# A decent plane, but it takes some work to get there!



## JohnGray

IMHO when I 1st saw how bad of shape the sole was in and the scratches on the body I would have taken it back right then. I'm sure you must have had your reasons, just saying what I would have done.


----------



## dfdye

John,

I figured that I would have a little "fun" with a project. I have never tried to turn a junk plane into a decent tool, and I hadn't seen a good used plane except in antique shops where they wanted insane money for badly damaged planes that were missing parts. The pictures do show what I was talking about that the plane needs a bunch of work to get usable, but the long, curved "scratches" you see aren't deep in the metal, they are dust from what I had been working on. The bad scratches are in the middle/bottom right of the second picture.

The funny part is that it cuts well! It stil has a bunch of scratches and can be better (possibly going to lap it in a mill to get it dead flat) but it already is usable. The scratches on the side are irrelavent to me, but the sole is much better than when I started.

Like I said, and as you noted, I would not recommend this "project" to anyone else!

David


----------



## WayneC

Relative to used planes, you just need to keep looking. There are quite a few of them out there….

Once you have it flat on the bottom, I would not thing the scratches would affect performance.


----------



## dbhost

I've got the Groz #4 you mention. Once you lap the sole, deburr the frog, and hone the iron it is a nice plane. I have never seen a Footprint in person, so I can't make any claims, but it looks like they are similar…

I am getting to the point that I somewhat enjoy the process of prepping a plane for use… Maybe I am a glutton for punishment, who knows?

I did have a cheap Stanley #4 that I never could get flat, and the Groz came in about the same as your Footprint… A couple of scratches that are still there… But otherwise very flat…


----------



## araldite

I'm not sure you can turn a junk plane into a descent tool. You can turn a plane that was good in it's day, but now a rusty mess, back into a descent tool with some work. But I think a plane that's junk right out of the box can be made better, but not into a good tool.

In my opinion, you're better off buying a rusty pre WW2 Stanley, or other good brand, and putting your effort into that. It will be a much better tool than the Footprint will ever be.

If you're thinking about laping, forget Footprint. Put your time into something that has an intrinsically higher value, and where you can at increase the value of the plane your working on by your efforts. You'll never increase the value of the Footprint.


----------



## WayneC

I'm wondering if it is worth discussing the point of buying a modern low cost plane vs. buying a pre-WW2 used plane. I would think that if one was to purchase a quality used plane and tune it they would have better results than pretty much any of the modern low-cost planes ( Stanley, Footprint, Groz, etc.)

From a premium plane perspective I would think that Bedrocks, Lie-Nielsons, and Veritas would out perform Windriver and the new Stanley premiums. Anyone have an opinion?


----------



## dfdye

Araldite, I can personally state that I get satisfactory results from my Footprint now that I have worked on it for a while. I have tried out higher end planes, and there is a gap between the performance of my plane and those planes, but it isn't anything that will have an effect on my work. I can't justify spending $300 on a high end plane any more than I can justify buying super high end cabinet saw! The additional performance does not impact MY work, so there is no reason for me to spend the money! The point of buying a Footprint or a Groz is about the same as buying a Skill circular saw vs. a Dewalt. The latter is clearly a better tool, but will it impact the quality of my final product? For me, the answer is no, even though I would clearly appreciate the better tools!

As a serious technical question to those advocating high end planes, what specifically do YOU find to be the advantage of the more expensive planes? I get great shavings, easy adjustability, and a slick sole now that I have taken the time to tune the Footprint up. What more do you look for in a plane? I have already said that I would appreciate better steel in the blade (I can upgrade that later if I really want to) and the finer depth adjustment threads on some other planes, but neither of these immediately affect the quality of my work, just the ease in which I can set up the plane and the length of time between sharpenings.

