Thread: Making do with old tools?

Sometimes we do make-do with old tools, it depends what we are doing with them and what our skill levels are. If the objective is to renovate some tool then it is a new tool that we might be making-do with and something ancient and eccentric is a perfect fit for the purpose. If the objective is woodwork and we have a low skill level then new and shiny tools can be objectively better than the old kind in the sense of being more ready to use, and possibly, even likely, better in the senses of being easier to adjust and easier to use. I have some old planes: a 6, a 4, a 4 1/2, that I inherited from various people and while its interesting to wonder how a 1930 number 6 comes to have a 1918 blade in it, it takes work to get the blades sharpened, the bases flattened and the plane adjusted nicely. The effort and skill needed to set the old tools up properly and use them is not negligible. Not everyone has both that level of skill and the time to spend on fettling.

Originally Posted by goodvibes

We could perhaps cheekily replace the Fiesta BMW illustration with a question. Are the current crop of high end woodwork tools a male equivalent of Manolo Blahnik shoes?

agree a very cheeky comparison

but perhaps the wrong brand?
I asked SWMBO who replied "who is Manolo Blahnik?"
so we Googled ... $400 to $1900 USD in Saks on Fifth Avenue
"Oh, they're cheap" says she "much less than Jimmy Choo, and they sell them in Myers"
which would place the comparison well below the level of Bridge City

but towards the bottom ...
I don't think you'll find too many Clark sandals second hand, but a new pair will work right out of the box -- which would equate to Wood River planes


but back on topic
Sharpening a WW tool is an essential skill, but maybe less so when it comes to flattening the back of a chisel or plane iron.

If after say 10 minutes max sharpening, a tool works straight out of the box or off the table at the markets, both are equally functional, after that the comparison fails. Many enjoy rehabbing old tools to better than new performance, and as many enjoy using tools for their primary function which is to make stuff.

Me? I want to make stuff, so I'm prepared to pay someone else to get a tool to workable condition
so cost wise, I'm paying roughly the same for a rehabbed old Stanley as I would for a new Veritas or Wood River.

Ian, my wife says Manola Blahnik is available at David Jones, not Myers. Apparently, they are recognisable by their red soles. Thank God that she was satisfied at just window shopping for Jimmy Choo shoes in New York.

I guess that they are the Karl Holtey of the shoe world ...

Regards from a wet Cornwall

Derek

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Apparently, they are recognisable by their red soles.

I like that.
Less fun spending enthusiastically if you can't also casually demonstrate that you've done so.
(Although maybe in NY it also says please mug me )

I very much like the point about our personal connections to the "tool environment" as a whole ... hunting, understanding/learning, trying, achieving, appreciating ... drinking ...

Whether it is hunting for a vintage bargain, hunting for a rare item, hunting through (new) catalogues and reviews, lying in wait to pounce on an annual sale ... it is all rewarding

Back closer to the original point, I am wondering what items have been made in the past that are *not* possible to buy at the same quality now.

I'd put forward handsaws. Backsaws are a small but lively niche nowadays ... but handsaws are rather different I think. I know that Pax/Thomas Flinn are making "real" saws, and others have made some, but I don't know that I will ever see a 'new' saw (say counting from WW2 onwards) that will match the best examples from the past (which were not "rare" in absolute terms)

(Highly naive question: Do we see musical instruments (like eg violins) that are made as well or better today than those of the classical past?)
(yes, I know "better" is a word straight from hell)

Cheers,
Paul

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Ian, my wife says Manola Blahnik is available at David Jones, not Myers.

I think my wife's intent was to draw a connection between David Jones / Myers (for Jimmy Choo) and Carbatec .
You go to all three retailers to get stuff you need, some of which is sort of "special" but none of them sell anything "really special", for that you need to go to a specialist supplier.

