Anant Products

Jeff,
I have 2 Baileys (a #5 and a #7) that you’re welcome to play around with. At least I’m pretty sure their Baileys. I haven’t gotten around to replacing the irons with Hocks yet, but the original irons sharpened up fairly well and haven’t been too much trouble. Come on over at your convenience any time after 5:30ish.

I’ve not used the Anant planes myself but I’ve always thought they were in the upper eschelons of quality. I don’t think you’d be wasting your money to get one. I’m interested in what other’s have to say…

SC_Galoot

I’ve been wondering the same, and there is a more premium series of Anant planes, the Kamal range. The #10 Bench Rabbet looks good at $90 if they are of sufficient quality.

-- "Bordnerizing" perfectly good lumber for over a decade.

Well, well, well – I don’t have extensive experience with the planes, but I have looked at many of the planes and would place them in the same category as the current Stanley imports, and the Kunz line of products. They’re pretty rough out of the box and take considerable tuning. I purchased a #78 duplex rabbet plane and had nothing but trouble. Even after tuned fairly well, and taking a light shaving, the shaving would jam just above the mouth. I took it back to the shop I bought it at and the owner was willing to take it back. We agreed that it was a design and/or casting flaw which didn’t permit the shaving to pass freely.

I like my OLD Stanley planes (#4, #5, #7), don’t like my new Stanley’s all that much (standard block, 78), and love my Veritas and Lie Nielsen planes (shoulder, low angle block, low angle jack).

I think the Anants are of sufficient quality, IF…you want to spend a lot of time tuning these tools before you can use them. Again, they’re like the Stanleys and the Kunz’. Am I becoming a tool snob – yep – maybe a bit. Am I an average Joe – yep – pretty much, but I still like good quality tools that don’t give you headaches.

-- Dorje (pronounced "door-jay"), Seattle, WA

I vote for pre-war Stanleys…. Lower cost and higher probabiliy you will like them. Hock blades/chipbreakers are great….

-- We must guard our enthusiasm as we would our life - James Krenov

Go with the Stanleys. Get good pre-war Baileys or Bedrocks. They will cost less and take less time to tune.

-- Thos. Angle, Owyhee Design, Oregon

Help me out, I’m ignorant of the evolution of the Stanley line. Seems they dropped their standards based on the opinions posted. Is there a specific difference or is it just tool nostalgia that is desirable. Obviously, pre-war Stanleys are not being produced, so I imagine this would be a “used” purchase. Are they tough to find? I imagine Ebay would be a decent starting place. I am wary of buying a tool that is very unforgiving if not in great shape. Tough to tell over the net.

-- Jeff, South Carolina

Yes Jeff. ebay and also garage sales and flee markets.

-- Karson Southern Delaware karson_morrison@bigfoot.com

Jeff -

Wayne seems to have had lots of luck finding the older (pre-war) Stanley’s on ebay. I’m sure he can speak more on that. I believe, in general, the tools were made to a higher degree of quality, whereas the new tools are made with considerably less effort and lower grade materials than older tools and newer, higher quality, tools (e.g., LV and LN).

The old adage, “They don’t make ‘em like they used to,” really applies to planes.

Before I bought my low-angle block plane with the adjustable mouth (the LN version), I thought long and hard about why I shouldn’t go for the Stanley version and buy a Hock replacement blade. If you examine the two side by side it’s really difficult to want to spend so much time and energy tuning up the rougher of the two. It’s also difficult to want to spend the money, but I felt like I was saving money in the form of time, and more importantly, the quality of how I spend my time.

If you can find relatively good older planes (Baileys or Bedrocks as Thomas and others suggested) that certainly is a way to go. You’ll also have an antique plane that you can use, and that in itself brings satisfaction and value to the tool in my book.

-- Dorje (pronounced "door-jay"), Seattle, WA

Jeff, Patrick Leach’s Blood and Gore is a great resource for researching used Stanley planes. He doesn’t mince words much and it’s a hilarious read. Now I can spot an antique plane well enough, but couldn’t get a handle on David’s plane rehab. I thought the sole had to be some fake. It just turned out to be a newer Stanley.

There is a flowchart for dating available here.

-- "Bordnerizing" perfectly good lumber for over a decade.

Ooh – good reference Douglas! – Patrick Leach also sends out an email every month full of great tools! Sign up here if you want to receive it!

-- Dorje (pronounced "door-jay"), Seattle, WA

Jeff,
Almost all planes made prior to WW2 were made to more exacting standards than post-war planes. By the time the boys got back from the war they were ingrained in the use of machines not hand tools. They took over and the oldtimers retired. The demand for top quality hand tools dropped to nothing in the building boom that began about 1946-7. When the demand dropped so did the quality until Stanley stopped production in America. The other reason for pre-war tools has to do with metalurgy. The standards for steel changed during the war years. If I remember correctly the amount of tungsten was changed and some other ingrediants. I’m not enough of a metalugist to tell you what it did but war production and post war steel is not the same as pre war steel. I’ve worked on a lot of farm machinery built before WW2 and the steel is a lot harder and much stronger. Maybe someone else can complete this with clearer information.

-- Thos. Angle, Owyhee Design, Oregon

My understanding: Anant, India based, bought all of the original Record molds. I have their bench vise which is very well made. I have heard good things and based on the vise would buy a plane.

-- -John "Do I have to keep typing a smiley? Just assume it's a joke." www.flickr.com/photos/gizmodyne

Thos,
I didn’t know this about the change in metal. I knew there were differences beginning in the war era with stamped parts, plastic knobs etc. I wonder if the difference in metals is the same noted by the laminated blade folks in Japan. They seemingly prize recycled anchor chain. Googling white steel+laminated blades was pretty informative, if over my head.