Wayne, good question regarding the trade off between the higher end planes. My judgement of tools typically is based on how well they produce a final product and how easily I can operate them. I would love to hear a comparison from someone who has used both the Woodriver and the higher end planes as to the differences in end results, and if there is some magic adjustment knob that justifies the cost of the Lie-Nielsons and the Veritas planes (granted, these tools look amazing, and are borderline artistic works! I wouldn't fault anyone buying them for this reason alone!) So far, every review I have ever read of them only mentions how well they are made, how little time it take to tune them, and that you can get results that are very nice-no comparison as to how they are fundamentally different than the results of my Footprint other than they get the same results in a shorter time! If the extra $$$ is worth your time, but all means don't even look at the cheap planes (as I said before!), but if you are a glutton for punishment and want to tune the plane up yourself, what is the fundamental difference in quality of cut that I am missing with my Footprint?

Please understand, I am definitely not trying to be argumentative, I really would like to hear why people spent more money on better planes and if it was purely for asthetics and time constraints, or if there is a magic result I am missing.


----------



## dfdye

Dbhost,

Thanks for chiming in regarding the Groz! Unless I am much mistaken, it looks like that is the plane in your profile picture? Glad you got yours working well.


----------



## SST

I'd love to hear if the high end planes performed better than (for example) an old tuned Stanley. I have about 15 different old Stanley & Gage planes that I use in my shop. All were bought very reasonably in various states of aging & restored & tuned by me. Now, in use, I can't imagine that a new plane at any price will perform better. They all work great. But, I have nothing to actually compare to, so I'm hoping that someone out there has used well tuned old planes & then bought a new high end one & can tell me what differences he/she sees in use. 
C'mon…people, this could be great to learn. -SST


----------



## Marc5

Tom,

To answer your question I own several Lie Nielsen planes, purchased over the past several years. In my humble opinion they are out of the box, the best planes currently available. When my father passed I found his #5 Bailey style plane and 9 1/2 block plane decided I needed to keep them and add it to my ever growing collection of tools with the intent to continue to use them. As a kid I remember every Dad having these planes laying around. I put the super tunes to them and they are perform as good as the LN's. Quite honestly I use them as much if not more than the LN's. The biggest difference I have noticed is the blades in the Lie Nielsen's. hold a edge better. They are A2 instead of O2 tool steel. A2 is considerably harder and will hold a edge a lot longer but is also take more time to sharpen when you have to. Other than that I don't notice to much of a difference.


----------



## jimc

Everyone talks about the availability of pre-WWII planes - that all you need to do is tune them up. Well, I've been watching ebay and other places now for over a year and it seems the best I can find are ones that need work and still go for over $40-$50. I can in no way afford LN's or Veritas, I can't even afford to look at these, so I have nothing. Yard sales here in Maine don't seem to carry used tools or, if they do, you're looking at el-cheapos that nothing would help - $5 when new block planes with no adjustments.

Jim


----------



## JoeButler

I too have gone the Groz way. I simply can't afford to pay that much for high end planes for a hobby. If I made a living doing this, it might be different. Also, I started out with power tools and then slowly realized that they couldn't do everything. (Sorry Norm on New Yankee Workshop!)

So I have slowly been picking up hand tools when I can afford them. I started out with a $8 set of cheap chisels from Harbor Freight. Crap, yes. But they sharpened up enough that I could see where they would be handy. I have just replaced them with a better set ($60 on sale) from Woodcraft. Still no where near top of the line, but more than enough for what I will use them for.

I have yet to use any of the Groz planes I got over the holidays (#4, #5, #7, regular block, low angle block and shoulder plane). To be honest, I'm not really sure how/why/when to use them. But I'm watching videos from several sources and hope to have it figured out soon.

But I have also wondered about today's modern planes. The advertisements for Groz say "Soles are guaranteed flat to within 0.003". (No, I haven't checked mine…I don't have the tools to measure that accurately. I did set each one on my table saw…none of them rocked. LOL) I'm not a machinist, but that seems pretty flat to me. Were the planes pre-WWII milled to within that tolerance? What about wooden planes? I would think they would be impossible to get completely flat. Even if you managed to do it today, wouldn't the wood move some and tomorrow it would be off again?

