Vintage Stanley Planes: Is older really better?

[@alanhauswirth245]

Suggestion for a follow up video. To go forward into the next generation of planers when Stanley nose dives on quality and showing what to look for so you can AVOID poor quality Stanley.

[@yasinfrei]

I agree with you. I bought a new Stanley when just started this hobby and I had to do adjustments which now Rex's videos confirm. Seeing this video it seem my new plane is like the 1890 type. And throughout the video I'm wondering why Stanley gone back after being on their peak of development.

[@markkernen322]

Hey Rex. I saved a 1931 Stanley Bailey pattern number 4 smoothing plane from the dumpster. It was rusty and I had to use a lot of WD40 to get everything loose so I could get it apart, before ever seeing if anything was salvageable. My first thought was to cannibalize it for parts. But after starting to remove all the rust, I found there was some there there. After a lot of scraping and use of abrasives, and refinishing the tote and knob and sharpening the original iron, |I have a wonderful working smoothing plane with ultra fine shavings and smooth results that I will use every working day. No museum piece for me.Thanks for all the hints.

[@JDeWittDIY]

Agreed. Before you said it, I was thinking "clearly, you buy both!"

[@gatorfan316]

I was as well. LOL

[@dougwilliams8965]

J DeWitt n

[@meboyotube]

As soon as he said $10 I was like "buy both". Then I thought "this is going to be painfull because every time he mentions it I'm going to get stuck on "buy them both damn you". Glad to see he tricked me. :)

[@richardsinger01]

J DeWitt spot on.

[@wingrider1004]

I have rescued over 30 hand planes off of E Bay...I enjoy the restoration process and they all turn out to be really good tools. They are lovely, and echo a craftsman past that is long gone.

[@surfearth1]

You are a great speaker. Your format is well thought out, you can tell you put a lot of time, effort, and thought into your content. This is the best video I’ve seen regarding the anatomy and history of planes on KZbin thus far. Thank you for this video it was very informative and enjoyable to watch.

[@RexKrueger]

I'm so glad you think so! I actually outlined this one in a notebook, which is more planning than I usually do. The outline was like 7 pages long, because there was so much detail to cover.

[@makenchips]

I have to agree with all your points on stanley later models vs earlier models. I'm not a collector but a user. And I really dont car who made it as long it does the job and it does it well! After collecting a few brands in the same no. range they all seem to work equally well. I just picked up a no. 4 craftsman and it's great as my stanley! Good video Rex!

[@j.d.1488]

Rex I see this is 4 years old and this is the best video I have seen for newbies who have caught plane fever. Whether as a new woodworker or someone who likes to restore or just gets excited over shavings. Great video on how to easily chose a good working tool as well.

[@heyyou5189]

I like the old plane just to imagine the great projects and the men before me that used it. When you "own" an antique you are but a temporary steward of that item.

[@petero2693]

Agreed...

[@DT-lg6fd]

Only because that was what was available at the time . Rex is spot on . I have a complete set of first year Type 19’s that were my father’s and all are build better and when dialed in correctly function better then my older Type Stanley’s .

[@shawnholton5182]

Great video! Love how you actually thought about what you were going to say and didn’t jabber on and ‘fix it’ by editing hundreds of jump cuts. Thank you for the hard work.

[@andrewwalker2392]

Hi Rex, I just wanted to write a quick note to say that in my very junior woodworking journey I have learned so much from your channel and I really appreciate your honesty when it comes to what really matters when it comes to woodworking/tools. Thank you!

[@ronhau1542]

I have brand-new Woodriver 5 1/2 and a Stanley no 7 made between 1902 and 1907. If I had to choose it’d probably be the old one.

[@josephhargrove4319]

Thanks for an informative, well reasoned, and well presented video. I have new respect for my 50's era Stanley #5. richard hargrove -- “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair

[@TheBert]

Just picked up a 1950' s No 4 in really good condition for $20. I remembered watching this video a while back but not the minor difference to look for. Thankfully I got lucky and got the right one. Can't wait to put it to work. The C559B I got with it maybe not so much but overall I'm happy with my very first hand planes. Thanks for putting out this content. It's really helpful!

[@markackman2602]

Got an early 1950s Stanley 5 to rehab for my dad recently and discovered every single typical criticism of them you read online. Frog to blade mating surface was warped hollow and actually unsupportive in the middle of the cutting area of the mouth. Frog to body mating with the “4 legs of a chair” surfaces you pointed out sat perfectly level in one spot and suffered teeter-totter in any other position, which means all 8 surfaces (4 on frog, 4 on body) were not co-planar. That also means that in any position you put the frog, the surfaces may all be touching, but they won’t be MATING solidly. Because of the casting design, it took some serious time investment scraping individual surfaces on the body to get everything seated OK. My experience with older planes is that everything generally arrives either co-planar, or very close. The older frog and body designs are also easier to scrape to a perfect mating. Not trying to say you’re wrong in this video at all, but this was the first time I’ve run into all these issues with a newer Bailey and I thought I’d share where some of the stigma likely comes from. We all know there are better and worse production runs from any time period, and Stanley didn’t even stick hard and fast to the orthodox 19 types listed online. I just think based on everything I’ve seen and worked on to date, I’d personally look for a nice Off-brand Bedrock. For me these have required the least amount of tuning to get truly mated frog to body and frog to blade contact, and the contact areas are much easier to home scrape flat since they are enormous flat iron faces. If you have to stay Stanley and you’ve never messed with a Bedrock, get yourself a nice 605! Those are the most common Stanley bedrock size and go for the cheapest online. Even if you don’t go to the effort of tuning mating surfaces, you should see a difference over the Baileys. It’s just a matter of more mass and more surface contact in all the right places.

