# Hand Plane comparison.



## Deycart (Mar 21, 2012)

I was thinking of doing a research project on comparing different manufactures of planes. Everyone knows about Stanley, Miller Falls, Sargent, Lie Nielsen and Veritas, but what other manufactures were out there? I am not interested in doing any work on any brand that was produced by one of the major makers. An example would be Dunlap or Craftsman. This project would be limited to metal # 5 bench planes that are around 14 inches long and a 2 inch wide blade.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

Wood River, Record, Ohio Tools, Union, Anants, Kunz, Groz, Keen Mutter off the top of my head.


----------



## Manitario (Jul 4, 2010)

Miller Falls


----------



## Deycart (Mar 21, 2012)

Some I found around the net just now are
Clifton
Footprint
ShopFox
Crl
Quangsheng


----------



## shampeon (Jun 3, 2012)

I'll hold my nose and say Buck Brothers.

Though I turned a crappy BB Home Depot special #5 into a pretty great scrub plane.


----------



## ShaneA (Apr 15, 2011)

Preston is another. Going to be lots of types/brands out there.


----------



## cjwillie (Sep 6, 2011)

Keen Kutter, Winchester, Defiance


----------



## docholladay (Jan 9, 2010)

As for vintage brands, the main ones that come to mind to me, that you have not already listed are Record, Preston, Winchester, Ohio and I'm sure there are others. However, much of the work that you are interested in doing, has already been done. There is a website dedicated to Millers Falls (www.oldtoolheaven.com), Stanley (http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan1.htm) and I know there are also sites dedicated to Sargent, North Brothers, Disston, but can't put my hands on those links right away. Also, I suggest checking out the Old Tools List and archives at http://swingleydev.com/archive/faq.html. Not to suggest that you do not do the research, but I'm afraid you will find that much of the work is already done. One more website that may be of interest for you is http://www.wkfinetools.com/index.asp. There is a great deal of information to be found on that website.

Doc


----------



## Deycart (Mar 21, 2012)

I think you are confused. I am not talking about what size and how much it weights and stuff like that. I am talking ACTUAL performance using laboratory tools to measure the result. I am talking about measuring the hardness of the blade and its density. Examining the resulting chips and the wood for roughness using a surface roughness gauge. And other factors that should be examined.


----------



## shampeon (Jun 3, 2012)

How do you intend to establish a base-line for all these planes so you can have any meaningful result? Comparing a brand new Lie-Nelson jack plane with an untuned, unsharpened flea market Stanley or Sargent plane hardly seems fair. If you intend to tune them, to what extent?


----------



## Deycart (Mar 21, 2012)

Well it depends on the final scope of my project. I think at first I will limit the study to brand new planes. If I have time and the money I would expand the scope to include used planes. If i do that I would have to establish a restore process and make sure all planes are "tuned" to the same standard. I do not intend to "tune" any of the new planes other than hone the blade.


----------



## Deycart (Mar 21, 2012)

The whole point of this project is to figure out who makes the best tool and who makes great tools for the every day woodworker. I want to put to rest the question of who makes the best and to see if it is really worth 300 bucks for just one tool or if the 60$ special will work just as well.

shampeon- If I did to any tuning I would follow the Rob Cosman - The Great Hand Plane Revival dvd that I have to make a comparison.


----------



## shampeon (Jun 3, 2012)

I think the issue you'll find with comparing only new planes is that it ignores a significant option in used, vintage planes. It's pretty clear that a new Stanley or Anant plane won't be anywhere near the level of a Lie-Nelson or Veritas plane out of the box. But that's a false market, since practically nobody is considering only new planes. It's typically a choice between relatively inexpensive vintage used planes (that probably need some tuning) and new premium-priced brands (that require very little work).


----------



## Deycart (Mar 21, 2012)

I totally agree, but I am only one man. With a full time job. I really don't want to do more than around 10 different planes. I think we can all agree that I can safely ignore the "bottom of the barrel" planes. The Footprint, ShopFox, Groz, Buck Brothers and the no name.

The problem with doing used planes is there is such a HUGE variety. Where should I draw the line?


----------



## shampeon (Jun 3, 2012)

Vintage, tuned Stanley Bailey, Stanley Bedrock, and Record jack planes would be pretty representative of the used market, I would think. You should probably add Wood River on the new plane list, as they're sold in Woodcraft stores nationwide and occupy the mid-priced tier of the market, below LN and Veritas but above the cheap ones you mentioned.

It's an interesting experiment, for sure.


----------



## Deycart (Mar 21, 2012)

I would really like to add veritas to the line up but they do not have an offering that is in that size range. And before you ask, Yes I am stuck on the #5 size. It's the most ubiquitous size and that makes finding them easy and cheap. Also the longer bed would give an indication on how accurate the machining is at least for the new planes.


----------



## nwbusa (Feb 21, 2012)

The Veritas Low Angle Jack and/or the #5-1/4W aren't close enough for your purposes? Just curious.


----------



## Deycart (Mar 21, 2012)

I thought about it and I think I could let the 5 1/4 pass but not the LA it is a bevel up plane and uses a different geometry. It an apples and oranges thing.

I was also thinking about the different types of frog geometry like the Sargent Shaw patent plane, auto set, and the Union X planes. Am I missing any?

The Stanley types were far and varied in quality. What types should I consider. I would not try any under a type 4 because they are way more collectible than the other types.


----------



## tirebob (Aug 2, 2010)

There are far too many sizes, styles, etc of planes to make a test that states one brand is better than another or premium is not worth the money etc.

If you are only testing one size you cannot in all fairness make any kind of statement to any genuine degree about those things. You can compare only one size plane to another plane that size only in the small scope of real world testing you will use. You are not able to try every type of wood, every persons hand size and preference to feel, every persons sharpening style, every tools blade metal types, etc, etc, etc…

I am not saying you can't say in your world you are not able make your own individual assessments, but to say, as you said, that you "want to put to rest the question of who makes the best and to see if it is really worth 300 bucks for just one tool or if the 60$ special will work just as well" and tell everyone that your results prove this is really unfair to the makers of great tools that you are not testing, but instead judging their entire line based on you small micro section of test parameters and results…


----------



## Moai (Feb 9, 2009)

There are two kind of woodworkers: the first one is the one that works for money, and money is all for him; The second one is the one that work out of passion and a deep love for the trade.

I can say the same about tool manufacturers. It's possible to count with the fingers of my hands those manufacturers that make tools out of that passion and love for the woodworking world.

Now, Just think about those "two" woodworkers buying tools. The first one, doesn't even care about them. The second one, probably is going to get either old good tools (bedrock 605, bailey #05, Miller Falls, Record 05, Ulmia, ECE, Primus, Two Cherries, Skilstuna) or a new good tool that would last for years to come (Lie Nielsen, Veritas, Hock )


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Deycart,
I would think that you could focus on testing the metallurgy of old plane irons, and then use that to compare with known metallurgy studies of the modern plane irons such as A1, O1, O2, PM-V11™, etc., and how each were/are tempered.

I, for one, would find such a study to be quite informative, especially with all the noise about using "original" vs "new" irons in classic hand planes.


----------



## OggieOglethorpe (Aug 15, 2012)

Are you going to keep traditional usage in mind?

A #5 is a jack plane, normally designed for faster hogging and prepping a surface for smoothing or jointing. For the jobs a #5 was traditionally designed to do, it usually takes a wider mouth opening, different breaker setting, etc…

For example, like many users, I typically use my jack to create some flats for badly bowed rough stock before machine jointing a face or edge, or mounting the board to a planer sled. The typical non-machine user would use the jack to quickly remove wood before moving to a smooth plane, or to straighten a sawn edge before jointing.

Measuring things like the thinnest shaving possible, or sole flatness is better left to other sizes of planes.


----------



## Deycart (Mar 21, 2012)

HorizontalMike- How would you like me to test the metallurgy of the metal? The only thing I could think to do would be to test the hardness, and look at the blade under a microscope during sharpening. Record how long it takes to put micro bevels on, measure the flatness of the blade and to see what the blade looks like after numerous passes through a dense difficult wood.

CessnaPilotBarry- While I agree with what you say, I already stated my reasons for using this size, I would not test them in the normal way a jack is used. That would be pointless almost any sharp jack can hog wood off with ease. Three are many people who do use a jack to smooth. One interesting test could be to see how well a jack is used for "shooting" wood. I could not measure the thickness of the shaving because it generally leaves dust or really small shavings , but I could photograph the wood and take surface texture measurements of the wood.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Deycart: "...How would you like me to test the metallurgy of the metal? The only thing I could think to do would be to test the hardness, and look at the blade under a microscope during sharpening. ..."

Hardness testing would be a good start. I do not know what your personal qualifications are, what access you have to professionals in the field, nor how much you are willing/able to spend conducting the "research project" you desire to do.

A small pen type hardness tester would be a good place to start. I found this online and at less than $800 sounds reasonable. FWIW, I spent multiples of that out of pocket doing my dissertation research, so I am not trying to be flippant here. I truly do not know your desires/capacity in conducting your research project.

Other options would be to contact the major manufacturers of plane irons and see what they could/would offer in the way of assistance. You never know, being able to directly compare older plane irons with "new" replacements may be just what they need…

*OR*, they may have already done this type of study in order to help/assist them in designing better irons themselves. You might be surprised what you might find out.


----------



## Deycart (Mar 21, 2012)

I do not think that type of tester would be appropriate. I was looking more at this type http://www.grizzly.com/products/Hardness-Tester/G9645 of tester. Its really simple to operate. You pick the right tip, put your metal in crank it to 150K and read the hardness of the scale. I think this type of hardness tester would take more of the human factor out. Other than that I could do the old grinder test to see the sparks and video tape them to make a comparison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_testing

As far as my qualifications. I am currently in the navy and my rate is AT. That means I am an electronics tech, But I work in the QA department now. So I have to be familiar with all types of test equipment to make sure they are using them correctly. That does not imply I could use the equipment to its utmost ability out of the box, but I am no stranger to reading up on how to do things the right way. If you know any thing about the aviation side of maintenance in the navy you know how ridiculous that can get.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Great! Now you just need to line up a ready source of irons from the different ages of Stanley, Sargent, Miller Falls, Auburn, etc. I am sure that some of these companies probably got their irons from the same source, but that might take some digging also.

FWIW, I was an EM below decks back in the early '70s and had some, but very little exposure to the ET side (I was on an oiler). The closest I got to naval aviation was moving ordinance under decks for UNREP to the carriers.


----------



## Deycart (Mar 21, 2012)

While analyzing the blades is defiantly going to the part of the research project. It is just one component. I already have quite a number of "antique" planes of all manufacture. I would probably only need to buy a few more to really get a decent representation of irons.

I till think that other aspects of the plane should be looked at also and compared to the other makes. What parts of the normal bench plane are the most important when making a fine shaving?


----------



## AKSteve (Feb 4, 2012)

http://www.handplane.com/Planemaker-Gallery/index.php

good site


----------



## Deycart (Mar 21, 2012)

After looking around the net and doing some research, I think I have found the perfect way to see exactly how flat a plane really is. Some people like to do simple scratch test. Draw some lines on the plane with a marker and rub it over some sandpaper on a truly flat surface. I don't like this method for new planes because it ruins the nice finish the manufacture put on it.

Some people will use the same surface and a feeler gauge. They use two methods. Poking the sides with the gauge to see if it slips under and the other is placing the plane on the gauge and pulling it out. This would be fine for most purposes, but it will not reveal any hollow under the plane or tell you what the area around the mouth looks like.

The third method is using Prussian Blue rubbed on the the reference surface and rubbing the plane on it and looking at what area of the bottom of the plane covered with the dye. I believe this is the best method for seeing "flatness" of the planes sole. And it has the added benefit of being photogenic.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*Just brain-storming…*
Who says you have to use "sandpaper" to check flatness? You could use the dye and use plain old contractors paper (you know the stuff, just like a paper grocery sack). Much less abrasive and matches the dye and is eco-friendly.

QUESTIONs:

What is the purpose of checking the flatness of a 100-year old plane with or versus the flatness of a "new" plane? Definitely apples to oranges comparison.


How do we know that the 100-year old plane was NOT flat when it began its life?


Why would you NOT flatten a "new" plane? After all these are all "user tuning" steps.


----------



## Deycart (Mar 21, 2012)

Well of course I would not bother to do the flat test on the old planes. That would be pointless. The reason to do it on the new planes is to compare how well they come from the factory. To see which plane preforms the best out of the box. Then tune them like any plane and test them again. I think many people would be interested in seeing which manufacture produces a well finished plane. If you have to do the same amount of work to tune up a shinny new plane as you do an old one and it produces the same quality of surface, why pay more. Of course you would pay more to have a plane that looked good and didn't need to be de-rusted and all.

This is all about performance vs. cost of the plane including man hours to get it do preform. And ultimately determining the limit of the tuning. You can only tune a plane so much. At some point some other aspects of the plane make a difference. Things like blade thickness, metallurgy, and other things.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Well, I understand THAT. I spent quite bit of time getting my Stanley shoulder/rabbet plane to perform. Enough that I would have saved much time if I had just forked over a few $$$ more for a Veritas.


----------



## shampeon (Jun 3, 2012)

It's not clear that a dead-flat sole will necessarily lead to better plane performance. "Flat enough" actually probably works just as well as "machined within 0.0001".

The critical factors for me are:

blade sharpness
lateral adjustment of the blade
chipbreaker contact
throat size, adjusted for the cut

That's assuming that the rest of the plane is in an acceptable state.


----------



## mvflaim (Dec 8, 2009)

Some of the best planes are old wooden ones. Their thick blades make them superior over metal ones.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

You mean like this? This thing cuts fantastically, but at 22" I rarely need it.


----------



## 12strings (Nov 15, 2011)

You may be interested in an article Christ Schwartz did a few years ago in PW comparing lots of super-high-end ($1,000-6,000) smoothing planes…His end result was that they were definetly made extremely well, and worked extremely well when honed…however after all the pricey ones he grabbed an old Krenov-style wooden plane…sharpened up the blade, and got just as good results…if the blade is sharp, and set to the right depth, and the sole is flat, the wood doesn't know the difference.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

@12strings,
As a matter of fact, I actually had to flatten my 150yr old Auburn because it had developed a twist. It had me sweating bullets as I jointed 1/64" at a time on my 8" Grizzly. The thing to be careful here is to NOT open up the mouth too much, in the process of flattening. I got luck and managed to get all 22" flattened, and if you look closely at the mouth, the motorized jointer actually did not have to take any off at that point (darker wood not jointed). The mouth remains at 0.1835", or just less than 3/16" wide (to the blade edge)

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE


----------



## Sylvain (Jul 23, 2011)

There are flaws that don't prevent the plane to be usable but that will make it a frustrating experience :

http://literaryworkshop.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/what-makes-a-good-hand-plane-two-smoothers-go-head-to-head/

Paul Sellers, if I understood correctly, finds thick hard irons unnecessary. They need more time to sharpen and to touch up. See his various blog entries:
e.g.
http://paulsellers.com/2012/09/buying-good-tools-cheap-smoothing-planes/


----------



## Deycart (Mar 21, 2012)

My study would include details like the first link, but it would go beyond that. Specifically looking at the irons and the surface left behind among other details. I agree when you say a thick iron is harder to sharpen. But there is a point where the blade becomes to thin to leave a smooth finish. I really don't know what the cut off is. But you can minimize your sharpening time with any blade by using micro bevels. You should read the book The Complete Guide To Sharpening by Leonard Lee. It really opened my eyes about particular types of grit and types of angles.


----------