How long have they been making metal planes? I would guess only in the last 10? (25?, 50?) years have we been able to get soles machined as flat as today's high end planes have?

As I say, I'm not a machinist. But I would really be interested in hearing the answers to the above. I would guess, that even with the highest end hand tools, I couldn't do as good a job as an experienced hand tool person with properly tuned lower end tools. How much of it is really based on improved technology, how much on the experience of the user and how much in "tool snobbery"?


----------



## dbhost

Yep, the planes in my pic are my Groz planes.

What got me to buy a new Groz instead of a pre WW2 Stanley or the like is the age / temper of the metal. Metal can and often does get working fatigue. It is impossible to tell just by eyeballing it, which used plane is in good fixable shape, and which one looks good, but will snap in half a week after you get it home… And while that is rare, it does happen…

With the blade honed nicely, my Groz gives me shavings in walnut that you can read through, and they are consistent. I'm not sure what else a more expensive plane could do for me.

I'm not saying that there isn't some added value to the likes of Veritas or Lie Nielsen, The fit and finish are certainly much better than the cheaper planes, but then again, the tuning process typically fixes those issues, or should… About the only issue I can see in the perspective of usability once tuning is done is the quality of the blade. The higher end planes tend to have harder steel blades, which is one of the reasons a LOT of Groz, Footprint, and even current Stanley and Buck Bros planes get Hock irons swapped into them…

Now to compare the Groz or Footprint to the current low end Stanley or Buck Bros is not fair to the Groz or Footprint. The Buck Bros in particular, the ones I have seen seem to come fitted with aluminum adjusters, and other low quality, soft components that blow out upon first usage… They simply put are NOT worth the effort. I have not made the Buck Bros mistake, but I did on a current model low end Lowes Stanley #4. It went back within 36 hours, and I got my Groz…

I have seen, and used properly tuned Footprint #4 similar to the one reviewed by the OP, and it is a good plane once tuned up…

I am wanting to fill in my plane selection with a #5, #6, and #7, and if given a good deal I would probably grab a Footprint…


----------



## JohnGray

FWIW - When I look at used planes and other tools in the wild (Wild ='s not on the Internet to me, where you can hold the tool in your hand) items to take along include: a small accurate square (I use a 4"), a set of feeler gauges, cheap at any auto supply store or at HF), if you are looking at larger items a 12" or longer straight edge, and if your eyes are like mine a small magnifying glass. You want to make sure the plane is straight, square, and not cracked.
And most of all read a good book as in: Handplane Essentials By Christopher Schwarz 
http://www.woodworkersbookshop.com/product/book-woodworking-magazine-handplane-essentials/hand-tools


----------



## SST

Good discussion & info. Thanks. By the way, Jim C., I guess I don't think of $30 - even $50 for a good Stanley is out of line. There have been many in that range that pretty much only need cosmetic work. I'm seeing that the Groz & others can be had in that range, but I guess I kinda like the old ones just for the heritage attached to them. For me there's a good feeling when I think that some guy was using that plane a hundred years ago. ..but, that's just me. -SST


----------



## SST

I've seen a footprint of a frog…but never a frog of a footprint. -SST


----------



## dfdye

In light of this discussion, I figured I would hit the sole of my Footprint with a serious flattening to see what I could do. Long story short, I was able to put a mirror finish on the sole (and my block plane while I was at it) in about an hour. After throwing on some paste wax and buffing, it is now slick as "heck," and cuts wonderfully. As I said before, I reground the blade when I first got the plane and honed it with sandpaper/abrasive film down to 0.5 microns (30 degree micro-bevel on a 25 degree grind).