[@11SecSTionStockSnail]

Mark Ackman I just picked a Keen kutter K5 plane with original LAMINATED blade for $15.00 zero putting on important surfaces, only checked for sole flatness, sharpened blade and tuned chip breaker. Also frog mates perfectly to bed since it’s a coppy of the 605 early bedrock (round sides) even wood was all good, no cracks no slop. And same guy wanted to sell me some “U” marked #4 that looked cleaner (crappy stamped steel frog style) for $45 Obviously I said no thanks.

[@duncanhaigh6228]

I've been building up a set of planes lately, this is a great, super useful explanation of the differences. Wish I'd seen it a little earlier. The only thing I think I'd say is that I definitely can't easily identify the differences between the 50s plane, and production decline in the later stuff. Buying obviously older planes has helped me dodge the newer ones.

[@kylevernon9625]

Thank you for this video rex!!! I’m just in the beginning of starting a woodworking business, and I still have to work a full time job and provide for my family - so I don’t have much money to dedicate to proffesional tools That said, I’ve been stuck with using a big box store brand modern no.4 knock off plane - and the learning curve has been STEEP. It’s taken me a long time to figure out how everything works and needs to be adjusted - and 90% of that is because I had to tear down and resurface a retune the entire plane - now that I finally have mastered that plane I’ve really realized how shitty it is - which makes me feel like once I get my hands on a nicer plane i will be phenomenal with that thing in my shop The reason I’m saying all this is because my friend found an old handyman rusting away in his grandfathers barn, and asked me if I would like it Of course I said yes, and I can’t tell you have excited I am to restore it and use it! Thank again for this - you have no idea how much your videos have impacted my life and my skills. As soon as I m successful and have the money, I am going to be a lifelong patreon supporter - because I wouldn’t have been without you my friend👍 Thanks so much, from PA 😁

[@fredslawson8128]

Thanks a lot! I have been a wood worker for several years and am just now getting into hand planes. What you have presented here just makes sense as I am a function over form kinda guy. I am now subscribed!

[@RexKrueger]

Fantastic! I was trying to take some of the guess-work out.

[@Blueduck600]

Really good video. I just picked up a #3 type 19 today for $5. Perfect condition for a restoration.

[@egbluesuede1220]

Great discussion and something I recently determined for myself as I've gravitated towards my Type 19s for the bells and whistles. But TOTALLY agree...you buy them both. I'm also a history junkie, so I love the history of tool making and woodworking, and find the older planes have a place in my heart and shop. I'll use them just for nostalgia and to keep history alive. But, for praticality and usability....yeah the type 19 rocks. Thinking of hot rodding my iron to something like a Hock just for fun and added performance....but then again....maybe not.

[@chriscunicelli7070]

I agree Rex. With every point. I want to add that the tote in the old vintage plane I find more ergonomic. So I made replacement tote and knob for the one in the fifties.

[@williamlee1429]

You make a very intelligent thoughtful case for "Newer" Bailey planes. Nice job!

[@swampsofhome]

I'm a long time tool and plane collector but not serious user. Up to now, I've been one who subscribed to the "older is better and leave the rust on it" camp, but lately I've been doing some restorations of run of the mill Stanleys. It's interesting that I came independently to the same conclusion you reached and have been rethinking my buying for working planes, to the point that today I bought a WWII or shortly after No 5 with thick castings; a tool that I would never have considered a couple of years ago. So, I'm "evolving" in my thinking but haven't settled on a final position yet. I will say that my absolutely favorite plane is a Bedrock 605. I reach for it almost every time. Thanks for the video.

[@RexKrueger]

My pleasure! I've always been curious about people who collect, but don't use the tools a lot. I got into collecting just because I was running into rare or old tools while hunting for good shop tools. I don't know how I even would have gotten started collecting without being a serious woodworker.

[@dbnoho]

I have a craftsman no5 with a corrugated bottom and a Stanley no4. I believe the same in this video. They are wonderful. Use them to start and finish everything. I also gave a Rigid 4331 planer. But I still use the hand plane. Love them.

[@FireAngelOfLondon]

This is valuable information for a woodworker on a budget. Prices for old planes vary wildly where I live, from £10 to £100 or more for planes that look very similar in both age and condition. I think that is because the people selling them have varying knowledge of what they are selling and its real value. I am more interested in the utility as I am not a collector, so thanks for this video, the information will help me spend my meagre resources so much more effectively.

