Thread: Tuning a new plane - buyer beware

Just a bit more than Plain bad luck?

My Gordon Jack plane is just the ducks guts for $142.

Agree, when you see the cost of new Stanley planes compared with the HNT beauties theres just no comparison.

Clinton, don't worry about naming new stanley, theys crap and theys happy with their market position.

I used my HNT Gordon Trying plane earlier today for a job- wasn't sure how much work it was going to be using it rather than my 'normal' solution (aka something powered).

2 passes. Holy ****.

That was pretty much straight out of the box too (with a little final polish of the blade)

Flatness around the mouth is the most important part: it's there that keeps the shaving pressed flat while the blade cuts, preventing tearout.

240 grit sounds way to fine for rapid stock removal. I'd have started at about 90, or looked into carborundum powder and plate glass. Once the sole is flat, go to finer grades to get a nice finish.

I don't think wax will do anything for you.

Wanna buy a second-hand Stanley#4? Bought new about 6 years ago, and never been used.

Even the Muji's are 1000% better than the new Stanleys.

Hi Clinton,

Depressions behind the mouth as you describe will not affect performance one wit, so I would suggest you can rest your arms!

As zenwood mentioned, if you find yourself in this position again, I would also recommend starting out at a lower grit and going up once even scratches appear.

Making sure the frog beds well is as important as the sole, so you are doing right there. I feel your pain. Saying been there done that doesn't really help much, but I suspect many of us have.

Good luck on finishing up. It should work far better than the manufacturer planned on when you are done. Small consolation, but there it is.

Mike

Hey Clinton, your odyssey with the wet and dry sounds like something I went through when I started collecting planes. Luckily my planes were nowhere near as bad as I bought old Stanleys not new ones. Nevertheless as you say there is no comparison with a LV plane or a HNT Gordon or even a Muji.

Maybe what we need to do is write up a little article on the pitfalls of starting with handtools and especially planes as a lot of us have made similar mistakes and it may prevent a few newbies going down THAT track.

Nevertheless although the process may have been painful, I am sure you learnt a lot about planes on the way.

If I would start over it would be tempting to just buy the LV and avoid the hassles but I don't think I would have learnt much about planes that way. And its that experience that helps you in your day to day woodworking.

regards

Marios

Zenwood, I'll send a postal order tomorrow.


I wasn't too sure of what grit to start at, so figured 240 wouldn't do too much harm.

Yep someone guessed the name right. (maybe )

I'd like to grab Zenwoods No. 4 and try to fit grub screws to hold the blade position. Maybe play with fitting a better blade, frog, cap iron. I know its making a whole new tool, but I have a bee in my bonnet over this issue i.e. me wasting $ due to a misconception about the quality the name stands/stood for. Damned if I can't at least make the beggars work up to my expectation (which isn't high)

My intent behind this post was to try to point out the pitfalls to the buyer looking to get into woodworking. I posted info/questions on this board a few months ago, and have since seen many new threads on "what plane should I buy". An abridged or collection of threads that bleat and praise would be good for the "newbie".
Actually I bought the brand name due to past experience - however as we all seem to agree the standards have changed.

Yes, I have learnt a lot, but I would have rather learnt through someone's elses waste of cash as its $129+ that I'll get no real use from. :mad: and $129+ wasted hurts this lad. Think of the Blackwood I coulda bought. Funnily enough I don't think that anyone goes and returns the new planes to the manufacturer, as I was informed of the "return rates" being low, and the general effectiveness of the tool. Complete "Balderdash" in my opinion.

I was trying to be "smart" by not naming names, and didn't come across too clear. As Benny points out many of the manufacturers produce reliably top range tools, i.e. Lee Valley, Lie Nielson, HNT, Clifton..... and so on.

Thanks for the advice on the depression/scratches, wax, frog bedding, correct grit to start with (there may not be an next time though) and so on.

Would it be worth it to keep adding my experiences to this thread? I'm thinking a step by step guide to an idiot trying to tune a plane - detailing costs and time as a major point.
As stated, it might help a new person avoid the traps and pitfalls. Or at least to go in with eyes wide open and knowing what to expect as well as the "real cost".

Again,
Thanks

P.S. I'll PM you Zenwood

You're not alone Clint. I was aware of the general crappiness of modern, reasonably priced, planes and when I started building up a workshop I bought very old planes off EBay, average cost $20 plus freight, I now have 4, soon to be five #'s 3, 4, 5, 6 and block. After a bit of cleaning, sharpening and minor trueing they're all fine except.......

Unfortunately in a rash moment (against The Wisdom of the Forum)I bought an Indian (sub continent, not Red) plane. What a dog. Spent hours trying to tune it, an area in which I am particularly unskilled. Have now got some expert help, but still faced with trueing the sole, like you. Hours of rubbing ahead, tho I'm tempted to stick it on the linisher belt.

I guess we learn by mistakes, if it doesn't kill you it makes you stronger. Yeah!

