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.
I also agree. However, I'm about to market some upscale sawhorses that you might be interested in. Constructed from ebony, with solid brass hardware, and finished with 37 hand rubbed coats of oil from the last known dodo bird. Signed and numbered limited edition. Delivered to your door via limousine by a Supermodel of your choice (TBD). Only $50,000 for a pair.
What kind of ebony?
Your choice of Gaboon or Macassar. I can make then out of pink ivory as well, but the price is $100,00 for a pair.
PRICELESS! lol!!!
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 agree. When I walk through a Woodcraft or Rockler store, there is very little of interest to me anymore (except Pfeil carving tools, since they have the sole US distributorship). Much of what they have is overpriced gadgetry that does nothing that basic tools can't, but that appeals to beginners, or people who have more money than skill, who believe that having a single-purpose jig or specialty tool will immediately improve their projects without their having to develop skill and knowledge.
Having said that, I'm glad that the stores exist, even if I don't buy much from them.
How many different contraptions are there for gluing up a flat panel, when some decent clamps, a straightedge and a bit of understanding will get you there? The local Woodcraft store has an entire aisle filled with gadgets for pen turning...when I turned some (way back before it was trendy), these gadgets didn't exist, and after a few attempts, my pens turned out fine.
I give credit to people who do green woodworking in particular, since their tools are often older, used and restored. There are no electric hatchets or boutique drawknives yet.
I feel for a local guy on craigslist who has either run into money problems, is downsizing, aging out or has just come to his senses and has listed, for perhaps six months now, literally two to three dozen high end woodworking tools, probably totaling $50,000, and it doesn't appear that he has sold anything yet. One wouldn't think that craigslist is the way to go, and saying that everything is rare and asking for prices in excess of the original or current cost doesn't help.
Witty, you mention that:
"I give credit to people who do green woodworking in particular, since their tools are often older, used and restored. There are no electric hatchets or boutique drawknives yet."
You are not paying sufficient attention to the many cyber-shops now flogging every kind of green woodworking tool you've heard off and many you ain't! Have you seen the price of some o' them Scandinavian green WW tools? Yet one can easily obtain a new Iles or even an old junkshop one for a fraction of the cost.
Mind, them Scandi tools do work ever so well. Having recently taken up, once more, the green woodworking I've had the opportunity to compare various green woodworking tools of widely differing price points. A Beavercraft or Flexcut is not a bad tool for few dollars but there are certainly better, at 3 - 7X the price.
There are others at 12X or more the price. These are perhaps functionally as good as such tools can be but there's definitely a large portion of the price paid for the label.
What tends to drive up the prices, besides quality of form & function & materials of such tools? Partly the time taken to individually make each one and partly the rep of the maker. There are simple sloyd knives for $1 in a junk shop that can be made good; or pay $250 for essentially the same tool newly-made by a maker of high rep, fame and .... fashion.
********
As to power tools for green woodworking - there are all sorts. Power carving is now a thing, even in green wood. Not for me ..... but many like to do things quick, using girt motor-rotated burrs, chainsaws and let's not forget the giant bandsaw-on-a-truck that cuts up whole trees into chunks and planks. (Those pitsaws are just too tedious - although you can still buy a new one for loadsa dollars).
Before long there'll be a CNC gubbins that makes a ladderback chair once you throw a log into it's hopper. Only $7,999.99. ($9,999.99 for the variety that does Welsh stick back chairs as well).
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 ..... ?
Have a look at Hammer tools from Austria- they are very choice. A bit expensive for what they are, I think, but definitely a big step up from the more standard offerings in the market.
I didn’t realize Record planes were crap. I bought my No. 7 in the late eighties. I don’t think I have built anything without using it. The first think I ever built was a dovetail cherry blanket chest. I surfaced and dimensioned every piece of stock with the No. 7. A mistake I will NEVER make again!
Like you, I have a couple of Record planes about forty years old, and a Stanley No 4 which is still a joy to use, (now that I have mastered sharpening), fifty years from when I bought it new. It was perhaps expected that tools would need, and receive, some degree of fettling before they worked at their best, rather than being perfect 'out of the box'. I would love to try a really expensive plane, but even some inexpensive asian made tools work well with proper attention.
Meanwhile, of course, even a new Lie-Nielson might precipitate a divorce unless I built a really fancy sewing table using one, so I'll just dream.
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.
I believe the reason stationary tools are all made overseas is you can’t cast metal in the USA and comply with the government’s environmental regulations. I guess it’s better to have them made in countries with no concern for the environment.
