I wasn't paying attention before that. I got my first woodworking magazine about '95.
"This" is a slow progressive move away from methods and ways of working and towards tool based solutions. It's all the mags and forums from what I can tell. On this one it rears it's ugly head as expensive solutions for simple problems. A better this or that will solve your issue. Ya know... the one I own. We'd rather have something invented than follow simple rules to keep all 10 attached.
More methods, less about tools.
I got the chance to use one of Konrad’s planes at an event sponsored by Rosewood Studio several years ago. Yeah it is an expensive plane. It is also the finest woodworking tool I have ever used. The precision and quality is incredible and it translates to a tool that performs flawlessly.
The tool bug caught me in a high school shop class. There I found some equipment and hand tool's functioned better than others. As the years went by, I acquired better tools and equipment. A bigger bug resulted with the New Yankee Workshop. This abruptly went along with some woodworking periodicals. Fine Woodworking at the top of the list. It would seem to me fine tools would go along with fine woodworking. So why not. Those of us who have been doing this for a while, know that skill and knowledge are the better portion in using tools and equipment. Achieved success has mostly to do with the person.
I would challenge the claim that these $4000 planes drive up prices on all tools. Does McLaren drive up the price of automobiles? There is little economic evidence to suggest high end goods drive up net price in a market. Rather evidence suggest that over time, these high end 'innovations' become more affordable such that a wider % of market can enjoy the value the good brings to the 'job' it is meant to serve. In this sense, they drive DOWN prices.
Additionally, in a market increasingly dominated by Amazon and cheap tools made in China, I think healthy, thriving high end tools makers are something we as a woodworking community should be happy about and support when we see value. Maybe $4000 is too much for a plane, but that is an individual value decision, and having choices as individual is important. Rather than worry about $4000 planes, I worry more that $50 planes on Amazon will threaten Lie-Nielsen's business on $350 planes. Or that Grizzly knocks out Felder and/or Martin. History suggests these low price options are much more of a threat to tools that deliver long-term value. See the long list of US tool makers KIA'ed by this reality.
Came here to say pretty much this. Seconded.
Thirded .... sort of.
Rubbishy low quality TSOs (Tool Shaped Objects) have been in the marketplace for decades now. The classic examples are the Record and Stanley et al planes of post WWII that were made down to a low price (and standard). I made the mistake of buying these sort of tools (motored as well as hand tools) when I first started out in woodwork. They all ended up as scrap in a short time. They weren't even worthy of being given away. Lesson learnt.
Yet it was out of the disappointing experiences of many tool buying newbie woodworkers that a desire for quality arose, along with manufacturers who responded to that desire - Veritas and Lie-Nielsen being two prominent examples of many more. The trend continued into the stratosphere, with the "jewel-like" tools such as that discussed in this thread the peak of the tendency towards perfection. Consider the tools made by Karl Holtey! :-)
Even the makers of dross were eventually stimulated to try to do better, with varying degrees of success (or failure). Stanley made the attempt; as did other former dross-makers.
Many of the tools coming out of new mass-manufacturing nations also aimed for better and succeeded, despite what various xenophobes like to claim.
A similar syndrome is less evident in motorised tools. Perhaps the mass market variety are, though, still in that earlier phase of dross-making that struck the hand tool makers post WWII? Yet here too, some of the long-time manufacturers of high quality stuff have survived and prospered; and some "foreign" makers are also tending to produce better.
Is there a motored tool equivalent of Veritas or LN in North America? From the other side of The Atlantic, the machine tool production there looks rather drossy and still in decline. But residents of that continent would know better than me perhaps ..... ?
Just to speak to some of the points that have been raised. First, I'm all in favor of fine tools. If somebody can convince me that a $4,000 plane is 10x better than a $400 plane, great. Otherwise, I suspect it is functionally 10% or so better and the rest of the attraction is physical beauty and status.
Does a McLaren drive up the price of automobiles? Probably not, since you can't drive it on the street. But does a Bentley? Sure it does -- it creates the whole tier of luxury cars in the $90k to $150k range for people who aren't going all in on a $200k + car but want to be near it.
And in my experience, there is a definite link between collectors and users as far as the market goes. If collectors are going to buy up all the pre-WWII Stanleys and pay $1,000+ for them, often for ones that aren't actually usable as fine tools, then yeah, manufacturers are going to feel they can charge higher prices for quality new ones. And your "individual decision" will then be to pay more or buy lower quality. There is already a set of boutique producers like Blue Spruce and Bridge City Toolworks whose pricing is high and emphasizes uniqueness or just coolness. Still within the ballpark, I suppose, but not a trend I want to encourage.
Yes, it can be fun to read about stuff you'll likely never even see, much less own. I just felt as a long-time FWW reader and subscriber I wanted to say about $4,000 "statement" tools: ok, once a year, but no more.