[@RexKrueger]

That was exactly the idea! Glad you found it useful.

[@joeblow5958]

$10???? I often see these a-hole sellers ask $50 for a fully rusted out POS craftsman or lakeside plane. They see any condition stanley and it’s $75+ easy. If you find any more stanley’s for $10, I’ll pay you $11 plus shipping.

[@RexKrueger]

Yeah, so since I've started making videos, I've realized that I've been lucky to live places where old Stanley's are just dirt cheap. Especially when I lived in central California, people were just about giving them away. I've bought old planes in restorable condition for $2-$3, and that wasn't a fluke; it happened several times. Even here in OH, prices are higher, but still good. I just bought a Sargent #6 for $10 in perfect condition. Anyway, this is why I've moved my channel away from tool restoring and more toward tool making. Not everyone can ind cheap tools, but anyone can make them if I find cheap parts and design them well. I'm focusing on planes now, but I plane to do saws, vises, rasps, etc. Always open to suggestions.

[@nn2380]

@@RexKrueger I live in Southern California and at places like the Rose Bowl, Pasadena and Long Beach Swap Meets, the Stanley prices are horrendous. Where in Central California did you get such good deals? And did you get them at flea markets or antique fairs?

[@RexKrueger]

@@nn2380 I lived in Merced, CA for four years. I went to flea markets in Turluck (Tuesday mornings; amazing deals). I also went to the Crows Landing flea in Modesto. There's two in Atwater that are both good, but small. I also did well at estate sales.

[@nn2380]

@@RexKrueger Thanks for that info! Modesto and Turlock are a bit of a haul for me, but maybe I'll convince the Mrs. to make a trip of it sometime! ("Hon, how about that San Francisco trip we've been talking about? Oh yeah, just gotta make a quick stop in Turlock...........")

[@vasky22]

While a full year ago to the original comment, I picked up a Stanley #8 the other day at an estate sale for $10. Not sure if the tote is original, but all-in-all, a steal.

[@rsv-code7004]

Yes, totally agree! The larger depth adjuster makes a big difference.

[@robinalexander5772]

Still like your content, we may differ, but still like what you have to say. There are all ways things I learn from others in wood working. We all learn from each other, cheers from Tasmania

[@MLSteffel]

Glad I picked up the #4 circa 1950s By shear dumb luck. But thanks for the thorough walk through of the features added over time. Now I know why I like using this plane so much.

[@baggerbob4374]

This is probably the most valuable video I've ever watched. You answered so many questions that I didn't even know I had. Thank you so much!

[@patrickcharette2151]

My dad and I came across a pile of old planes at a flea market, one of them a 1970’s ish Stanley smoother. Everything I knew screamed “it’s garbage!” But after some tlc and some smart cleanup it cuts literally like a dream! It’s all in the fine print!

[@MrMmva]

I just found out that I've bought a no. 17 1942-1945 Stanley Handyman! I'm going to restore it and it will be my first Stanley plane to start my woodworking hobby with. It has the small adjustment weel and no frog adjuster. Love the idea that this is a wartime plane from England. But it's good to know that setting up the frog will become a bit fiddly, that will temper the expectations and I'll make sure I take my time doing it right.

[@Nirabulator]

What an excellent rundown on the differences between older and newer planes! Plenty of food for thought there!

[@RexKrueger]

Really glad you liked it!

[@icaliver]

As someone who wants to learn hand tools thanks for this information, because shopping for tools is confusing if you’re starting.

[@jonq8714]

I always go with the older tool because I like the aesthetics more.

[@thomasgreen8532]

I found a little shop in the willamette valley that sold old wood working tools. I picked up a very nice #5 for a really great price. While I am as there I also looked at a craftsman #5 plane that was nice too but you could tell it was no match for the Stanley plane. So I bought the Stanley. I believe it is pre war which means it’s right in the sweet spot for really nice planes. I am super excited to have it and can’t wait to get home from Vacation to try it out. Thanks for the help.

[@ben-vf]

I love the look and scale of that 5 1/2 . Baby got back !

[@LadyCroMag]

THE MORE I WATCH HIS GREAT INFORMATIVE VIDEOS, THE MORE APPRECIATION I HAVE FOR REX'S TYRRANOSAURIAN KNOWLEDGE HE SHARES!!! THANK YOU REX!!!

[@SamerAalrassul]

I get confused all the time about whether to use collecting planes in the shop or not.. But yes newer is better.. Short knob one should stay on shelf for decoration.. Thanks alot for sharing valuable info.

[@RexKrueger]

Use them all! Seriously, I own a LOT of planes and very few of them are too precious to cut wood with. If they work, then use them! Short knob planes are GREAT...but newer planes are just as good (or maybe better) and a heck of a lot cheaper. Thanks for watching!

[@metals2546]

Wonderful presentation. I will never look at a plane the same again.

