Don't buy new stanley planes????

Bill Satko

Member
Messages
3,209
Location
Methow Valley
That is what I told someone on this forum just a few days ago, I might have to change my advice. I have been aware that Stanley was going to offer improved handplanes, but have not seen pictures until now. Christopher Schwarz at Popular Woodworking/Woodworking magazine has some pictures on his blog.

They look very good except for the handles as someone comments on the blog. Take a look.

http://blog.woodworking-magazine.com/blog/The+New+Stanley+Planes+Have+Arrived.aspx
 
dont ya just hate it when we say something and then they go and fix it and we have to spit out those feathers maybe:) actually another thing i read some time back was the iron in the later planes is actually ductile iron rather than the old cast and is tougher bill, against breaking. setup might still be poor but the iron is tougher..:D
 
I need a little water to get the feather taste out. It should be interesting to see what happens in the woodworking tool market in the next few years. A lot of companies and people have gotten into the market. I do not think there is enough market out there for everyone. I think there is going to be a shakedown of vendors. I wonder who will be the ones to drop by the wayside. On the handtool side, I hope that Lee Valley and Lie Nielsen are able to survive, along with all the really small time guys. I don't know, when the big boys start moving into your market it is hard to complete.
 
Last edited:
Bill, you pose and interesting topic there for debate. Its all good and well for these guys to be developing a new tool but at this stage they seem a bit late to the party. What surprises me is the tool market on a global scale.
The way they are marketed in North America one would think this is the only market in the world.

I have had several discussions with Toni in Spain about the availability and cost of tools in Europe. You would think that some of these companies would be looking at fostering the woodworking market further afield.

I mean look at what Sawstop are selling a saw in Japan for. In a recessionary market. It was cheaper for Stu to import his on a one off basis. So if they kill the cat in that manner I have absolutely no sympathy for them.

Added to this Stanley is going to have to do a great deal of marketing to persuade me they are the tool company they used to be. They used to stand for quality. But that was back in my farthers day.

Considering the changing demographics of the US / Developed nations, there are a lot of possibilities out there to market to. But the market development needs to be done. Most of these big organizations seem unable to use their buying power to be able to develop a market in a new country. I think there are too many CFO types that dont think outside the box and see a whole world as a market.

The issue is they still have it too easy selling in their home market and are too lazy to get on a plane and take the product to new markets to ensure their survivability. Here Russia has been non communist since what 1990's and we hear of a deal now for Opel in Europe that will access the Russian car market. Why was this not considered by GM years ago. Just as Toyota and all entered the US market.

Oh i better get of my soapbox this subject really gets me going. I hate seeing good manufacturing jobs going out the door because of the execs that lack imagination and drive but want the big bucks and perks.

With the schools not teaching shop in a large number of places, these tool manufacturers need to start to think strategically to look at their long term futures. They need to put more into grass roots woodworking just as the guys who sell fishing tackle do with Dad and kids tournaments etc. Same as the sport guys do.

Sorry for the hijack ( you started the deviation though) i shut up now.:D
 
looks like stanley is shooting straight for lie-nielsen and lee-valley...and using a formula that has worked for grizzly in the power tool market.

there`s a couple of big differences in the plane market though, first being plane users by and large are very sentimental about their tools, some like old with a history and others really like knowing that they`re supporting north american innovation. and second it`s very unusual to wear out a plane, no motors to burn up etc. so in reality a plane is truly a lifetime purchase and most folks look at it as such.

i think that if stanley really wanted back into the craftsman's tool box they`d reopen their eastcoast foundry, tool up with modern equipment and set out to reproduce the tried-n-true using today's technology....not likely unless upper management trims it`s ranks and uses the suit-n-tie dollars to pay r&d and production costs....

as for the small producers, the guys who make one plane at a time....they`ll not even know stanley is importing more stuff;)
 
Last edited:
After acquiring several older planes over the past couple of years from companies like Millers Falls, Stanley Bailey, Stanley Bedrock, and Record, I can't help but think that the same expenditure for a nice used plane gets higher quality metallurgy, and better initial machining than a new Stanley or Woodriver plane, not to mention that a 40 year plane has likely been tuned and fettled at least once already....and that history/nostalgia thing is pretty powerful!

This isn't to say that the new planes can't be made to work well, but I really don't think they'll offer the best value possible. $100 buys a very, very nice used plane from a someone who buys, tunes, and resells old planes....heck, generally $50 buys a very, very nice used plane.
 