So to continue the comparison
if it's stocked by Carbatech or Henry Eckert or Tools for Working Wood it's an average to good tool.

but for really "good" tools -- while we're talking women's fashion accessories, say a tool equivalent to an upper end Prada or Longchamp handbag -- you'll be dealing directly with a custom maker like Konrad Saurer or Karl Holtey -- and I'm sure I should have included others -- with Bridge City Tool Works sitting somewhere above Veritas (Lee Valley) / Lie Nielsen / Blue Spruce / [our] Ian W and below Konrad and Karl


But back to the original thought ...

I don't think there's any difference between using new tools and old tools -- but there is big difference between using a working old tool and what passes for a new hand plane in your local big box hardware (what Chris Schwarz calls "tool like objects")


The old adage "a poor workman always blames the tool" is really a reference to the "poor workman's" inability -- through lack of knowledge and/or experience -- to tune the tool to perform the required task.

Originally Posted by pmcgee

Back closer to the original point, I am wondering what items have been made in the past that are *not* possible to buy at the same quality now.

I'd put forward handsaws. Backsaws are a small but lively niche nowadays ... but handsaws are rather different I think. I know that Pax/Thomas Flinn are making "real" saws, and others have made some, but I don't know that I will ever see a 'new' saw (say counting from WW2 onwards) that will match the best examples from the past (which were not "rare" in absolute terms)

I think you would if you had access to a panel saw made by Mike Wenzloff or Lie Nielsen.
During the week I was in Lee Valley and got to play with their 16" molded back rip saws Veritas® Rip & Crosscut Tenon Saws - Lee Valley Tools it's a very nice saw, which I used to cut a "tenon cheek" about 1 inch long and 1mm wide across the width of 6 x 1 board.

(yes, I'm pining for my tools to clear customs)

Originally Posted by pmcgee

(Highly naive question: Do we see musical instruments (like eg violins) that are made as well or better today than those of the classical past?)
(yes, I know "better" is a word straight from hell)

I believe that you see instruments that are as good as those made in the past -- about 20 years ago the ABC did a profile on a Sydney Lutherier with that reputation -- BUT those few musicians with the necessary playing skill to make the best of the instruments he was making are so skilled that they get offered a Stradivarius to play.
Sort of the reverse of woodworking

Originally Posted by ian

agree a very cheeky comparison

.........................

but back on topic
Sharpening a WW tool is an essential skill, but maybe less so when it comes to flattening the back of a chisel or plane iron.

If after say 10 minutes max sharpening, a tool works straight out of the box or off the table at the markets, both are equally functional, after that the comparison fails. Many enjoy rehabbing old tools to better than new performance, and as many enjoy using tools for their primary function which is to make stuff.

Me? I want to make stuff, so I'm prepared to pay someone else to get a tool to workable condition
so cost wise, I'm paying roughly the same for a rehabbed old Stanley as I would for a new Veritas or Wood River.

Perhaps too cheeky.

I'm trying to tease out the assumption of fact by some well credentialed people here that the top end tools of today are clearly "better" than the old. As in more functional, without doubt.

I try to reconcile this with what I have heard from other well credentialed people that. for example, there has not been ANY improvement in the design of wood planes for 100 years. So were our forefathers just sloppy manufacturers? Or are we being seduced by funky, fashionable cosmetics?

Is the heavier and thicker modern after market cutter, which most agree makes any plane work better than a thinner mass market item really a superior thing than an 1890 Ward tapered cutter with a similarly thick business end?

Or that as far as I know nobody today hand tensions and tapers saw plates. Was that a labor intensive waste of time, or have newer techniques surpassed?

Not being argumentative by the way. I'm questioning - which is the road to learning.

There's the before and after WWII issue as well.

What I found about 15 or so years ago is that a new Aus made Stanley hand plane (and at the time I had 2 of them) just wouldn't work until I had invested around 4-5 hours "tuning" into each one -- tuning consisted of flattening the sole and adjusting the chip breaker.
For comparison, I had a new LN which just worked "out of the box" -- after the blade was sharpened
It's very perplexing when you have two apparently similar planes, both of which have been sharpened on the same stones using with the same honing guide and one will take a shaving and the other only raises dust

For some time after that experience I would suggest that people buy one LN plane so that they knew what a plane should be capable of and hence have a bench mark to aim for when rehabbing a market find.