Here are a few more pictures if you are interested:

http://s942.photobucket.com/albums/ad270/dfdye/Footprint%20Plane%20Pictures/

Long story short, there wasn't any appreciable improvement in cut quality, though it "feels" a little slicker when moving across the wood. I felt like I was concentrating more on the feel of the blade cutting the wood rather than just moving the plane across the surface of the wood. Not sure how to describe this-it was subtle, but noticeable.

The limiting factor in the performance of the plane still seems to be the adjustment mechanism. The pitch of the thread is more coarse than I would like, which means you really have to be careful not to overshoot your adjustment for really fine cuts. The plane is easy to set up for moderately fine cuts, but for the splitting cells cuts, you need to be careful setting the depth. Otherwise, this plane feels pretty good.

I'll try and get pictures of the plane's guts up in this album in a bit, so check back later if you are interested in seeing that. Also, I just created this photobucket account, so let me know if I have some weird setting that keeps folks from seeing the pictures.


----------



## WayneC

I looked at the photos in your photo bucket account. Are you able to get thin shavings similar to this? (this was all I could find at the moment photo wise)



I was wondering how you had the mouth of your plane set.


----------



## dfdye

I just posted more pictures under the above link of the guts for those who asked.

Hey Wayne,

Thanks for looking at the pictures, and thanks for posting a good comparison picture.

All I have out right now is 2X pine, so I used a cutoff piece to see what I could do with quick setup. Pine isn't the best test, I know, but it is what I have out in the shop, so that's what I'm using!  Here is what I got after I put the plane back together after taking the pictures of the guts





When I was testing the thickness of the shavings, it was a little odd since I could clearly crush the fibers with the calipers, so I tried to use as gentle of a touch as possible. Still, it was wandering between 0.001" and 0.002".

As a final note, yes, I know the frog looks terrible! (at least it is flat!) That is a different project for a different day. Yes, there is still some tuning to do for this plane, but it is getting pretty darn close to a good tool, and I honestly don't know what tuning the frog would get me other than a warm and fuzzy feeling inside! Feel free to ask any more questions regarding the plane. I am actually using it on the new workshop bench base I am building now to clean up rip cuts prior to gluing, so I have been getting pretty familiar with it the past few days. Though it obviously isn't a jointer, it is doing rather well for what I am asking it to do, and it is proving to be a pretty useful tool with little fuss. Granted, pine isn't really a hard test, but it hasn't shown signs of dulling after a bunch of use. Glad to know the blade can hold up for a little while, at least!

David


----------



## WayneC

Thanks for the new photos David, those were more the kind of shavings I was hoping to see.

: ^ )


----------



## dfdye

Wayne and Pat, Glad to post the pictures! Really happy that somebody got something out of them.

One quick observation in light of Pat's comment about frog mass/surface area: While I definitely agree that the higher end planes will be better at the limits of performance (like in hard maple), the fact that I can get a 7.5' long decently thin shaving without even really trying says something about how this plane is working right now. If I were having chatter problems, I don't think I could have gotten the shavings I did. I think this speaks to the importance of making sure the tool you have is tuned well, rather than lusting after a new tool. (the really thin shaving was about 7' long, but it fell apart when I tried to unroll it, and yes, there was some twisting of the wood so one side of the shaving was thinner than the other in some parts-it is cheap pine after all!) As long as you keep the blade sharp and the sole flat, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to get decent results with most planes. After all, people used wooden planes for a LONG time and had spectacular results-all that the metal planes add is durability and easier adjustability.

Again, if I was starting back two months ago (or whenever I bought this plane) I would have gotten a plane that was better out of the box to save time and make adjustments easier, but I definitely don't see a need to replace this Footprint for the foreseeable future. My next plane purchase in the coming months will probably be a #7 for working wide rough lumber and cleaning up long cuts. Unfortunately Woodriver doesn't make a #7, so I am a little stuck-do I go with a #6 Woodriver that I know will be close to tuned out of the box, but may not be quite as good as a #7 in terms of the job it does, or do I go with a #7 Groz that will take some time to tune up, but will perform the job it's intended for a little better in the long run (maybe)? Much to think about, and these discussions and my experience with the Footprint will definitely play heavily into that decision.