[@RexKrueger]

That's really nice to hear. I ruffled some feathers with this one.

[@skippylippy547]

Wow! This video really nailed it for me. Thank you Rex. Wonderful presentation.

[@RexKrueger]

I'm so glad you liked it!

[@skippylippy547]

Rex, I just acquired an old Stanley No. 5 a few days ago. It's in a vinegar bath right now. It's a 1946 plane with NO frog adjustment screw! I've yet to see one like this on the net.

[@tpobrienjr]

Thanks for the detailed comparison of the two planes. One feature I like on the 1890 plane is the curved bevel on both sides of the lever cap. After you explained the high-low knob situation, I realized that the bevels on the lever cap were there to keep your hand from hitting a square edge as you extended the stroke. The higher knob sorta eliminates that problem. The bevels are not just for decoration, but they do add two machining/polishing operation on the lever cap. Keep up the good work, Rex.

[@malcolmoxley1274]

What you say makes perfect sense,I tend to go for the less troublesome plane in my set of planes the newer ones (50 to 60 year olds) I have added you to my you tube collection also you certainly know what you are on about,well done

[@Dr_Xyzt]

Nice to see someone else that takes care of their older tools. Stuff lasts a long time if you take care of it.

[@RexKrueger]

What's crazy is that people DIDN'T take care of these tools. Many of mine sat and rusted for decades and I was STILL able to get them up and running. They really don't make stuff like that anymore. Thanks for watching!

[@IrishChippy]

Just cleaned up my Bailey 4 1/2 that I have for 42 years, It has the frog adjusting screw from the 50s. Cleaned it today and will put up video later

[@IrishChippy]

Sorry Rex. Slow internet. Video will be up in 5 mins (I hope)

[@IrishChippy]

Made in England versions are somewhat different.

[@willisstroop2195]

Love your videos ! I'm trying to restore my dad's #60 and 1/2 just from watching your videos

[@BigMikeECV]

I got my Stanley planer about 40 years ago, and it was probably already 40 years old at that time. I think I'll toddle out to the shop and check the adjuster size.

[@Rich32262]

I've been looking to get a used #7 jointer plane, the better new ones are crazy expensive. I've also owned a legit 1920's #4 Stanley and recently sold it. It was pristine but I was always afraid of damaging it. As you say, more fragile than the post war models. With that said, I have my eye on a few in the 1948 - 1961 range. I think once tuned, I'll be happier with the added weight, adjustability, and durability. Well done video and you sold me on the newer model. Thank you.

[@kperellie]

This is the best explanation of comparing these planes that I've ever seen. Now I would love to see a comparison between the mid century and the currently made Stanleys as to why the new ones are considered so bad. At least from those who consider everything old as being better than everything new. And especially compared next to other so called low or lower quality planes such as Bench Dog and Wood River etc.

[@RexKrueger]

I actually just shot that video. It will be out next Wednesday. Earlier for Patrons.

[@appliedclinicalvr2359]

Learning from you about the rear frog adjustment screw has kept me from buying a "Stanley" knockoff from eBay. The only thing "Stanley" about some of them is the blade. Thanks!

[@metals2546]

You have just earned yourself another subscriber. Well done

[@dougfreeman3229]

Great job on the video and the subject matter. In my experience of refurbishing ~20 Stanley Bailey planes, I agree with you. All of the planes I've restored were 30's-40's up through '60's. Many make a big deal that pre-ww2 is better - not my experience. All of the planes I refurbished were able to work very well without chatter, etc. with the oem blade and cap iron. Some were machined better than others - vintage didn't matter. Some newer were good, some older one's were poor. Just about any of them can be made to work very well (without any re-machining) one just has to be able to troubleshoot the issues and know how to fix them. I also have a Fulton and a Keen Kutter K - I'll take a Bailey. Haven't tried a Millers Falls, I understand they are pretty good.

[@RexKrueger]

I'm glad you liked it and I'm glad someone else out there is getting these old planes back into action. I don't replace my blades, either, and I think they work just fine. Thanks again!

[@shanewilson284]

Super interesting video on something as simple as a hand plane, well done.

[@drigondii]

That’s like half the channel’s videos

[@flapjackthemermaid]

Thanks for all the info. I found your videos after doing exactly what you said in the beginning of this video! I bought 2 Stanley #4 planes but I don’t know anything about them. They were $4 each so I figured it was worth trying out. One is a low knob and one is a high knob, very similar to the ones in your video. Except my high knob one does not have the fine frog adjustment like yours does. So now I am confused again as to what I actually have. They seem to work ok, I am new to using these tools, so lots to learn.

[@TheWoodYogi]

Very nice :) I love my wooden planes as much as my metal ones and most of them definitely can't be dated. It's all about how we work and what suits us individually. Thank you ॐ

[@RexKrueger]

Yup, love a woodie!

[@ared18t]

the big depth adjuster also gives you more minute adjustments :D

[@maineiacacres]

Give em the $10 to hold both and RUN to the nearest ATM. I have an almost complete set (No 3 - 8) of Type 11s (1910 - 18). I'm a retired 61 yo and WWing is my hobby and gym workout. I don't think hand fatigue will ever be an issue for me, but you make some excellent points Rex. Just the same, I like that second kinda cool factor they hold for me.

[@RexKrueger]

I have a bunch of type 11s. Great planes.

[@lvvry1855]

A wonderful piece of work. Thanks for the education, the detail, the information, and the great presentation.

[@Digan]

I love coming home and seeing that you uploaded a new video. Think I finally figured out the quirk about an old plane I have, it has all the style and makrs of the 50s but it has that short knob.

[@RexKrueger]

Hey, if you enjoy my videos that much, have look at my patreon page. I seriously do have a lot of exclusive content up there and you get each video a whole week early. In the future, I'll do some videos that are only for patrons. As to your plane, the fact that it's a 15's style plane with a short knob IS very interesting. Someone must have not only replaced the knob, but also the mounting screw. Fascinating.

[@g.fortin3228]

So glad I watched this ! Now I know the differences and am happy with what I found at the flea market too. But mainly for going forward, better educated and for that thank you!!

[@RexKrueger]

Glad it was helpful!

[@11SecSTionStockSnail]

One important thing to note: most if not all Stanley original blades pre sweethearts and even some sweethearts were laminated. (Similar to Japanese chisel design) and for me that reason alone overpowers all the disadvantages you have noted. Those old laminated blades are even better then the new thicker hocks. As far as knob or tote, these can easily be modified. But again, I do hate sharpening, and also do hate folded edge after working hard woods

[@Unconventional03]

Two days ago I got a No 4 Stanley bailey (Type 16 iirc) and a No 6 Bailey (Type 19 iirc) I am going to restore them soon. I also found tow jacks but they were $50 for half complete units and I saw a No3 Bailey for the price of a new no 3 bailey.

[@PeteLewisWoodwork]

I also have a no #4and half - not had much use to date but has it's place in the future!

[@grbroussard]

If I had $10 I would still buy both! Awesome video! I’m new at woodworking and your videos are unbelievably helpful.

[@brzpicnic]

Thank you for promoting the newer plane.... that leaves more of the old ones for me!

[@mamabearssheshedtracykeato6941]

This was extremely helpful! Thank you for sharing. The more videos of yours I watch, the smarter I get. I recently purchased an old hand router. I now know how to sharpen it, how to take care of it, and when to buy it! I really want to thank you kindly for explaining and sharing this information with us!

[@RexKrueger]

It was truly my pleasure. The hand-router is a great tool. I'm sure you'll get a lot of use out of it!

[@heyimamaker]

Great video! I know that a lot of the older Stanley tools were also made in many more countries. All of the Stanley planes that my Dad gave me are from the 40's-50's but were all made in Canada. I think the #4 Stanley you can buy now at the big box store is about $45 and the level of quality the older planes were at is maybe the #4 sweethearts for $300-$350. The quest for any great brand is to cheapen it's self as far as they can go to make the most money. Then purchase another brand and do the same thing to them. Mac-Tools Proto Bostich Black and Decker DeWalt and apparently the Craftsman brand

[@RexKrueger]

Sadly, I think you're right. On the bright side, Stanley made a lot of planes in it's long golden era. If you live in the right part of the world, there are plenty of old jems out there.

[@heyimamaker]

Very true, then again. Use what you have :)

[@738polarbear]

Very interesting video Rex.

[@bobclifton8021]

My personal preference is for the low mushroom shaped knob. I don't hold it the way you show in the video so I don't have the problems you described. It just seems to fit my hand better than that clumsy looking high knob that I find gets in my way. You pays your money and you takes your choice. As to the small adjustment wheel, I just replace it with a large one and I'm off to the races. I know, the collectors will wee in their knickers. So what!

[@robertcale6725]

great job on telling me a whole lot of things I didn't know now I will go look at mine and figure out how old it is

[@RexKrueger]

Cool! The age doesn't really matter, but it can be fun to realize you're holding an old and collectible tool.

[@maine420247]

Hey Rex, just got a new Veritas blade/chip breaker for my ww2 era #5 & l love it! When I use the new blade with the old chipbreaker nothing. But when I use the old blade & the new chipbreaker I get a marked improvment! So can you figure out how to make new thicker chibreakers for our planes without having to buy an $80 blade/cb combo? Food for thought.

[@saramulry]

Thanks for this video! I needed to buy a plane with not much money to spare & this video helped me identify a nice old (but not too old) Stanley on Ebay to grab :)

[@chandlerbryan1793]

I'd go to another shop and find a 1920s model. You get the benefits of the high knob and big depth adjuster while keeping the superior frog face and frog support surfaces. Best of all worlds!

[@Bogie3855]

Seems like online sites think ALL Stanley planes are collectable. Mostly in the $200us on Ebay. As a tool user that makes the Veritas planes about the same price however they are premium planes. Rare to find a decent used plane selling for what it should.

[@dgale1023]

ok understood. Now we need a vid on new-20 year old planes. That would help for those looking at new better planes like Record or...older whatever. Thank you, BTW good vid very clear

[@thomasgreen8532]

I have been binge watching your videos. As I recover from a broken arm. I really enjoy what you are sharing, especially on the choosing of a plane, I have several ones but all of them will need TLC. Anxiously awaiting to get back to the shop and try out what I have learned.

[@RexKrueger]

Really glad I could help. Heal fast!

[@gareths100]

if theyre $10 always buy both :) another great clip Rex

[@RexKrueger]

ALWAYS buy both. That's how I ended up with so many.

[@grizmt7779]

Thanks for another informative video. When did Stanley start making a lower quality plane and how do we identify it? Thanks again for your knowledge and excellent discriptions.

[@RainDog222222]

@Alan 141 apparently this was true for wartime planes too, all sort of random things were used during the war. For example, in 1945, the large adjuster knob Rex touts as a feature of the 1950 plane could have been small. And it could have been made out of rubber. www.plane-dealer.com/bailey-type-study

[@mihailmihaylov9617]

Clearly :) Happy new year, Rex

[@TheAsmodeus2012]

I don't know if anyone has pointed this out, but the larger depth adjuster wheel not only offers more leverage for easier turning of the screw, but with the larger radius, it means the outer edge must travel further in order to turn the same number of degrees as the smaller diameter wheel. This means you can make much finer adjustments to the blade depth than with the smaller wheel. It is in fact a more precise instrument because of this and that feature by itself would likely cause me to choose the 1950's tool for personal use.

[@eddie1078]

The larger wheel appeared at some point in the 1920's I believe... anyone? Patrick Leach offers a mine of info about these planes and features are searchable by date but don't know how as I just found the site today ;) www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan1.htm

[@brucejohnson1264]

I think one more reason you want the newer plane is the blade steel. The very old planes have lousy steel. It tends to be inconsistent, and if it's pitted the back won't be flat and the edge will be poor.

[@kerryfoster1]

I managed to knock the top off my stanley plane's left casting. Luckily it didn't affect the performance, which is superb after 40 years!

[@prairie_born]

Interesting vlog Rex. Certainly gives a lot of food for thought and although you make some good points I don't totally agree with all of them. 1. Hand fatigue from adjusting the iron increases marginally with the small adjuster wheel. How many times are you adjusting the iron? Generally once I set the iron it is set until the iron comes out to resharpen. I find much more hand fatigue from the actual process of planing vs adjusting the iron. 2. You mention that the later Stanley planes have thicker and straighter castings. I can't argue the thicker part but straighter? In my experience the post WWII castings will require more work than the pre war castings. In fact at another point in the video you mention that Stanley used precision machining. I think we could argue exactly how precise Stanley was in the manufacturing process. Almost every Stanley plane will require work to function at its best. If it was precision machined that would be the case and the argument was that the technology of the time gave them the best at the time doesn't cut it as other manufacturers arguably had a better product than Stanley therefore had better manufacturing processes in play. Stanley was a mass marketer of tools and made and sold millions. Then as today accountants were involved and why go for the best when so-so is adequate and sells thereby increasing the profit margin. 3. The frog adjuster is considered by some as an improvement but it does come with a trade off. The larger the area of contact of the frog to the frog seat in the bed of the plane the less likelihood of harmonics occurring that can lead to chatter. With the reduced frog support in the later frogs the more chatter can occur and this is especially highlighted when one adds the Ogee style frogs that came along in 1933 with the reduced support area on the iron. I agree that the slot in the frog certainly aids in getting the frog square to the mouth but honestly you looked like you were all thumbs when putting the older frog in the seat. It isn't really that big of a deal and can be accomplished in significantly less time than you demonstrate in your video. Add to that how many people adjust the frog on any sort of regular basis after the initial setup and it is easy to see why I don't feel there is any advantage to having the frog adjuster. 4. Low knob vs high knob totally agree with your assessment. I love the look of the low knob planes but prefer the high knobs on my bench. Just feel more comfortable. 5. When you talk about the kidney shaped lever cap you talk about why Stanley made the decision to change to this from the keyhole shape. I totally disagree and the primary reason Stanley came up with the improved lever cap comes down to one word. Marketing. Stanley was looking for an advantage over their competition. You state that the lever cap can come off the lever cap screw due to adjusting of a period of time. I have never ever experienced that and doubt I ever will for 2 reasons. Once the depth is adjusted I rarely have to change the depth again and secondly I have to resharpen the iron long before that can become a problem and I am not familiar with anyone who has the ability to resharpen an iron while the iron is still fixed into the body of the plane. If the kidney hole was such a big advantage why haven't the premium makers of today adopted the kidney hole not the keyhole. For that matter why didn't Stanley's competition of the day adopt the kidney hole when the patent expired. 6. You state that Stanley got better at making planes throughout the production cycle. Most everyone who have used Stanley planes is going to disagree with you. It is very evident that quality of all manufacturer's hand planes dropped appreciably after the invention of power tools and we see this most significantly post WWII. Now that being said there are exceptions to every rule and I have come across post WWII planes from Stanley that are very good (for it being a Stanley) and equally comparable to pre war planes. Unfortunately the vast majority don't fit into that category. 7. I find your video just a bit on the misleading side. Yes Stanley made some decent enough planes but every one of them do require some work to function properly. Your video gave me the impression that if I buy one of those post war planes I don't need to do anything to it but put it on the bench and that is what I find misleading. Most Stanley planes will need some work regardless of type. Thank you for taking the time to make these videos. There is no question that you help those out who have little or no experience. I find your videos are in general high quality and you come across very well.

[@RexKrueger]

"honestly you looked like you were all thumbs when putting the older frog in the seat" You know, a less understanding man than myself might find a comment like that ungentlemanly.

[@1963jesse]

I totally agree with you!

[@sherrykacyon6669]

Rex maybe try a wood river 5 1/2. I think you will like it.

[@robertreid7221]

You give great advice Rex, with a clear concise presentation style. Love your video's Cheers, Bob!

[@RexKrueger]

I'm really glad you found it clear. That's what I'm going for!

[@chickenpotpie4045]

Mkay, this confused me more than it answered my question. I have an old Stanley 12-205 that I got as a hand-me-down, so I have no idea where it came from, when it was bought, nothing. So based on what I've learned here, mine has the high front knob, but it does not have an adjustable frog. It has a standard frog held in by two flat head screws and washers, which I detest because when I was restoring this plane, setting that frog back squarely was an almost impossible task, just trying to get the screws to catch was a headache, then you needed about 4 hands to hold everything still so you can tighten it down. I did eventually get it tightened down, however the frog was ever so slightly crooked, and in my naivete as a noob woodworker, I thought it would be fine, and it appeared to be if I used it for taking off material, but any time I tried using it for smoothing, I'd get uneven cuts and a line. Much troubleshooting and adjustments later and it's finally set up really nicely and is extremely good at smoothing now, I just hope I never have to take it apart again lol But yeah, I have even less of an idea of when this plane was made now, because it seems to have the older technology in the newer chassis.

[@watermain48]

Great discussion Rex, thanks for posting it.

[@edwardhandrich6043]

I would love to see a video on the brand new planes, year 2020. They are $53 at the orange box store. Everyone says they aren't any good. Even you said after 1960 the quality went down hill. So, what is wrong with them? Can they be worked on to make them as good as the 1960 versions?

[@ndabox17311]

But, let's don't forget one very important feature... The older plane has a greater " second kinda cool factor" that the newer one doesn't have. Sometimes that just makes using old tools more enjoyable.

[@RexKrueger]

You know, I've often felt the same way, but the more woodwork I do, the more I want a tool that's efficient, precise, and comfortable for all-day use. If you're a collector (and there's NOTHING wrong with that) then go for low knob, but if you're a serious hobbyist or a professional, then I think the later planes are really better in ways that matter. Anyway, thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts!

[@adamwhiteson6866]

Yeah and I too will pay some premium for that connection with craftsmen of yore. But Rex's video is about shopping on a budget when you want the most functionality for the least expense.

[@DT-lg6fd]

Not in all cases . I have had a few LN’s and sold them because my Type 19’s kept ending up in my hands . LN’s are over priced whether you can afford them or not .

[@russruss2446]

Nice video. I think it’s not old vs. 1950’s, but pre-1960 vs. later than that. 1950’s planes don’t have a bad rep because they’re great.

[@rebeccadonaldson1464]

In the UK, Stanley Tools had all the inprovements you mentioned right up into the 70's. I bought my Dad his first Cast Iron plane brand new, a Stanley No. 4 for Christmas 1970. If you take Stanley's glory days of top quality until they stopped using Rosewood for the Knob and Tote, and brought in plastic. If the plane you are looking to buy has original Rosewood handles, then it is like the 1950's post war classics.

[@BrentLangdon]

Great video. I have a Type 9 #7 and a Type 19 #5. I always had this thing in my head that the Type 9 was a "better" year but the Type 19 #5 is such a great plane and the frog is easy to adjust. It is a hand me down from my grandfather, and I expect he purchased it around 1960 for random trim work around the house. I think somebody mentioned, but it would be interesting to see more info about when the quality of Stanley planes did actually start to decline and what things I should look out for. I have a Stanley Defiance #4 that I struggled with for a bit before I broke down to get a Veritas. The frog and mouth of the Defiance are terrible.

[@liquidrockaquatics3900]

9:39 @rex, I know it has been 6 years, but you missed a prime opportunity for frog-ribbet pun. Maybe it’s just the dad humor in me 🤷‍♂️😂

[@Exiledk]

I'm going to be painfully honest here.. I have a few Stanleys. Not old as such but used. The no.4 is my go-to. I recently bought a new No.4 plane from Germany, Dictum Tools. I don't use the Stanleys as much any more. The difference is remarkable. The Dictum is heavy, very well made and of the bedrock configuration. If you are looking for a new plane on a level with Lie Nielsen, but more affordable, this is the one.

[@williamstone61]

Per your video and 5 reasons for newer, an important reason for newer to me is the left-hand thread (vs right-hand) on the iron depth adjuster. It just seems more natural to go clockwise to advance the iron when using my right hand. Also, Stanley made planes earlier than 1890. I have a transition No. 22 Stanley Rule and Level with the eagle emblem. It was made between 1870 and 1885 and originally purchased by my grandfather. For me, I prefer using the newer planes and agree that newer is sometimes better. Mature designs drive cost cutting measures to materials and processes which can lower the perceived quality of the product.

[@RexKrueger]

Agreed on all fronts!

[@Tome4kkkk]

Do you like thick castings? Try planes made by Footprint :) The quality on those is somewhat comparable to the contemporary Stanleys but the castings... For example, Footprint No. 5 weighs around 20% more than Stanley No. 5 made in England (1946)! It was my main workhorse for a year and now I'm putting it up for sale, along with Stanley No.4 (rosewood handles without varnish!) and No. 5 made in England (1946).

[@HeartlandMakesAndOutdoors]

If this is a dumb question, just say, Dale that is dumb, But here is my question. I am not finding these in garage sales, flea markets etc for 5-10 bucks, We have one guy on the north side of town who is a collector and has a old barn at his place, but you drive up there to buy one of his 1000's of old hand tools, they are priced high. So looking on eBay, seeing a 5 jack plane anywhere from 35 plus anywhere from 1020 dollars for shipping so in short, eBay for the older No5 plane averages out around 40-55 bucks for an older plane that looks like it will need a lot of work IE, your 1 hour video cleaning - restoration of the plane you got at garage sale flea market etc. So here is the question If I am going to have to spend 40-55 bucks, doesn't it not make more sense to juts buy a new one from home depot? It shows at home depot to be able to get a new No 5 plane for 55 bucks. so it is only 5-10 bucks more for a new one that other than sharpening the blade to get it working in a few minutes and possibly has a short warranty at min 30 days from home depot? Does that make sense. I know it isn't fitting with the 100 tool kit, but if I am going to have to spend 40-50 bucks, it just don't make sense to gamble on the 10 difference from eBay unless there is something substantially lower in quality in a new one from home depot, it that is the case, because of the cooperate world of hurry up, lower quality and mass production cost cutting business. I hope this is a good question, if it is too long to answer I get it. Thanks again Have a blessed week. Dale

[@RexKrueger]

Not a dumb question at all. The quality of an old Stanley is LIGHYEARS ahead of anything at the big box. In it's day, Stanley was a premium company. Go to the guy with the barn. Tell him that you're a woodworker. See if he'll help you pick out a really good one. Even if it's pricey, it's a lifetime tool.

[@HeartlandMakesAndOutdoors]

@@RexKrueger thank you so much sir, that's what i needed to know.. your a good man, thanks. dale

[@shonuffisthemaster]

thanks for the info,verry usefull. i had also heard the older planes were better, but no one ever said why specifically

[@RexKrueger]

No one EVER says why. Drives me up the wall.

[@kendehaas668]

Thanks for the video. A good overview of the different features that Stanley used. Thanks for looking at some of the more major changes. I just subscribed and will looking forward to seeing more.

[@RexKrueger]

Welcome aboard! There will be a lot more of this type of content in the future.

[@idontmindpineappleonpizza8825]

One time i bought a pretty cheap plane, and my first and after the first couple of weeks I knocked it off the bench on to the garage floor but luckily it was just a tiny chip came off an it was easy to flatten.

[@clappercl]

Dang, all very good points. I'm new to tool collecting and a new hobbiest-woodworker, and my current plane collection is mostly older ones and I gotta say I dread planing as a result. They really are tough to work with, but I didn't realize the newer ones are more usable. I had always heard "more older = more better". Good to know that is not strictly the case! Thanks for the video, very good info for a newbie! Liked and subscribed (my wife wont let me on patreon 😔)

[@RexKrueger]

I'm glad you found it useful! I do think old planes can work just great, but you might find the newer ones easier to set up. Don't sweat the patreon thing. I'm really grateful to have viewers.

[@Fiskekakemannen]

just don't get anything from the hardwarestore now... they're made in china and none of the pieces seem to fit together, but somehow they still have managed to force it all into something that almost looks right:)

[@andrewjacobs1108]

Marbel runs

[@ChimeraActual]

Every plane I've ever bought, new or used, needed a fair amount of tuning up before they would work well. Tuning may entail grinding or filing the body or frog. As far as setting up the bench plane look at the frog for throat clearance, distance from cap edge to blades edge, blade bevel, blade sharpness. All of those may need adjusting for different woods. Sometimes you need a little back bevel

[@ricksspringfield45]

Great tips, now I know what to look for...thank you!

[@brettphillips3091]

Both... you're awesome