It's a bit hard to draw comparisons, but ...
the new LN / Woodriver planes are based on the Stanley bedrock series and are heavier than the typical Stanley with the same number. More mass has certain advantages
new Veritas / LN / Woodriver planes are "tuned" at the factory so they work out of the box.
a good old plane (say pre WWI) was probably bought by someone who knew what they were doing, and who tuned it to be as good as it could be. When you or I acquire such a plane we are getting a tool already setup, but we have no knowledge of what it was like as it left the production line.

I think there is general consensus that a heavier after market blade also has some advantages and direct comparison with original blades is often difficult as many of the early blades are all used up.

I don't think your comparison to a Ward blade is valid as the tapered Ward is designed for use in a Wooden bodied plane, or an infill which introduces a whole raft of other factors into the comparison.


But I have some of my father's Berg chisels.
I would rate some of them as good or better than the equivalent sized A2 steel LN.
But this is not strictly fair as the chisels have different profiles which influences how they are used and what task they are best at.
One day I hope to find a catalog listing all the original chisel profiles -- I believe there was at least 8 -- of which only 2 or 3 remain readily available.

1947 Apprentice

I am not a tool collector, but I do love vintage woodworking hand tools. For me there is a lot of satisfaction in owning and using tools that still function well after the passage of many years. My old tools also evoke pleasurable memories for me - happy times and good friends from the past.

I apprenticed as a truck (lorry: Brit) cab and body builder at the firm of Oswald Tillotson, Burnley, Lancashire, England from 1947 to 1950. Cabs and flat bed bodies were hand built of wood at that time, the cabs being finished with sheet metal - van and panel truck bodies were just starting to be built using extruded aluminum sections and sheeting. I worked mostly in the cab shop doing framework joining and door making/installing, although I occasionally built flat bed truck bodies - as did all apprentices from time to time.

James

Hi GV

Ian makes some good and interesting points. The Canadian air must have cleared his head (I'm teasing, of course).

When it comes to handtools, it is relevant to recall that this is a niche area today. The percentage of woodworkers who use handtools rather than machinery is probably very small. Those who have responded to the niche market do so from a different position than the mass producers of yesterday, such as Stanley and Disston, to name just two familiar names. By-and-large, the niche market are amateur woodworkers in the main. It is not simply that they expect better looking tools (with more pizzaz), but tools that will work immediately, that is, out-of-the-box. I suspect that the woodworker of yesterday accepted the need to tune and dial in their new tool. Perhaps this was due to it being part of instruction, and partly the social zeitgeist, which was far less impulse-orientated than today. Just surmising.

It is evident that a LN or a LV is just in another class in terms of fit and finish compared to the older tools. I do have Stanley planes and chisels that can stand up to their current cousins, but i put LOT of work into them.

It is not just the tuning one pays for today, but also the materials. There is a big difference between planes made from grey cast iron (old) and ductile iron (new), with the latter unbreakable and the former very fragile. There is also a large difference in details that contribute to adjustment, both of parts and blade. We expect the new generation to be precise; we accept that the older planes will be not.