Many thanks to everybody for the thoughtful insight! This really seems to have been a very productive discussion of what is important in a hand plane (OMG, a constructive discussion on the intarwebs!!).

David

PS Wayne, there isn't really a mouth adjustment on the Footprint (nor most other bench planes that I have used for that matter), just a depth adjustment and how you put the chip breaker/backer iron on the blade. I guess if the frog is off it will have an effect on how the blade sits in the mouth, but it isn't like my block plane that has an intentionally adjustable mouth opening.


----------



## WayneC

You should be able to move the frog back and forth to open/close the mouth is where I was coming from. E.g. the screw on the back of the frog that is on most stanley planes after about 1910.

Still no consideration to tune up an old Stanley #7?


----------



## dfdye

You got an old Stanley #7 you want to sell me for cheap? I'd be more than happy to give it a run if the price was right!

As for the mouth adjustment, I'm with you now. The Footprint doesn't appear to have a set screw in the back for the frog depth adjustment, but it is pretty easy to move front to back tapping lightly with a mallet when the screws are loosened a little. The movement of the frog under those conditions is pretty well dampened, if that makes any sense, so small, incremental movements are relatively easy.

The way that makes the most sense is how the Veritas planes have the mouth opening adjustment (saw a few of them at a woodworking show recently, and they are super slick)


----------



## WayneC

I've seen them for as little as $5. What part of the country are you in? The veritas adjustment is pretty slick. I like the Bedrock style as well.


----------



## dfdye

Hey Wayne,

I am from Indiana. Nobody around here seems to just dump tools, especially not good tools! There are too many smart tool buyers in the midwest, it seems. Fortunately, we have a bunch of good rough wood for reasonable prices (lots of people selling grandpa's stock from the barn attic, etc.), so it probably all evens out in the end. Still, if you do see used tools, people are typically charging more than it is worth for me to fix them up. I haven't seen a decent Bedrock on ebay for anything near $100 (could get a new Woodriver for close to that), and though I could get a Bailey for ~$50 (inc shipping) I'm not convinced that would be any less time and energy than shaping up a Groz.

The #6 Woodriver seems to be the same price as a used Bedrock, and the former seems to be good quality regardless of the cost. Factor in the time savings vs. an old Bedrock, and it becomes pretty hard to argue against the WR. If I find a $5 #6 Bedrock (or even a Bailey for that matter!), then the equation obviously changes a little bit, if for nothing else, the fact that I would have a great story to tell vs. buying a new tool. 

I'll even tell you what, Wayne, if you find a good #6 or #7 Stanley plane (IE at least 18" long sole) with no "deal breaker" defects for under $10 by the end of March, I promise I will buy it off of you and pay USPS shipping, plus a 100% finders fee (payable via paypal or check)-IE I'll pay you double what you paid for it, up to $20 total +S&H. 

A couple of requirements-the sole must be non-corrugated, no major chips/gouges in the mouth, no major deep scratches in the sole, no missing/broken parts, no deep pitting from rust, no obvious cracks in the metal. Honestly, I trust your better judgement on this one. If it could be a good user plane with some work, then I'm happy, I just don't want to spend time on a busted tool, or spend money on parts. Cosmetic junk is not important to me (who in the world cares about Japanning on a user plane?)-I want a tool I can beat on and not feel bad about it.

Plus, I promise to document the resurrection of the plane, assuming it needs work, in a LJ diary for all to see. Ball's in your court-you could create a pre-WWII stanley plane convert! 

David


----------



## WayneC

I'll check my plane storage in the garage and see what I might have laying around.


----------



## WayneC

I found a Sargent 424, some jappanning loss and some pitting on the blade. It is a #8 equalent. Also, I have a pre-WW2 Stanley #7, some japanning loss and pretty dirty. Has a single 1910 patent date.