Have you some evidence (AKA facts of the not-alternative kind) to support this rather strange assertion?
No idea but why aren’t any stationary tools manufactured in the US?
Of course you can cast metal in the US!
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.
Is this a new and useful bit of information, or are you just trying to impress others that you can waste $3K on a router table?
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.
:F
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.
I agree totally. I rarely see professional, talented craftsmen who are featured in FWW using expensive tools; in fact, I often marvel at how worn out their shop made jigs, etc. are that still function fine.
A tiny sample of craftsmen you personally see is not a sufficient sample of all woodworkers to make true the notion that superb craftsmen never use superb and very expensive tools.
In all probability, there is no definitive connection between quality of tools used and quality of craft performed. High skill and knowledge might find tool quality a shrinking factor but no expert maker I know swaps very good tools for poor ones just because they can still make them work. On the contrary, they tend to buy better made tools as they need such a tool because there's no need to put up with a tool that needs extra effort and skill to work properly, even if it is cheap.
I suppose you could perform a carefully controlled survey of a large sample of woodworkers, carefully selected to ensure they are a full representation all & every kind of woodworker there is. Well, you could try. :-)
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.
“[Deleted]”
Love it. Very rational.
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.
I'm hoping S&S will start making a premium screwdriver. I'd be willing to pay $500 per. Driving screws is a problem in my shop that I think only something premium will be able to solve. Plus, I could just look at them when I wasn't actually using them to install screws.
I can make you that screwdriver! It'll be better than an S&S, though, so .... $550. It will never cam-out, require less than an Arnold arm power to turn any screw and will have an immense amount of gleam, especially on the rare-wood handle.
The label will be unique and ornate, proclaiming your excellent taste in screwdrivers to all who enter your shed. FWW may send Benjamin to interview you and to take pics of yourself clutching the Lovely Thing.
Can you pay in advance?
Not in advanced but if you make it ill seriously consider it. yall are joking but i am not XD
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...
Not to nitpick, but the market doesn't answer the question of whether it is worth it (which I think is the point the OP was making), the market only tells what some people are willing to pay for it.
This past week, Sotheby's auctioned off a piece of "art"...a banana duct-taped to the wall...for over $6,000,000. Yes, look it up. I don't think many people would say that the banana (which is now probably rotten anyway) is "worth it", but the market showed what some (at least two) bidders are willing to pay.
The differentiator of the two notions of value that you mention have been abroad for a long time. In this day and age, many (most) have been seduced by the notion that the only "real" value is cash value, so the market price-driven notion of value is dominant.
The other notion(s) of value - worth generated by the inherent quality of the thing-valued and surrounding values such as beauty, fame, innovative design et al - is a very difficult value to quantify, since it in fact covers a long list of worthinesses, only one of which is how much time and skill went into the making.
In all events, its often a fool's errand to attempt to translate one notion of value into another. If the value is due to worthinesses other than cash value, the price becomes irrelevant.
The market is crazy. But it is the market. Post #30 by the way. Those two guys regardless of our opinions created a market for that banana taped to the wall. I'm not an econ expert by any means. Certainly not speaking on the topic of value. I could probably write a book about woodworking on the cheap but I'm not a writer. And I'm not sure there is a market for that.
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.
You used to be able to buy kits to build your own infill planes, but I suspect that they are all out of business now (I know Shepherd closed almost 20 years ago).
Lost Are Press had a blog about a year ago about a kit so I think they still exist. It does however seem fun to start with sheets of brass and then use a hacksaw to cut out dovetails in metal. Peening them would fill in the gaps so likely slightly easier to do than wood.
Here is a plane I made a couple of years ago. Very crude compared to S&S, but a lot of fun to make, and satisfying to use. It's super heavy, which has pro's and con's (I personally prefer a lighter plane). I used a hacksaw (for finesse), a sawsall (for the brute work), some files with/without safe edges, a bandsaw and a ball-peen hammer.
Very nice. Did you drill holes then use a file for the mouth?
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.
Your perspective isn't correct or wrong. It is very immature, self-centered, and naive, though. It's still yours, and that's okay. We are all entitled to our views.
At the end of the day, if what you say bothers me, I simply do not need to engage and can move on with my life—hint, hint.
My perspective is tools ARE jewels.
I love collecting, displaying, and ogling new, old, and super high-end art "tools"
Every single industry and market always has and always will have this whale segment.
That's because there are a lot of people for whom it brings great joy and purpose, from creating to consuming.