The blade steel is a similar story. I suspect that this is going to be more evident to those that work demanding woods, woods with more figure/interlocked grain or abrasive timbers, such as many we have in Australia (such as Jarrah). Simple woods, such as clear softwoods, place few demands on edge holding and blade stability. A medium-tuned Stanley with pulled back chipbreaker will work as well as the best Holtey or LN money can buy or experience can set up. (Once again we touch on the importance of a plane that works out of the box - it is worth its weight in gold, and a reason why the new generation of niche planes cost as they do). There is no doubt in my mind that the steels available today far outperform those of yesterday, not just in holding an edge but in obtaining an edge out of the box. Vintage laminated blades (for both woodies, infills, and Stanley) are fantastic blades. I use them. They take a superb edge. But they do not hold it long in the woods I work. The new breed of A2 and, especially, HSS andd PM-V11 steels, are capable of excellent edges, which they will hold for a significantly longer time. This is important as a dull blade has poor performance, and sharpening after a few strokes is frustrating. In my experience, PM steel takes an edge as good as vintage steel, while A2 does not. A2 is your compromise steel, but PM is the best of all worlds for handplanes.

The question is whether the new generation of planes are better performers than the planes of yesterday. The answer is not simply a yes or no. That is simplistic. For someone who has the understanding and takes the time to set up an old plane, metal or wood, it does not matter much which age group they choose. There are still issues with blade steel, but this may be more or less an issue, depending on the wood one works ( and ones tolerance for frequency of sharpening). To a large extent I believe that this explains why woodworkers of olde managed to work complex timbers, and why many today struggle - it comes down to knowing your tools, as much as reading the woodgrain.

Regards from Cornwall

Derek

Thanks Derek and Ian. It had filtered through my brain overnight that we were comparing a mass market product with a top end product - important even taking into account that there was a time where mass market was pretty damn good by today's standard.

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Hi GV


It is not just the tuning one pays for today, but also the materials. There is a big difference between planes made from grey cast iron (old) and ductile iron (new), with the latter unbreakable and the former very fragile. There is also a large difference in details that contribute to adjustment, both of parts and blade. We expect the new generation to be precise; we accept that the older planes will be not.

This part I've wondered about from time to time. Ductile iron is hardly a new material.

Anyone who's dropped an old plane a time or two has learned that the brittleness of common cast iron can be a sad thing. But it comes with the silver lining of high - almost absolute - rigidity and resistance to deformation. Until it snaps. I assume that this is the very reason that plane bodies have for so long been made for so long from cast iron. Rigidity and straightness/flatness are bosom buddies.

Is a bent, or worse, twisted plane any more desirable than a broken one? Does the use of "ductile iron" which shares much of the workability and malleabilty of steel introduce a whole other issue? Is it the case that a mishap which would snap a grey cast iron plane might introduce even a minor bend with in a ductile iron tool which is just as fatal in it's own way?

Cheers

Originally Posted by goodvibes

Ductile iron is hardly a new material.

Anyone who's dropped an old plane a time or two has learned that the brittleness of common cast iron can be a sad thing. But it comes with the silver lining of high - almost absolute - rigidity and resistance to deformation. Until it snaps. I assume that this is the very reason that plane bodies have for so long been made for so long from cast iron. Rigidity and straightness/flatness are bosom buddies.

where is "Eddie the Eagle" when you need him ...

drawing on my very limited knowledge of metallurgy and Google ...
to parahprase this reference Difference of gray cast iron and ductile cast iron
cast iron and ductile iron are very similar in chemical properties
Ductile iron is about 3x as strong as cast iron and has a yield strength (upper end of it's elastic range) about 2/3 rds of it's tensile strength. Cast iron essentially has no yiled strength -- i.e. it's not elastic
Ductile iron has about 3.5 x the impact strength of cast iron
Ductile iron underwent around 10 years of considerable development starting in the early 1950s -- before then it was little understood as a material
Ductile iron is more complex to produce compared to cast iron and consequently has a much higher cost -- which suggests that cast iron would be favoured by manufacturers.

Originally Posted by goodvibes

Is a bent, or worse, twisted plane any more desirable than a broken one? Does the use of "ductile iron" which shares much of the workability and malleabilty of steel introduce a whole other issue? Is it the case that a mishap which would snap a grey cast iron plane might introduce even a minor bend with in a ductile iron tool which is just as fatal in it's own way?

given ductile iron's high yield strength, a ductile plane is more likely to bounce than deform

Page de présentation