I think this is a good thing. One has to remember that Lee Valley and Lie Nielsen stole the original plane designs off from Stanley and others and simply added refinements too them. There is nothing wrong with that, the patent rights were up and refinements are what makes this world get better. I mean what good is it to invent the wheel when whoever invented the wheel and axle was the real visionary!

Still we as woodworkers would all love to be the victims and point out corporate america as being greedy, but maybe if we just take a look at ourselves for a moment, we will see that what Stanley and other plane makers did was give us just what we wanted. Cheap tools. There is no doubt they found out how low in quality they can go, but plane sales were dropping off so they needed to do something to stay competitive...reduce the price and sacrifice a little quality was the logical way to go.

Did they go too far? Probably, and it did not help that the old die hard plane makers were willing to buy high quality hand tools that slowly made a climb these last 30 years. No large scale company could afford to grow a sideline that slow.

So now they realize there is a market for medium-priced hand planes and they jump back into the fray tool up. It is too bad these planes were not made in America/Canada but at the same time Lie Nielsen and Lee Valley also have some over-priced junk out there too floating around.

Is there a market hoovering in between the lower production, but higher cost Lie Nielsens and Lee Valley planes; and yet above the Buck Brother's paper weights? I think so. It won't take much to improve the quality of Stanley's yesterday offerings and yet it won't take much for me to buy a lower priced plane then Lie Nielsen and fuss with it a bit to get the same quality tool. In the meantime supply and demand, market price and woodworkers perception just might force Lie Nielsen and Lee Valley to align their prices a bit more towards working man wages.

We (as woodworkers) complained about prices of tools 40 years ago and Stanley gave us what we wanted with cheaper tools. Of late, we have complained about poor quality and now they giving us again what we want.

Nothing but good can come from this. Nothing but good!
 
One has to remember that Lee Valley and Lie Nielsen stole the original plane designs off from Stanley and others and simply added refinements too them.

I think that is incorrect on a number of levels.

Firstly, neither LV nor LN "stole" the design from Stanley. Stanley had long since abandoned making the #62, and the patent for the design was but a distant memory. The fact is that LN began making the #62 as part of their aim to resurrect planes that were no longer in production.

Secondly, the LV version is not a rebuild of the #62 ... it is termed the #62 1/2 because it is longer and wider. There are so many differences between the LV and the originalk Stanley that they would make your head swim. I know - I own both.

LV/Veritas and Stanley #62 ..
2xLA2.jpg


In the meantime supply and demand, market price and woodworkers perception just might force Lie Nielsen and Lee Valley to align their prices a bit more towards working man wages.

You get what you pay for. The profit margins of LN and LV are low -they are not gauging the public.

Wait until there are reviews available of the Stanleys, and then compare their costs against the LN and LV. Decide what quality you expect. Then decide then which you would prefer to spend you money on.

Regards from Perth

Derek
 
Got 'em in...

Well, I work at the Grand Rapids Woodcraft store, and we got the first shipment of the new Sweet Hearts on Friday. I didn't have an opportunity to take a real close look at them, but the next time I work I will try to report on the machining, and fit and finish. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to try them out. :doh:

I do find it fascinating how we suddenly have a sizable selection of hand planes now. I wish I could still get my hands on Record planes.

Hutch
 
Well, I work at the Grand Rapids Woodcraft store, and we got the first shipment of the new Sweet Hearts on Friday. I didn't have an opportunity to take a real close look at them, but the next time I work I will try to report on the machining, and fit and finish. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to try them out. :doh:

I do find it fascinating how we suddenly have a sizable selection of hand planes now. I wish I could still get my hands on Record planes.

Hutch

Hutch - I've plucked Record planes from several sources in the past couple of years....Ebay, Ebay UK, Ebay Australia, Ebay Canada, and free woodworking forums. Some of the deals are attractive enough to offset shipping.

r3.jpg

planes014.jpg

leahspics006-2.jpg
R04.jpg

planes008.jpg
 
Ooooh Pretty

WOW! Nice collection! I will have to keep my eye out then, seeing as how they evidently pop up from time to time. I bought a low angle block plane about ten years ago. Unfortunately, I messed it up when try to fine tune it. DOH! I now have a better process for flattening the soles, and I wish I hadn't screwed that one up!

Hutch
 
I think that is incorrect on a number of levels.