The $4000 plane doesn't make your tools more expensive. Whatever logic led you to that conclusion is deeply flawed.
It's worth whatever someone will pay. It's that simple.
Not everyone measures worth using the same metrics you do.
if you don't like seeing it, don't look. or get over it.
Lots of other people do.
Could have moved past the insults too. Hint hint.
Bent, you remark:
"I love collecting, displaying, and ogling new, old, and super high-end art tools."
You seem to have forgotten "fondling". Personally I will fondle a lurverly tool even if it has sharp edges, proggy tips or other flesh-damagers. Also, I enjoy disassembly and reassembly, which is just a more intimate version of fondling. Poking about the innards may also reveal an interesting design or other technical clever-bit.
After fondling whilst using ever so many posh planes, for years and years, I found the experience useful in making wooden-bodied planes myself. Lots of those little pernickety design matters were already revealed to me by, say, a Marcou or a Veritas plane innard.
Mind, one can go too far with jewel-tool. I tend to turn my nose up at the over-fangledness of Bridge City, for example - although I do have their teeny depth-adjustable plane, which is perfek for refining stringing and banding to an exact thickness accurate to 0.1mm or better. And I confess to being tempted by (but not yet fallen for) that joint cutting thingy they do with lots of knobs and levers and a guided Japanese saw ........
In the final analysis (of a buying decision) the prime consideration is, though: will I use it to make things. A tool in a display case may as well be made of wax and a pretty paint job. For the only-exotic tool, a large format book full of pretty pics will do.
Do you have an onlyfans page where you do your fondling? Asking for a friend...
I yam shy, so fondle my tools in the privacy of the shed! They don't mind, you know.
If he made one, he'd be my first sub. I think his planes would be the only thing on that platform worth the money.
Oh, how I'd be looking forward to the content.
Not even joking lol..Ill pay 5 a month for regular lat_axe plane collection pics and vids.
Drop in the bucket, considering after 2 months, I'd have to buy some for myself no matter the cost.
Lots of discussion. I always wonder how someone like Thomas Chippendale ever made anything without fancy planes, Japanese chisels, and floating tenon tools.
Tommy didn't make anything - he designed things then got others to make 'em.
As I recall, the tools employed were - in terms of the economics of the time - very expensive, since they were mostly individually hand made by highly skilled artisans (a bit like S&S tools). :-)
Perhaps those olden tools were primitive, compared to today's shiny thangs? Nevertheless, they were the best of the time, very functional and ..... expensive.
As was the furniture.
Well said, Lat_axe! And, as someone who has done a fair bit of carving, with almost 100 different carving gouges, several of my favorites that are always jumping into my hands to be fondled and used were made by Addis in London, some time in the mid 1800s. They just work really well. I'm pretty sure I paid a relative pittance for them at flea markets compared to the price paid by the original owners. I'm glad they chose great quality!
What evidence do you have that the tools used by 18th century craftsmen were similar in cost (after adjusting for inflation) to the $4,0000 plane?
Also, whatever the inflation-adjusted costs were, there were no less expensive but just as serviceable options available to them.
The best I know about prices was based on some of Paul Seller's blogs. When he was just starting out in the mid-60s as an apprentice, I think many of the tools he purchased such as a No 4 hand plane were 1 weeks wage. That more likely corresponds to the cost of a Lie Nielsen hand plane where I live.
I did some digging. This link has all kinds of prices about a quarter way down but I can't tell the year. Without the year, I can't compare the daily wage to tool cost easily.
https://www.htpaa.org.au/resources/woodworking-tools-1600-1900
I found some data on wages for carpenters
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89071501472&seq=65
They were making 85 cents to a dollar a day.
A chest of drawers in 1802 cost $2
https://247wallst.com/investing/2010/09/16/the-history-of-what-things-cost-in-america-1776-to-today/
This link has some tools (ca. pg 36). https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.096205135&seq=38
An ax in 1809 cost $2
A week's wage for me and many where I'm at in DC/NOVA is easily a $4000 plane.
Not that it would speed anything up.
So, an axe in 1809 cost 50 bucks when adjusted. Imagine a nice plane.
1 week, 1 month, 1 year. There's no reason one should be offended by tools just because they can't afford them.
I can't afford a Lambo or a yatch, but you don't see me getting my panties in a wad when I see them zooming up and down LoCo Pkwy or on the bay.
I used my time machine to discover olde worlde tool prices.
If you want the details, I'd have to charge you $149,801 dollars per item-price as that time machine cost loadsamoney to design and make. Also, it eats electricity.
Well in any case, it looks like FWW was successful with their article. It drove a lot of good discussion and analysis. I hope they continue to produce articles like it, on both 'tools' and 'tools that are jewels.' Be forthright with price and 'total cost of ownership' and let the individual decide how to do business.
Thanks FWW and nice work, IMHO!
Though more or less retired now this woodworking thing is and was my living. I starved less with my woodworking ambitions than with my musical ambitions and woodworking won out eventually turning into an adequate living. As a business if I saw that plane as something that would speed up my capacity or significantly improve my quality, which in this case I actually dont, I wouldn't think twice about buying it. I have sheds full of tools that were purchased to accomplish a particular task for specific projects and though they now sit ,sometimes for years ,on the shelf they were valuable at the time and paid for themselves ,almost always, with the one project they were purchased for. More significantly, they were tax deductible! This is the time of year that I would look over my financial situation and figure out how much money I needed to spend on the business before the end of the year. Usually it was something the shop needed but sometimes it was just something I was jonesing after.
Then there are hobbies....there is no limits or reasoning for that, it's all about what you can afford...you know, like all those guitars I have stashed all over the place...
Hard not to love the old Ian Kirby articles in which one could always count on seeing his Marples Blue Chips in action. The work somehow got done.
Agreed. Probably why I purchased them and still use them today.
Good steel, nearly industricable handles, what’s not to love.
Oh Charlie ... bah humbug :)
I like the term, "Gentleman Woodworker", which my friend Peter uses to describe himself. Many, if not most, of high cost handplanes are destined for the Gentleman Woodworker. I just loved his comment in the review of the Marcou smoother we shared making back in 2006:
"Well, it is beautiful. It combines the best of new design with the tradition of the dovetailed infill planes of the late eighteenth century. It has heft, it has been lovingly hand machined, it says “pick me up and use me”. It is a plane to visit, take down and make a few gossamer shavings before retiring for the night. It is a plane about which to say to the progeny “someday this will be yours” (if you are good). It is a plane which, when acquired, will demonstrate once again that men are as romantic as women, and for that reason alone it was a bargain".
People buy high end planes like the Marcou and Sauer for reasons other than planing performance. If you are even considering value for money, well you should not even bother to ask the price of admission since the vision is not for you. High end planes are as much about the aesthetic pleasures of using beautiful tools. These are art forms as much as tools.
A high end smoother will not make me a better woodworker, but one will put a foolish grin on my face!
Regards from Perth, Derek Cohen
What’s funny is that I bought a lot of Lie Nielsen tools when the put on the annual shows in my area. Low to no pressure to buy anything in the shows and I could spend the better part of a day talking to woodworkers they hired (Anne of All Trades on YouTube was at one of them). Early on, I was so grateful for any interactive knowledge that wasn’t YouTube/online learning that I bought a lot of their tools out of gratitude. When COVID hit, they discontinued making many of the tools to stay focused on core tools. Though Lie Nielsen has expanded their offerings little by little, I could sell many of the tools I bought for double or triple what I paid. I didn’t anticipate this being the case.
If they worked better than other planes, I'd own a fleet of them.
The problem is, they don't. None of them do.
They provide an initial difference in feel due to their weight/mass which is a characteristic of virtually all very high end boutique planes. For their size, they're usually twice as heavy as a Stanley or Stanley clone they're meant to replace. Once you're past that, there's not much else.
Is it easier to cast something thick than it is something thinner and have the latter still work well? It probably doesn't matter if you're taking a few smoothing passes on stock that was brought to an almost ready state with machines. Maybe a nip here and tuck here with the jointer plane. Two passes to shoot an edge. The excess weight doesn't really matter. I doubt the target market for these tools is doing very much four-squaring by hand. I guess it's nice to chamfer an edge with a $2,000 block plane, if one can even be had at that price.
I'm thrilled for the makers that there's a market, but otherwise the OP's point is right on the money -- pun intended.
Oh hell, just buy Lie-Nielsen planes. They are attractive, very well made, easy to tune up. The rest is just people with money to spend.
Well, I'm expecting a Post of the Year Award from FWW for getting 84 people to agree, disagree, call me immature, or go off on a tangent or two. Or Ben or Mike showing up at my door and giving me some pointers on how I can tune up my more affordable planes:-).
I hope I'm wrong about the impact on affordable tools of these statement pieces. That's really what motivated my post, and it really is based on experiences I've had with my other passions, audio and guitar playing. Like I said, hope I'm wrong.