Shootout on the Planes - Stanley vs Luban

[@noel-ec4iy]

I was watching a Paul Sellers video (a superb English woodworker) and he mentioned the decline in manufacturing standards of the Stanley Bailey planes since the '60s I like the idea of a thicker blade and backing iron on the Luban planes thank you Gary for the information on these planes.

[@zaneh6224]

I have seen the Luban planes including the Bronze versions, they are of exceptional quality for the price, just a pity Timbecon never seems to have them in stock, I'm looking at you Low angle Bronze Apron,

[@AndriyHavryliv]

Thank you, Gary. Very informative!

[@timbeconaus]

Thank you for your kind words, Andrew. Very much appreciated.

[@roybailey1134]

I never use the lever cap to undo the chip breaker screw because it can break very easily. That's why you see so many broken Luban plane's are very good quality compared to the new Stanley plane's, thank you for your video I enjoyed watching it, best wishes from England from a vintage Carpenter.

[@jimbo2629]

My Luban number 5 is heavier than I would like. The Luban tote is the most comfortable I have ever used. I reckon the best solution is an old Stanley with an upgraded blade. The backlash on the Stanleys is far too much. Modern Stanleys are for those who find woodwork a chore. I have machined a cheap block plane bed with a mill. If you have a flat plate on your belt sander you can start flattening with that. I have a one metre edge sander. With a worn out belt on it I transformed my Stanley number 5 by flattening the sole. Having said all that I find that for many situations belt and thicknessing sanders do a better job and the surfaces can be finished with a scraper. The Luban beats the Stanley but it costs a lot more so it ought to.

[@bigkiv47]

Does the Luban lateral adjustment lever have the bearing on it or just a piece of fixed metal.... The Woodriver has the bearing and by all accounts makes the lateral adjustment so much smoother.... I suppose Woodriver replicated what Lie Nielsen do with their lateral adjusters and added a bearing and a larger blades advancement adjuster for easier handling.... was looking at the Luban but I think the Woodriver has better features with the two points I mentioned

[@jimgott119]

It does not have the bearing. The WoodRiver does. The WoodRiver have a design change on the yoke that even the Lie-Nielsen do not have. The top of the yoke has a rounded mushroom shape so that the yoke’s rounded surface rides smoothly on the inside walls of the chip breaker slot rather than the old way where the edge of the yoke grinds against the sharp corner of the chip breaker’s slot. The Luban has the same yoke as the WoodRiver.

[@pongscript]

how would this compare with stanley sweethearts, i think they are on the same level with sweethearts so i think its not a fair comparisson, upon checking luban no 4 and 5 plane, it cost around sweethearts .

[@amiddled]

An unfair comparison as the price points are way off each other. The Lubans should be compared to the Stanley Sweetheart range. In this case the quality is comparable.

[@dt2419]

It doesn't matter which you compare it too. Luban is much better than Stanley in every aspect. Pre-war Stanley was incredible, post-war they are a joke.

[@willb3698]

@@dt2419 Agreed.

[@tarlx902]

Well the Lubans are patterned off of the Stanley Bedrock line (which were manufactured from around 1900 until the 1940s) so a better comparison would be between a 40s Bedrock and the Luban. I think it's pretty commonly held that the main line of pre-war Stanleys are better than even the sweetheart line right now. I've never really used one of the sweethearts myself I would be interested to see how they stack up to my 1946 (ish the Canadian one's are harder to date) No.5.

[@amiddled]

@@tarlx902 nope, I was comparing against new planes available now for this price point. You can’t buy a new Stanley bedrock any more, at least not from Stanley.

[@tarlx902]

@@amiddled Ok then the answer to your question is that the Luhans are much better according to every source I've seen.

[@curtturtle]

To those saying that they are wildly different in price. Stanley No4 from Bunnings is $100 vs the Luban at Timbecon for $200. Not that far apart. Given the cost of planes from other companies. Also getting a 50-year-old Stanley plane in good to great condition for less than $150 is not really possible either. Don't get me wrong I'd take the old Stanley if I could find one.

[@timbeconaus]

Thanks for your comment Curt. It was interesting that Gary didn't find his older Stanley that wonderful either. While it is a 1970's model, it was clearly better than the current version. Yet, in his opinion the Luban still outshone the older Stanley. LIke you say, if you can find a good condition Stanley around the traps, it would probably not be a cheaper option. We have experienced woodworkers here who prefer their Lubans over planes whose names are considered far above the crowd. Gary found that to be true in his case for sure.

[@adamf1347]

$100 vs $200... that's double the price! So very far apart.

[@willb3698]

@@adamf1347 But my Stanley needs me to buy so much to get it simply working. IF it would after that. Hone the base, Square the sides (fat chance), the tongue cut me. $200 starts to sound fine.

[@TomeRodrigo]

Luban is great, I have two of them so far.

[@andyvan5692]

i'm a beginner at this, but have not seen these before, how do luban compare with something I have heard of , like a Lie Neilson tools plane, and they are in the wood workers catalogues too, so many others might have heard about them too.