Firstly, neither LV nor LN "stole" the design from Stanley. Stanley had long since abandoned making the #62, and the patent for the design was but a distant memory. The fact is that LN began making the #62 as part of their aim to resurrect planes that were no longer in production.

Secondly, the LV version is not a rebuild of the #62 ... it is termed the #62 1/2 because it is longer and wider. There are so many differences between the LV and the originalk Stanley that they would make your head swim. I know - I own both.

You get what you pay for. The profit margins of LN and LV are low -they are not gauging the public.

I stand behind my original claims quite strongly. LN and LV made REFINEMENTS to the planes, but they certainly copied the vast majority of it. They didn't just pick out a new design and just go for it...they had the original in their hands and refined it. They did that because they knew the original was a sound design.

As for gouging the public, they do that far more then you know. I have worked at Lie Nielsen as a machinist and still have family that works there so my perspective on that is pretty sound.
 
With respect Travis, the LV/Veritas LA Jack may have its roots in the Stanley #62 insofar as the #62 was the original concept, however the "refinements" as you call them are extensive.... so extensive that they become different planes. Almost unrecognisably so.

Different length, different width, different bed, different blade adjuster, different tote, different mouth, different cast iron, added depth stop to mouth, added side screws.

You did not use the word "refinement" (of the Stanley design) initially; you used "stole".

I do not question that you have a negative view of LN from your experiences there (although I have a very positive view of Thomas Lie-Nielsen from my email exchanges with him over the years), and you need to supply examples in this respect to gain credibility in my eyes ..... however you have lumped LN and LV together, and that is why I reacted to your first post.

I know Rob Lee very well. We correspond frequently. For a number of years I have provided pre-production input for several of the Veritas planes and tools. I correspond regularly with the design team. There is no way you could describe Rob as a person who would "steal" a design, or that his company might do so. In fact I feel strongly that this is a characterisation of Lee Valley that warrants an apology or retraction.

Regards from Perth

Derek
 
Last edited:
With respect Travis, the LV/Veritas LA Jack may have its roots in the Stanley #62 insofar as the #62 was the original concept, however the "refinements" as you call them are extensive.... so extensive that they become different planes. Almost unrecognisably so.

Different length, different width, different bed, different blade adjuster, different tote, different mouth, different cast iron, added depth stop to mouth, added side screws.

You did not use the word "refinement" (of the Stanley design) initially; you used "stole".

I do not question that you have a negative view of LN from your experiences there (although I have a very positive view of Thomas Lie-Nielsen from my email exchanges with him over the years), and you need to supply examples in this respect to gain credibility in my eyes ..... however you have lumped LN and LV together, and that is why I reacted to your first post.

I know Rob Lee very well. We correspond frequently. For a number of years I have provided pre-production input for several of the Veritas planes and tools. I correspond regularly with the design team. There is no way you could describe Rob as a person who would "steal" a design, or that his company might do so. In fact I feel strongly that this is a characterisation of Lee Valley that warrants an apology or retraction.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Well said Derek :clap:

Travis, I have zero experience with LN, so I have nothing to say about them, but as a "former" employee, I do have to take your comments with a grain of salt, any fair person would.

I too take umbrage with your comments towards Lee Valley, and I think you should take them back, or provide some facts to back your comments up.

I too know Rob Lee and have since about 1996 via e-mail and various other forms of communication, I've not yet had the pleasure of meeting him yet, face to face, but I have the utmost respect for Rob and for Lee Valley, they have been nothing but completely fair and professional with any dealings I've had the pleasure of taking part with them. I know that Rob makes a lot of effort to keep well paid job, actually careers, in Canada by keeping the manufacturing of their tools local.

Travis, your problems with LN, I cannot comment on, as I have no knowledge of them, nor do I really wish to get into, you think poorly of LN, that is your personal opinion, but your lumping of Lee Valley in with those negative feelings is not fair.

Stu
 
Last edited:
i think that this "STOLE" comment may be against our intent here. we are not supposed to bad mouth another person or company. its in the coc i believe...and from my little expierence with rob lee, i too think he is a stand up guy, doesnt deserve this banter...

it APPEARS that i was outa line in the above statement, so rather than delete it i will just say to ignore my comments...
 
Last edited:
Hmmm

I did have a chance to take a look at the new Stanley planes and they appear to be solidly built and worth the price.