Both appear to be dead flat on the plastic. Both have smooth soles….


----------



## dfdye

After making a bunch of shavings, I finally got the Footprint plane blade dull. As I was getting there, sure enough I started noticing chatter and tearout, along with the corners of the blade trying to dig into the wood. The blade still cuts pretty easily, but the cut quality has definitely started to diminish enough to need sharpening. I attached a a picture of the last pile of shavings I swept up before I took the blade out for sharpening. This pile represents a little less than half of the shavings I got out of this sharpening.

I'm not necessarily displeased with this longevity considering I was making some aggressive cuts to try and get the really bad surfaces of the 2X4 stock flat for gluing, I hit a bunch of knots, and planed through some glue lines (no chipping, but I am sure it doesn't do anything for the edge of the blade). Still, considering this was pine, I would have hoped the edge would have lasted a little longer.

So, just as I suspected, the steel in the blade is OK, but nothing to write home about. I am not sure if the blade would hold up better if I go to a 30 degree grind and a 35 degree microbevel as I saw suggested elsewhere (I am using a 25/30 now), but I do know that when I start using this on lyptus, I am going to be wishing for an A2 blade.


----------



## WayneC

There is always the option of a Hock or other aftermarket blade. I think woodcraft has a new line of blades.


----------



## WayneC

Found them http://www.woodcraft.com/Family/2080171/Pinnacle-Replacement-Blades-for-StanleyRecord.aspx


----------



## dfdye

Thanks for the link, Wayne!

I looked at the Hock and Pinnacle blades the last time I was in Woodcraft, and both seem high quality, A2 blades. I'm not sure the difference between the two. Not that it factors much into the equation, but the Pinnacle does come sharp out of the box. . . .

I've read numerous reviews of the Hock blades (never anything but glowing praise) but haven't heard much about the Pinnacle. Any opinions on the difference between the two? Also, it seems as if Woodcraft has a "new" 2" Hock blade that they are charging $10 more for than the "old" 2" blade. Any idea what the difference is there?? I guess I'll take an in-person look next weekend, but I would love some info if anybody has it.

David


----------



## WayneC

The hock blades (and others) come in different types of steel. Write up here

http://www.hocktools.com/toolsteel.htm

I believe the Pinnacle are recent offerings (last 6 months or so) and I do not have any experience with them. I currently have Hocks in all my non-LN bench planes.


----------



## Alonso83

I tested a few Stanley planes with some hook blades on the past Lie Nielsen tool event in Norwalk CA and they really perform way better than original Stanley's, still I haven't got any Hook blades yet, and probably I never will, since I'm planning on selling my full collection of Stanley planes and start again but this time, it will be more costly, way more costly, (since I want all Lie Nielsen) I know what you might think ….. what for?.... I can't give you an answer, I know that is not going to be easy to spend so much on hand planes but its just something that I want…..ooh well, we'll see

David Next time that I find a No 7, I will keep you in mind, in the mean time this is a No 7 that I found last Sunday at a local flea market for only $10, it went thru a full restoration process , I will like to keep it but its a flat sole and I only keep corrugate's

Wayne,

I know that you asked for pictures of that No 7 but I forgot to take some "before" pictures, oh well enjoy the "after" ones…  I don't think that I need to show you the before ones, since you know what kind of planes I look for right??

Alonso


----------



## WayneC

I know what your looking for Alonso, it was more wanting to see what the restored plane looked like before you restored it.

I have a number of LN planes, I understand the NEED too well.


----------



## dfdye

Alonso,

Thanks for the generous offer, but it looks like I'll soon have a dirty #7 Stanley on its way. I promise to take lots of pictures of the before and after since it looks like it is going to take some work to get it pretty, and since this will be my first restoration project. Trust me also, that I completely understand the desire (read NEED) to surround yourself with fine objects that make you happy! Isn't that why we are all trying to build stuff out of wood that we like?

David


----------