[@timbeconaus]

Thanks for asking Andy. Gary Rizzolo's experience with Luban planes is an honestly positive one. Being a guitar maker of the highest order, his levels of accuracy in woodworking are paramount. He has planes from Lie Neilson, Veritas, Stanley and Luban. He has indicated that he would compare his Luban planes with any of them, taking into account prices and types of plane.

[@kazinix]

You saved me a lot of money from buying Stanley, it looks like it has the same quality as my cheap Groz #4 which does the job but requires a lot of adjustments and workarounds.

[@andrewford80]

Man, I wish I had never bought my Stanley from bunnings. It was the next price bracket up from the plastic packaged one and I thought it would be quality, it was not. Like this, the bottom was nowhere near flat. Took me hours to flatten and polish the bottom. The cheeks are not perpendicular to the base so it's crap for shooting. Most annoyingly, the bit where the frog meets the base is very poorly machined. It's seemingly impossible to get the blade to sit correctly in the mouth. I hate it and urge everyone out there to avoid it at all costs. Old Stanley planes are a different story but this new junk is worthless for all but the most crude of material removal.

[@kentgreenough75]

I had the same experience with a Stanley 60 1/2 block plane. The sole was convexed , a huge bulge on the sole, the lateral adjustment was junk, the blade never presents level and doesn’t rest even on the bottom edge. Pure junk at any price.

[@soul146]

I know old video, but i was wondering if it was worth getting a Luban 5.5 or a rob cosman woodriver 5.5? or even going for a Clifton? As far as i am aware the Luban is Chinese company who use same casting as a Woodriver but obviously China don't have copyright laws etc so can get away with it. Is it still worth going for a Luban or would the Woodriver be better quality?

[@jimbo2629]

There are videos comparing these two. I am a great Luban fan. However they are heavy compared with an old Stanley.

[@andrevanopstal2143]

It's just a shame how a company that was once one of the leaders in the production of quality hand tools now only brings trash to the market.

[@timbeconaus]

The difference surprised even us to some degree. The interesting thing, Andre, is that there was footage we had to leave out to keep the video at a watchable length. Other aspects of the Stanley were clearly inferior and were discussed, but would have made the running time of the video unreasonable. Thanks for your comment. Always appreciated.

[@mrthuiwa]

Stanley handyman $89 Stanley Bailey made in England $121 luban cost more then both combine .bunnings still have some no. 4 Made in England left .i been to 4 Bunnings and they all have 1 left that made in England the rest are made in China.

[@scotthaddad563]

My guess, compensated Luban endorser. With that said, you get what you pay for nowadays so how about a price comparison? Also, instruction on plane maintenance is mandatory as it is with any tool if you expect to obtain decent results. I’m not a big fan of the newer Stanley tools either, all of mine are vintage and serve me just fine since I know how and what makes them tick. Today’s neophyte craftsmen are being taught that in order to become a top notch craftsman, first you have to throw a bunch of money at tools. Expensive high quality tools are great but not absolutely necessary. Just look at what was done hundreds of years ago, now those guys knew every aspect of the craft!

[@timbeconaus]

Thanks for your comment, Scott. Gary Rizzolo is a customer of Timbecon and has presented various tools in our videos. Certainly we do not expect our customers to give of their time to shoot a video without some form of compensation. That would be unethical and undignified to a craftsman such as Gary. That said, everything Gary indicates in this video has been honestly presented by Gary because he does actually love the Luban products for the reasons he indicates in the video above. Gary is a very busy man who doesn't need to present videos for compensation. In fact, it was a tight fit into his busy schedule. Your other point is well made. And again, thank you for it. For the neophyte woodworker, Gary's point is not far different from yours. In fact, they are very close. His point in this video is that there are excellent products available for similar prices as the 'go-to' tools and there are the features you can look for. Timbecon stocks Luban planes, and we naturally highlight them. But for good reason. They are excellent value for money. Thanks for taking the time to watch our channel, Scott. And thank for your input. Its always appreciated.

[@windh109]

You are comparing a Stanley contractor grade plane to a Luban woodworking plane to be fair you would need to compare a Stanley Sweetheart woodworking plane to the Luban which was modeled after the WoodRiver woodworking plane. I'm not a fan of Stanley but I am in favor of an HONEST review. Not a paid Luban distributor.

[@ebh295]

here in the states a nice vintage 604 runs US $150, woodriver #4 $199, veritas #4 $220, LN #4 $300 all PLus shipping ~$10. So which one? I have 2 vintage 604's. one was great. flat, sharp no issues out the box. the other, needed a lot of work. my woodriver was one hone away from ready to go. A buddy's veritas great plane, he said it shaved microns out the box. I don't know anyone using LN at my pay grade. so really it's 1. do I trust the pics and seller's description? 2. made in China (to me this trope is dead, they do a lot of precision manufacturing now) 3. veritas awesome but futuristic looking. 4. LN get a better job, or better friends. Finally and I think most important, customer service. I KNOW LN and Woodcraft (woodriver distributor) stand by there products based on personal experience and heard great things re: LN. VIntage tools is hit or miss, depends on seller.