As for Chinese crap displacing quality tools, I think the Lie-Nielsens of the world are safe. No one who was going to buy one of their tools is switching to Woodriver anytime soon, IMO. And companies like Delta, Jet and Porter-Cable -- aren't they already largely Chinese-made already? SawStop? Some of these tools are fine, some are not. I think it will sort itself out and I'd rather FWW delved deeper into that part of the market and was more critical of what flaws there are in these products so that I can make a decision about whether I care about that flaw or the price is compelling anyway.
That's an awful lot of personal preferences with simplistic justifications for them. The design and production of very high quality tools has many more dimensions than the price.
On the other hand, there are a lot of arguments that tend to illuminate that the production of luxury goods for the sake only of the luxury status is a driver for profligacy, waste and all of the other damaging effects of fashion-based marketing and buying.
The differentiator? Does a high price item, woodworking plane or otherwise, perform, demonstrate, enable or otherwise improve the general functionality and utility of such items? In woodworking we see both categories of tool:
Items such as the plane in question do set a very useful benchmark for high function and utility, in both the process of designing/making them and in the resultant item.
Many (often less expensive but still costly) items are, effectively, pointless gewgaws for which there is often no need other than to satisfy a buyer's desire for the latest shiny gadget. Others are just a reissue of a standard tool-type with added paint job and a spurious claim of "new! improved!".
The latter are the waste of attention and money, not the former.
Sauer spoke at the woodworking club I belong to back in 2020 or 2021. He mentioned that a fair number of his plane owners actually use them.
Thank you for leading me to this article, my fine woodworking magazines are piling up waiting for me since going back to « active life « a year ago and this is a gem. Tools are sometimes jewels, these and some well crafted older and modern things of beauty and functionality. I’m about to proceed with my shopping cart on a $3K cast iron router table and I can easily see justifiable to ask for that kind of money for these things, anyway, the market is what determines selling prices, it’s all about offer and demand and if Sauer found a niche market, good for him and good for FWW to continue sharing fine articles.
The most beautiful tool in my shop is a 25 year old Porter Cable speebloc 330. 🥰
Beautiful not in looks but function. But when my eyes fall upon it's functional shape and ugly exterior I fall in love every time. Especially when I fire it up cold and it shakes until the bearings warm up. Mmmmm. 😘
This article was long overdue. Konrad is one of the finest planemakers of our time and FWW would be remiss to not recognize him. To me the article was about a maker who has achieved an incredibly high level of craftsmanship and contributed new designs to the field, which I find inspirational. It doesn't matter to me whether I can afford one of these or not. Somewhat similarly, I appreciated the recent recognition of Gere Osgood's life and work. Some of us wont be able to replicate his compound stave forms, and fewer will be able to afford one of his pieces (there are a few out there), but those factors don't take away from being inspired by his work, nor the basis of the decision whether to include them in the magazine or not.
I can't afford Michael Fortune's furniture either. Nor Timothy Coleman's. Nor Craig Thibodeau's. Nor anyone else's that is featured in FWW. Nor can I afford a Sauer plane. But what the hell does that have to do with celebrating a craftsman working at the absolute pinnacle of skill?
Amen.
Completely agree. One of the reasons I got into woodworking was so I could build nice furniture that I couldn't afford to purchase. It's not that hard to make solid quality good looking furniture with little experience. For personal home use, there are plenty of nice designs to choose from in FWW issues.
I'm inspired by anyone who simply excels in their craft, and shows how incredibly sublime human makers can be at times. When i see someone like this, it reminds me not to be satisfied with mediocrity. I do agree with the overall sense of dismay that all magazines (to some degree at least) seem to be engaged in the commercial aspect of the craft.
I agree with the OP's point about tools of this nature.
No one is trying to diminish the craftsman's skills, he can make whatever he wants to. Now, is a $4k plane really worth $4k? Does it excel that much over other planes that it deserves such a price, I would say no.
Is it a finely made tool, sure will it be used, probably not. These are more often than not, as the OP mentions, status symbols, collectors items, whatever you want to call them and that's fine too.
To me, these aren't really tools, they're art or something else if you don't use them as a tool.
You opine, "Is it a finely made tool, sure will it be used, probably not."
What degree of probability?
Long ago, when he first began making high quality planes, I bought several from Philip Marcou, who made planes not unlike those of Karl Holtey. I paid circa $1000 for each one. They later rose to between $4000 - $6000, for various types of plane, before Philip unaccountably disappeared from the WW scene (during COVID).
Those planes I bought have been used on every project since - some 400 items if everything is counted (small boxes, window sills and other simpler items as well as larger pieces of furniture). The planes get used because they function extremely well, each to its intended purposes.
Do less expensive planes work as well? Yes, they do. Yet the Marcous are somehow an extra pleasure to use. They're probably also "an investment", should I ever become too decrepit to woodwork .
