Thread: Somebody hand me a rolled up newspaper...

The old argument about form over function amongst woodies has always made me scratch my head.. I tend to (maybe wrongly) assume that the woodworkers who use hand tools are generally creative types who take pride in their work and enjoy the process of creating beautiful things.. it would seem odd for that not to carry over to their kit.

Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.. but the old "as long as they do the job" tune just seems uncharacteristic.

fwiw it's not the fact that the new Stanleys kinda look LN'ish or Sargenti'sh or Norris'ish.. it's the fact that it looks like a design student has rushed his end of year assignment and whacked a bunch of clip art together with the smudge tool in photoshop.. it's a dogs breakfast! (sorry... imho)

The little block plane (is that a 60 1/2 or 65?) does look better.. that lever cap isn't as out of place sitting down at the low angle.

The shoulder planes will be interesting.. a good servicable shoulder plane at an affordable price over here would be and shoulder planes almost always look cool.. kind of hard to stuff that up.

I think the thing on the OP is the equivalent of a No4

I look at it a different way. I see woodworkers as practical people and the idea of dismissing something based on the way it looks, without even picking it up and using it, is what seems out of place to me.

Perhaps you are right: "the woodworkers who use hand tools" as a descriptor probably doesn't sum me up. I use a hand tool because either a) it's the only thing in my shed that will do the job or b) there is no b. I don't use them for the sake of it. Perhaps that is where the differences lie.

For me the "form versus function" argument lies firmly in the realms of the things we make and is not applicable to the tools we use. I think having a fancy brush that does not make you a better painter is a waste.

Perhaps the argument is not "form over function" but "means versus ends"

Originally Posted by silentC

Perhaps the argument is not "form over function" but "means versus ends"

You're onto something there Silent, see Albert below. In as much as I understand the sentiment of his comment, I think it applies to many in this game...

Cheers
Michael

Very good points Silent.. I guess I should clarify that I'm not a fan of beautiful but useless tools.. but I will favor one of two similar tools simply because it look so much nicer, or cooler, or weirder.. or whatever makes me fancy it.

I recently retired my number 5 for a Sargent Autoset.. works just like the stanley did... awwww but it looks so funky!

the idea of dismissing something based on the way it looks, without even picking it up and using it

To be clear.. I'm not dismissing it.. I just think it's ugly and wanted to hear others opinions.

I'd say we are on two ends of the hand tools spectrum, Certainly I have an unhealthy romanticism about them, for you they do a job.. perhaps if we met half way we'd be where the average member here sits?

Always enjoy your posts Silent.

I just had another look at the block plane. Granted that it's a prototype, but the divot for the thumb is too small and too far back. I still prefer the old elliptical recess which accomodates a couple of fingers on the right side and the thumb pointing forward.

The adjustable toe piece is wrong...it is pretty far back in its travel and the mouth is still too open.

The cap iron does not extend far enough toward the tip of the blade. Where it is now looks like an invitation for chatter.

The illustrations don't show the bed arrangement. I hope they improved on the late model 60 1/2 which had a meager surface to bed the blade.

Where are these things going to be made?

Originally Posted by gregoryq

Where are these things going to be made?

Evidently these planes are already in production.
The bodies are made in Mexico, and the A2 irons are made in the UK - according to posts elsewhere.
We can philosophise ad nauseam until someone actually writes a review and we get to see how good or bad these actually are.
Something to look forward to...
SG

I should clarify that I'm not a fan of beautiful but useless tools

Oh I am. Have a look at some of the stuff Andy Mac and Underfoot have done

I'm not sure what the Sargent cheeks look like, but here's another possible design inspiration.

Originally Posted by switt775

I'm not sure what the Sargent cheeks look like, but here's another possible design inspiration.

They look like these- similar aren't they.
Cheers
SG

Yes, I can see the resemblance. Since Seldon's design is oldest, I guess he gets the nod for innovation, the others were "inspired by him".

A bit sad how few really new design ideas there are.

I reckon we're doing exactly what Stanley (or their advisers) want us to do. We're building up interest and suspense before an actual launch so that we'll be primed to buy one to try it. Only in that way will we see what the fuss was all about. By the time of the launch we'll have become used to how it looks and won't back off screaming.
What we've seen of function so far is a thick shaving probably computer generated.
And I know I'm adding to the hype.
Jim

I've thought this all along and I'm sure they continually Google their products. I'm also sure that's why there have been some notable changes and delays in product launches while they implement the alterations.

To an extent, we're tailoring the new Stanley tools to our specs so that when they're released, we have what we want and have little to complain about.

Originally Posted by Woodwould

I've thought this all along and I'm sure they continually Google their products. I'm also sure that's why there have been some notable changes and delays in product launches while they implement the alterations.

To an extent, we're tailoring the new Stanley tools to our specs so that when they're released, we have what we want and have little to complain about.

It would be nice to think that somewhere there is a research and development workshop with a few craftsmen testing them on the most recalcitrant timbers available. I doubt it though, not when rumour is far more cost effective
cheers,
Jim

I'm sure they do have a R&D department, but it wouldn't be anything like R&D departments of old where the team members had already had a career in woodwork before joining the tool manufacturing company.

Nowadays R&D seems to consist of upwardly mobile university grads who know how to drive a CAD program (but have zero real world experience) and whose boss's grandfather bequeathed him a 1950s plane which he convinced the company directors makes him eminently qualified for the job.