-- "Bordnerizing" perfectly good lumber for over a decade.

I will add to the frey here by adding another Indian plane maker – Groz.
They too have been around for more than 30 years and produce a variety of cast and steel products for the world market.
More recently I picked up three planes under the AWARD label ( low angle block, smoother and a jack)
All three have performed exceptionally well for me and although they are not the fit and finish of Lee Valley or Lie Nielson they are not expensive and at least for me , seem to do the trick.
If worse comes to worst I can add a LV, LN or hock blade to them.

Bob

-- A mind, like a home, is furnished by its owner

I put a Groz vise on my new bench. It sure seems to work well.

-- Thos. Angle, Owyhee Design, Oregon

I took a few swipes with both the LAB and #6 that Bob picked up. Though I prefer my Veritas #6 for fit and finish, the Groz performed perfectly. As far as the #6…well, I own one now. It was really a neat plane. And for the money, sheesh…peanuts compared to the other #6’s I was looking at. Thanks for the find, by the way, Bob!

-- You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation. (Plato)

Thanks all. I found a good article Popular Woodworking #162 (June 07). “Handplanes for Beginners” by Michael Dunbar. It didn’t get into specifics about the decline in quality post-WWII but mentioned the decline. He stated there was another decline in the 1960’s as well when the Bailey patent expired and many more companies entered the market.

I now realize how little I know about the different planes. I’ve had a cheap Stanley #4 and a nonadjustable block plane for a while and have struggled. Over the weekend I bought a 15” Jack Plane as well as a nice blade for my #4. Big difference, but technique still is lacking. I’m almost too prideful to say it, but I’ll just say that I now know the difference between bevel-up and bevel-down. gasp. I discovered I really could use a traditional workbench. Took mine down a year or so ago as the space was more valuable than the bench using largely power tools.

-- Jeff, South Carolina

Yes, if you are going to do much hand tool work, it’s nice to have a variety of vises to choose from. As one can never have too many clamps, you can also never have too many clamping options. The biggest complaint I have about my bench is I’d have liked to have height adjustable square dogs. I use veritas bench dogs and you can’t just toss a board on the bench and hit it with a plane…but that’s another reason for the bench hook. Good luck on your journey!

-- You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation. (Plato)

Mot, I haven’t used commercial dogs before. My first bench had 1” round dog holes. I used dowels and PVC tubes in them. The PVC worked well in that I drilled stepped holes in it so that I could insert a small dowel in a hole that matches the desired height. I used square dogs on a later bench.

-- Jeff, South Carolina

Jeff, One thing that’s tricky when you are learning is how mcu blade to expose.
I find tht if you start with the blade jsut below the wood surface and loosen the cap iron to let the blad emove but not slip you cand sneak up on the sweet spot on you blade witha few getle turns.
Tighten her up and it should just sweep, sweep sweep.

bob

-- A mind, like a home, is furnished by its owner

Understated Bob! I find it very difficult to know how much blade to expose, how much mouth, as well as the distance between the cutter and the chip breaker. I was getting frustrated last night only to realize the chip breaker wasn’t as flush as it should be. I discovered chips and build up jamming the concave recess. I also found build-up behind the cutter pretty quickly into the job. This is a result of set up and honing I’m sure. The iron on my Jack plane was perfectly square. I’ve read it should be slightly tapered. I also had an issue of the frog shifting slightly enough that it took a while to determine that was what was happening. In time I’ll get it, I suppose.

-- Jeff, South Carolina

You’ll get it, Jeff. Just keep trying. This ain’t rocket science. The best way is to set the plane up to where you can’t get a shaving and then advance the blade one turn of the dial at a time until you do. Going the other way is frustrating.It it always amazing how little blade is exposed. When you get it you won’t want to quit.

-- Thos. Angle, Owyhee Design, Oregon

So what kind of Jack plane did you end up with – and the blade for the #4?

-- Dorje (pronounced "door-jay"), Seattle, WA

Hey Dorje: Both are Stanley “Bailey” recently produced models. I’ve ordered a Hock for the #4 and it hasn’t arrived. The “big difference” I was referring to was the difference between the fully adjustable plane and a nonadjustable plane. I had a Stanley #4 that had a stationary frog, no chip breaker, and a blade that was very short. Used it once and it chattered all the way down the board. Didn’t touch a plane for about a 6 months after that. I bought the better #4 and the adjustments make all the difference. I’m still hinting for a LN low angle block for the Holidays. I have some doubts as to my wifes ability to figure out exactly what that is. My office is next to a custom T-shirt store. The owner said he can put the image on a T-shirt for my children. I think that might be effective. hmmmm?

-- Jeff, South Carolina

You should at least try! If you don’t, you wouldn’t ever know!

That new Bailey jack plane should perform real well for you after running it through its paces and get it flat, smooth, and honed…

-- Dorje (pronounced "door-jay"), Seattle, WA

Jeff: WOW, I’m a happy man. Thanks to my finishing skills ( or lack thereof), I’ll now removed finish from a 3 by 6 foot oak dining table 3 times now. I’ve been reading Bob Flexner’s “Understanding Wood Finishing” as suggested to me on another thread (Wayne, I believe). Great resource. Everything you need to know and a few things you don’t! Anyways, I’m being picky as the table top is a focal point of the room and it would drive me crazy if I settled for a decent job. I was determined to use planes to prep for finishing. That lead to this thread and some frustration. After tuning up my recently bought Bailey Jack and #4, I was able to get the top stripped and pretty smooth in about 20 minutes. Using the crappy planes, it took almost an hour and resulted in some tearout and plane marks. I’m psyched that they worked as well as they did. I did a light high grit sanding with my ROS and it was ready to go. Crossing my fingers that the wood conditioner will even out the blotchy former appearances.

-- Jeff, South Carolina