Good luck

My first plane was/is a stanley 12-204. It took 8 hours on 60 grit to remove enough material to bring the mouth into contact with the paper. It was 1mm clear of the glass I used as a flat surfacce when I started. It's nice now. But what an ordeal. If I had my time over I'd use a belt sander on it. Couldn't take it back as it was a gift. My mujis on the other hand take shavings you can read through straight from the box.

It's funny, I bought an 'economy' Record, and it didn't really need much fettling. A little sole attention, the frog 'lands' and a bit of spit and polish and it was done.

Glad I didn't shell out the extra bucks for a Stanley.

If you need to take large amounts of cast iron off, it might pay to learn about hand scraping.

Oh well, lesson learnt - buy quality or be prepared to waste $.

I think your right. A good general rule. I don't think that should be confused with buying an old Stanley and doing it up. Cause then the opposite is true IMO.

Lapping old cast is not frustrating at all. The hard crap they put in new planes is the culprit. And an old stanley or the like would have been cheaper from the outset. So, the mistake made, was buying a cheap new one. Not, doing up a plane.

Anyway, alls not lost, right ? .....With all that lapping, you must have built up those muscles of yours a bit, eh. And the girls like that, eh, mmmmm

Sounds like a real bummer Clinton. Having grown up with the reputation of Stanley and Bailey, the old English brands, one sort of expects some quality control. I bought a couple of new #3's through work, and they are just horrid to use, a real disappointment. The general finish, the plastic totes, the pressed metal lateral adjust lever, they are woeful. And reading your post, I don't think I want to pursue tuning them!
Something to avoid when lapping the sole though is to make sure the mouth doesn't get enlarged, as they are already gaping! More than shavings would be allowed through...

Cheers,

Maybe this is done to death but 6 inch wide, thin weight, cloth back belting paper is a much better option than W&D at least if you don't choose to go finer than #600. W&D sucks onto the plane base and breaks up too fast. At our plane fettling courses we use a 600mm long sheet of 10mm plate glass and belting paper stretched over and retained each end. We lap with water because we use the same lapping plates to flatten Japabnese stones, just be sure to remove all traces of water at the end of the process. This way you can start as coarse as you wish - we start at #80 - and work through to about #320.

Current model Stanleys are probably a tad worse than Record IMO but Record have been bought & sold so many times in the recent past (and we now hear they might be moving their whole operation to China) they may well go the same way. Stanley soles are linished rather than milled hence the lack of flatness. If you can find a highly skilled machinist you can get the sole milled but it's fraught with problems. The guys who have this skill and knowledge cut their teeth on engine block and head milling. The worry is that the holding vice in the milling process compresses the plane body - cast iron will flex a tiny bit - and when it's removed it springs back and you're no better off.

When you add the cost of fitting a decent blade and, if you can find them. wooden handle & knob getting a current issue of these planes up to speed is a labour of love. Finally it is probably doable in the great majority of cases - you'll be pleasantly surprised if you stick at it.
Mike Jefferys
http://www.thewoodworks.com.au/detai...qskudata=N0500

From Andy -

Sounds like a real bummer Clinton. Having grown up with the reputation of Stanley and Bailey, the old English brands, one sort of expects some quality control.

Exactly how I was "caught out"

Mike - Great points, the lapping using the belt sounds sensible. I was using a strip of Wet and Dry on a 600 x 400 mm piece of polished granite, the ends of the Wet and Dry folded under the stone. It was hard to get the paper "tight" and not bulging. I was thinking that if I did this again, or go finer, that I would use a strip of timber at right angles to the paper at each end of the stone block (now using your idea of belt) that clamped down via two bolts at each end to the bench. This would keep the tension on the belt/paper.
In regards to having the factory moved to China, IMO this would improve the quality, if the owner company did a Build, Own, Operate project rather than sub-contract. The factory would be new, thus the machines used would have tighter tolerances over the old "antique" factory in the First World country.

Schtoo - How did you do the frog lands? I'm thinking of using the neighbours dial indicator gauge to measure the height differences, then use a piece of wet and dry glued to a piece of steel dowel/rod to grind down. A dremel would go better, but I want to do it by hand (read - cheap).
Yes, I am a little in awe of the surface of hand scraped "true surfaces", however I haven't given it a go yet.

Caliban's issue of the mouth being 1 mm high sounds familiar. I found that the grind for the sole was just a series of deep gouges. I wondered if they used the front footpath as a grinding stone for a while.

Apricotripper and Bodgy both brought up the subject of old Stanleys being great quality - I agree. However I paid for a tool that I wanted to get in and use, not spend time, $ and effort getting it up to speed. A subtle difference and one that I hope doesn't bite others as well.
If you guys have done this, would it be worth posting a brief on the $ outlay and time, effort and what you think about the worth versus buying a new plane of the same quality?
Then we could have this info to add to the thought process - would it be of particular worth if trying to get a low angle Trying/Fore/Jointer plane, especially considering the as new price. I imagine for some items it would be a really good option, and not for the smoothers?

Finally I don't want to do this when/if it has been done to death, however routermaniac's idea of a collection of posts or a brief "tips to young players" would be great, as the other threads were very subjective, and perhaps if a cost vs. worth approach could be taken if would be of great value.

Thoughts anyone?