I’m curious about this one.
Would you rather have a brand new Lie Nielsen plane or an original plane that LN planes are modeled after? Why?
I’d rather have the original. It has a history and I can hold it and think about all the hands it has worked in. A link to the roots of woodworking that demands respect from all of us in this age of electric tools that we barely have to work to use.
Jeffrey
Replies
Bengst,
I tend to think the way you do..all that history and craftsmanship in my hands..toiling away with pipe hanging down and the afternoon sun causing deep shadows on the wood curles... how can I not be inspired...
On the other hand, when its not cutting right, or more than likely I'm not doing it right, I think about that s.o.b. who dumped this piece of crap on the market...lol.
I'll take the new LN for free and use that experience to by better used stuff...
OK, but suppose your "original" turned out to be a counterfeit, meticulously reproduced and artificially aged? Not knowing it to be a counterfeit, your reaction to it would be the same, which suggest that the history and the tradition and the the link to the roots of woodworking are characteristics of the human mind, not the plane.
Now I'm not immune to old tools. I have quite a tidy little pile of old Starrett machinist's hand tools, but I bought them because they are no longer in production, or cost less than current production, or were lovelier than mondern equivalents, not because I wanted to hold history in my hands or feel a link to old time machinists.
If the original and the LN were the same price, I'd pick the one that worked best, was easiest to keep in tune, etc.
Depends on the model. If it's just a bench plane patterned after the old Stanleys, I'll take the Lie-Nielsen. If it's a model patterned after the Norriss, I'll take the Norriss. Guess my thinking is that the Stanleys are fairly common and the LN may be a better tool. The Norriss, on the other hand, is in a class by itself.
Jeff
I agree with Jeff, give me the Norris any day.
I might start some thing but here goes. I have two low angle block planes a Stanley with Hock blade and a LN. The LN is a fantastic tool, but the hock blade stays sharp twice as long.
Has any one else experienced this?
Jeff in so cal
I completely agree with you. I have a Hock A2 blade in my type 6 Stanley #3 and even though it's my first Hock blade, I'm amazed at how little I need to resharpen compared to my other old Stanleys that have their original blades.
What else would you expect from a $30 blade?
I have quite a few old Stanley planes and the Lie-Nielsen version of a few of them. Without exception the Lie-Nielsen is always a better plane--better castings, better machining, better materials and better irons. Nostalgia is great but, in the workshop, I prefer performance. Give me a Lie-Nielsen over the equivalent old Stanley any day.
I also have a Norris A-5 and spent 3 long days in a well equipped machine shop making a new iron (to close up the mouth to .003") and tuning it to the hilt. My partner pulled out his brand new Lie-Nielsen #4 and tuned it in a few minutes; it went toe-to-toe with the Norris and did just fine. In fact, it performed every bit as well as the Norris. Given my investment, the whole thing didn't sit real well with me at the time.
Norris and other British infills, like Japanese tools, need to be demystified. Maybe someone will come up with a way to inoculate wood workers from all the hype, mystique and snake oil associated with these things. That, I think, would be a good thing.
To avoid confusion, Lie-Nielsen planes aren't my favorite. I prefer wooden planes but Lie-Nielsen makes some very good planes. When I buy metal planes, I buy Lie-Nielsen.
Larry,
I couldn't agree more. Tom L-N's planes are superbly made and function beautifully. I think their new irons stand up to anything Ron Hock offers. (Not to criticize Ron, who's products are great too) As far as history, well it's a continuum on which we all reside, just as our forbears did. Why not start a tradition of excellence to pass on to our own kids. WE can be the ones remembered for our work and, just as our forbears, the best tools we could acquire for it. When I go, either my son or daughter (or both) will be delighted to inherit Dad's old tools and will be delighted the old man was able to include several L-N's along with an equal number of wooden-bodied ones.