The frog could use a quick filing near the edges of the mouth, cuz the mill wasn't able to make it far enough through the mouth without hitting the casting. (Hard to explain, but easy to take care of with a dozen passes of a fine file) Also, they have aluminum cap irons, they are not iron. The adjustable mouths only go down to about .04" (less than 3/64ths), which is a little big for really fine shavings, but it adjusts with reasonable ease. Of course, the tote is a little wierd and not very comfortable.

On the positive side, the blade and chip breaker are great. What a welcome improvement! (If the blade and chip breaker weren't so massive I think the aluminum cap iron could be a problem, but given their heft, I don't think it will be an issue. But a tool test will show what's up.) Also, the blade and frog adjustment mechanisms work surprisingly well.

So, without having had an opportunity to actually hone the blade and use it, I would say the biggest negative is the tote, and the rest of the shortcuts seem appropriate in order to maintain the price point without giving up on critical engineering.

Hutch
 
Just for balance.....

I appreciate that y'all have loyalties, but I for one did not find the use of the word 'stole' to be offensive nor did I find it to reflect the character of any individual at any company.

Besides, copying (even if there are significant refinements and changes) is really a form of flattery, right? A plane is a pretty straightforward tool, and there's always gonna be overlap in design in successfully mass produced tools. (You can only get so fancy in the manufacturing process without screwing your bottom line or pricing yourself out of the market.)

Anyway, just wanted to give another perspective.

Hutch
 
This is just a personal thing, but I'm not a big fan of the Norris type adjusters. I really prefer the standard Stanley adjuster because I can adjust the blade without taking my hand off the tote.

I took a look at the WoodRiver planes the last time I was at Woodcraft and was impressed with the heft and the thickness of the blade. But I haven't used one yet so it's still really an unknown to me so far. But if I was in the market for a plane, I'd sure consider it. For the price (a bit more than half the equivalent LN) it looks like a good plane.

Mike
 
Matt,
Thanks for adding a bit of logic to what is a rather teritorial arguement. I for 1 am not what some call a tool snob. I have a Jet tabvle saw, a Dewalt CMS, a de3walt planer a craftsman band saw, a Rikon Lathe, an old King Sealy scroll saw a Stanley block plane and a Great Neck Jack plane etc etc. all of my tools perform as I expect them to. Sure some of them require tuning espeialy when they are new but they do the job they were intended to. Sure it would be nice to have a plane till filled with veritas palnes, but I guantee I would still have to tune them. I buy tools to do a job not because they are any particular brand. Sure I've bought some lemons but for the most part the tools I buy do what I want them to do. I am reminded what Sam Maloof said when I was taking a wookshop he nwas teaching. There is no right or wrong tool. just use the one that gets the job done and that you are comforable with.
 
i think that this "STOLE" comment may be against our intent here. we are not supposed to bad mouth another person or company. its in the coc i believe...and from my little expierence with rob lee, i too think he is a stand up guy, doesnt deserve this banter...

it APPEARS that i was outa line in the above statement, so rather than delete it i will just say to ignore my comments...

No need to apologize Larry...I just think people zeroed in on a single word and lost the rest of the lengthy post along the way. You are a stand up guy and I have lots of respect for you.

If people would look beyond the original word "stole" you will see that I tempered it twice with the word "refinements" and even added a tag line that said "there is nothing wrong with that as the patent rights were up..."

You can call a board: a board, a piece of lumber, or building material but it is still a board no matter how you temper it.

One of my favorite planes is the Stanley #140 and yet if you look at the LN version it is just that...a Stanley #140 with lots of add-ons or refinements. The fact that the numbering system stays intact points to the fact that these plane makers wanted the connection from Stanley Planes of years past to be carried on to their planes. They could have chosen a different numbering system that was completely their own, but they did not do so. We all know why...and its understandable.

Since then new products have came from both places that are truly unique, but make no mistake about it...when they started out they wanted to piggyback off the success of Stanley and that was the point of my entire post. Stanley was successful at one time and manufactured a fine hand plane. When they drifted south, other companies came in to fill the void...but it was with their original designs with refinements. Now that they have seen their error of their ways, I don't think its right to ignore the visionary work they did at the turn of the century. I am very glad they are back in the quality plane manufacturing business as nothing but good can come from woodworkers having more quality planes to choose from in a variety of price ranges.

As for lumping LN and LV...I am glad to hear that Lee Valley is a stellar company and I will be sure to support their efforts in the future. I truly mean that as I fully support quality management...but Mr Nielsen worked for LV a few years before breaking off onto his own, so their is a connection between the two companies in their early years when their product lines were based on Stanley Planes.
 
Top