Cost, price or monetary worth is far from the only value involved with such tools, although many these days reduce any and everything to nothing more than cash value - which attitude paradoxically impoverishes their lives, even if they've saved or accumulated loads of cash.
Collectors ..... I feel sorry for them, that they're mere slaves to an obsession, with both things and their cash value.
My grandpa always said, “A poor workman blames his tools.”. Now, he never expressed a corollary, “A ridiculously expensive tool makes for a better craftsman.”, because it makes no sense. Page through a copy of “Tage Frid Teaches Woodworking” and you’ll see what I mean. With everything you reach a point of diminishing returns…after $500 are you really getting a plane that’s THAT much better? Probably not. Four grand is a ludicrous sum for one hand tool. Somehow, I’m able to build furniture that looks pretty good and has good joinery, in spite of that fact that ALL of my stationary power tools were bought on CL and cost less than $4K COMBINED.
Going through all of the above comments is very interesting. The planes are beautiful and precise. They do great quality work. I enjoyed the article and wish them well. They cut thin and accurate shavings and make surfaces flat. Lots of other tools do the same thing. I make things, not shavings. My tables and chairs are functionality flat. I am not obsessed with something optically flat. I get good glue joints using my jointer, planer, and table saw. I use whatever tool is best for my project.
I actually know a guy who owns one and, to his credit, willingly admits it planes wood no better than a well-tuned Stanley No. 4 1/2 he owns.
If my garage were on fire (and family and pets safe) and I could only grab one handplane, it would be my No. 4 Craftsman brand (wasn't Stanley but the other big maker in 1930s for Sears) hand plane that I paid all of $25 that was like new. I'm completely serious about this. I'd rather collect insurance on my admittedly nice Lie Nielsens but would mourn the loss of my No 4. Craftsman brand handplane. This is based on actual use of the tools. Vintage planes from an era when many folks earned a living by hand tools were made very well for their task. Yes, there are refinements in the premium ones (and I certainly own a lot of premium ones) and they are nice to use but the end wood products are indistinguishable. What do you want to hold in your hands to use and can afford is my guess the bigger question. Oh, when I first started I needed to sell a collectible car (that I still kind of miss) because money was so tight. I used to work a third job and save and birthday/holiday money to buy the tools I really wanted (some nice vintage, some premium, some generic stuff). After a decade of doing so, I have what I really want to use. In some cases, the premium tools won (Lie Nielsen chisels) and in other cases vintage (hand planes) won by use. At some point, I need to sell off the more than duplicates of what I ended up getting to try different things.
I have not used one of these planes, but I accept that they do not work 10x better than a $400.00 plane. However.... Do we think that a museum quality piece of furniture is no better than a similar piece from Ikea? I would argue that there is some innate value in something that is exquisitely made. I'm not arguing that anyone needs to buy one of these planes, only that they are beautiful in and of themselves and should be celebrated.
Personally I think Sauer's work is incredible. Weather or not it's worth those numbers can be argued till we're all dead. Ultimately the market answers that question.
Now if we take a breath and step back the difference is mostly the buyers. Their intentions and their budget. None of which is my business.
One could make market comparisons for cars, homes, etc. Would I buy a huge fance house if I had the money no. Would I buy a vintage Porsche and use it as a daily driver if I had the money, yes.
Maybe an article showing a guy making great work with middle of the road tools. For balance...
Labor is expensive. Where I live, the local, non-dealer, auto shop that does good solid work charges $175 an hour (for non-routine work) in the San Francisco Bay Area. As such, if it takes him on the order of 20 hours to make one of these hand planes, plus materials, his prices don't seem out of line for a individual maker. Could I afford this plane if I really wanted it? Yes, I could now in my mid-50s; certainly not in my 30s and 40s. Still, I'd have to save up for it. Do I want one is the bigger question. No, not right now as I have some other tools I really want to get such as a lathe and a drill press. Maybe someday. Having said that, my 3 HP dust collector from Oneida was on par with this hand plane cost and I know I would use the hand plane much more than than I do the dust collector.
Overall, FWW does a great job of balance showing tools that are more affordable. Every now and then I like to see some bling.
What might be even more fun would be to try and build a tool like this. To simplify the build, I could use a Lie Nielsen frog lever cap and iron and build the body to accept those innards. Just a matter of how much time I want to spend building my own tools vs. making furniture. All good problems. Hmm, would make a great article to show someone making a metal hand plane. Ben? Please pretty please.
A banana taped to a wall just sold as art for 5 million.
…BUT, can that same banana shave tissue paper thin strips off a highly figured maple board??! ;)
No. But it makes his planes seem inexpensive.
With the fungal blight affecting banannas, a regular bananna may soon cost $5,000,000.
Professional auto racing has led to many safety and other innovations that are now common in regular automobiles. I appreciate there being a small number of super-high-end tool innovators out there because every now and then they will find something that eventually makes it into the hand of most of us.