Cheers,
Greg
I've never used a LN, but I like my old ones because they work perfectly, I'm used to them, and because they have some character. Nicks,scratches, a cracked and glued handle, someones initials scratched or stamped in the side. I know it has been used for a long time. Plus, they are what everyone else is copying. A couple of them belonged to a worker at the old furniture factory down the road.
I'd rather have the one that I can use with the least prior preparation. In that regard the LNs are a winner. When it comes to price, the only Norris #4 I've ever seen for retail sale (cleaned up and fully tuned) was approximately 50% more expensive than a new LN #4. My one regret is that I didn't buy more LNs before the kids arrived (and I had a higher disposable income). To me, the value of an old tool is mostly sedimental - value increases in proportion to the knowledge you have of the tool's history. In my own example, the #90 bull nose that my father let me use when I was about 5 (the first plane I used) substantially increased in "value" when dad remarked it had been purchased by my great gradfather.
If it just magically appears on the bench? LN.
If I have to pay for it? It depends on how much I'd use it. The L/A Block plane and #4 I use all the time are LN's. The Stanley Block plane and Record #4 sit in the drawer until I go out on an install. I wouldn't loose much sleep if Stanley or the Record took a walk or a dive. My #5 and #7 are Bailey's.John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
Life is tough. It's tougher if you're stupid - John Wayne
I think some of the reasons I lean towards the originals are for a few reasons.
1) The "value" of the old planes that belonged to my grandfather, one belonged to my great-grandfather, a cherry Bedrock 605.
2) I've added Hock A2 blades to most of them and tuned them to the best of my ability which makes them perform as good as I can make them.
3) I've never owned or used a LN. Part of this is that they are so espensive. My soon (only four weeks) to be stay at home dad/part-time woodworker income limits premium tool purchases.
4) The planes I have work great so if they ain't broke, don't fix 'em.
Now if the day ever comes when I own a LN I may change my thinking. I know this makes my faovortism of old planes one sided since I haven't used a LN to know how they perform.
Another way to look at this is that 100 years ago, the planes on the market, Stanleys (correct me if I'm wrong), were the best that were offered. British planes may be superior but let's focus on American made planes. Today, LN planes are the best cast planes made in America. So no matter what the era, woodworkers have wanted the best tools available. So if I own an early 1900's Stanley plane, it was once the best there was. That may not be true today. But if I cling to days of old, then I may prefer a plane that was the best of its day.
(Step down off soap box)
Jeffrey
Edited 11/15/2002 12:46:38 PM ET by Bengst
Functionally
I have a bunch of different types of planes. I have the LN low angle block plane and it is hands down better than any old block plane I have ever seen or used. Period. The bench planes I use are mostly Stanleys type 11-15, all with sweetheart blades. I have never has a problem with any of these planes, and they have done everything I have ever asked of them. The blades take a keen edge and take it easier and faster than the thicker harder new blades. The new blades last longer and chip less, but I probably spend twice as long sharpening them (although I sharpen them half as much).
Sentimentally
I have my grandfather's 1/4" chisel. It keeps falling out of the handle, and was never the best tool; my grandfather was never the woodworker. It is, however, the chisel I reach for the most, and I wouldn't trade it for any other chisel. My Stanley Bench planes all have initials engraved on them, and I can't stop but wonder about these people who used the planes before me. One Jack plane I have had an 1/8" wear by the mouth, and I can't imagine how much it was used to wear the sole that much. The new tools are appealing too; how else can you justify a LN scrub plane? It is inspiring to work with a beautifully made new tool all shiny and new. It is also inspiring to work with a tool with a history all worn and seasoned.
I already have a good deal of Stanleys, so I would choose the LN, but I would not trade in my Stanleys for anything.
Tom
This one is easy, Lie Nielsen over any equivalent Stanley. Like L. Williams said, "better castings, better machining, better materials and better irons". Thou the Cliftons are awfully nice too.
the original. nothing more satisfying than using a good, old tool.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled