Thread: So what are people's thoughts on buying a damaged plane?

Originally Posted by ian

if being used as a shooter, I'd rate it as 3x as good
and if we're talking binary, it's 10x as good

Wouldn't that be 11?

Paul

My 1st plane was a new Stanley 4 1/2 (with plastic handles)
I hated it and couldn't get it to work proper and essentially gave up.
20 - 25 years later I fettled it and added a hock blade and it's a nice plane - but to be candid I prefer my dad's old No 4 which I inherited (and he wasn't a woodworker)
I originally bought the 4 1/2 because it seemed a better deal than a No 4...

Originally Posted by pmcgee

Wouldn't that be 11?

Paul

3 = 11
6 = 110

at least that is how I write the two numbers

Here's my experience.
Many years ago I bought a Stanley Bedrock 4.5 with a chunk broken out of one (left) side and used it as a shooting plane. I had heard that Bedrocks were the Cadillacs of hand planes and succumbed to tool desire
It never did work very well even in this role - it appeared to flex too much. Getting it welded up was too expensive and I could never recover the cost if I sold it.
I then decided never to buy a damaged metal plane again, so I sold it cheaply for parts via TradeMe (NZ eBay) and wrote it off as an educational experience.
My conclusion is that buying a damaged plane cause it's cheap is false economy - by the time it's all fixed up, the total in $ and time would have paid for the more expensive undamaged second-hand one with all the bits.