[@PeanutsDadForever]

Old Stanley Planes pre 1940’s , certainly a flat sided Bedrock would be at least $150 cheaper than a Luban and leave it for dead in terms of quality and performance. 👴🏻🇦🇺

[@timbeconaus]

....which would be fine if indeed that was what we were comparing. Gary makes his point very clearly in his comparison that Stanley planes are considered the 'go to' plane in that price range. Gary is saying that from his experience - which is decades long and clearly evident in his level of craftsmanship - that Luban planes are better value for money, and are often close enough in price to consider. That said, Gary's Stanley plane from the 70's still did not compare well with the Luban.

[@jlmfoy365]

That may be true in Australia but in the UK a pre-war Stanley bedrock plane will cost a fortune and still need lots of restoration ( they are as rare as hens teeth )

[@willb3698]

Except that buying such an old plane - which I have not see at that price - more like 200+ now, often requires a deal of work due to age. Such work is often out of the scope of new woodworkers...like me. I need something I can trust and I can learn through using. I bought the Bronze Luban for luthier work from Timbecon - it's really really nice - I bought a Stanley from Bunnings - I can not use it, it needs too much work too.

[@davidsmethurst4318]

1. Luban are three times the price of the budget Stanley in UK. not comparing like with like. Try Luban vs Lie Nielsen which is double the Luban price and see how it fares. Or possibly the better quality Stanley which is still only 70% of the Luban price. I know the I am looking at a Luban, sold under another name in the UK and it's good - almost Wood River quality without the Cosman tweaks, but be fair. 2. You lost my confidence when you said you had always been told the lever cap was to be used for undoing the chip breaker screw. Easiest way to chip the edge mess up the even pressure that should be applied to the blade assembly along the front edge. This is one bit of abuse I check for when looking for restoration tools. You are right though. Many did do it. 3. Who planes in a high vice at chest level set on a cross angle? 4. Unless this is particular to your part of the world I think you have a Chinese or other knock-off Stanley. It is different in several ways from both the usual mid range Stanley and the budget Handyman. They have lowered manufactring standard no doubt, but apples and apples please.

[@909sickle]

Why compare a $45 plane to a $200 plane?

[@timbeconaus]

We aren't. We purchased the Stanley #4 Smoothing Plane locally for a very similar price to the Luban # 4.

[@909sickle]

​@@timbeconaus The Luban retails around $200, right? Getting a special 75%- +off deal, doesn't make a fair comparison.

[@timbeconaus]

@@909sickle Yes. The Luban does retail around that price. As we've indicated, the Stanley #4 cost us much more than $45. It was much closer to the price of the Luban than your indicated price of $45. These semantics aside, our point is that for an affordable investment that is not unreasonably higher than the Stanley, the Luban is a far superior plane.

[@amiddled]

Exactly - especially as Stanley have the Sweetheart range which is more comparable in quality and price.

[@zaneh6224]

The Stanley lever cap looks like it was made from Plasticine, that a disgrace to put any name on it let alone a name that was once upon a time looked at as a decent tradesman's tool brand.

[@craigw1957]

$89 bucks against $369. Disappointing comparisons. One is a handymans tool now the other is a work of art. The only comparisons should of been between the 2 Stanleys 40+ yrs apart and how they are rubbish now. Still love your work.

[@NearbyCactus]

Just checked their website, and I think you're looking at the #4 Bench, not the #4 Smoothing that Gary is looking at here. Currently on sale at $199, normally $249. Having got that out of the way, you are not wrong. I got the distinct impression from the video that they are comparable price-wise. They aren't. However what Gary has done here is highlight what the extra money will get you. For me the take-away is don't buy a new Stanley as they are just cheap Chinesium knock-offs. I would either get an old Stanley & tart it up, or spend the extra dollars and get a new Luban.

[@timbeconaus]

G'day Craig. We purchased the Stanley at a very similar price to our Luban #4 from a local tools retailer. We endeavoured to show in this video that in a comparable price range, the benefits of looking at the Luban were certainly self evident. We also highlighted the fact that Stanley have set the benchmark for designs of planes that have been considered the standard by which others have been designed. The unfortunate reality is that the 'go-to' plane that was Stanley is no longer the first that should be considered for the price.

[@NearbyCactus]

Further to my earlier comment, I own a Luban rabbeting plane, and love it. It's a premium tool. Personally, I'd spend the extra money for the Luban, because you'll get something useful out of the box, and cost-wise is the entry level for a decent plane. Any other option will require a ton of work unless you are very lucky. My first few planes were old ones that I reconditioned. It can be very satisfying, but takes many many hours.

[@craigw1957]

@@timbeconaus so your saying the rubbish at Bunnings and other stores of similar standings are of a lesser quality again to what was demonstrated in the vid. That's extremely disappointing. I wrote my comment after seeing that exact packaging at the local bunnings store just recently. I do apologise if there is another model no'4 above that plane I wasn't aware of. I will however be investing in a Luban as soon as finances allow. I'm seriously interested in the low angle No'62. Thanks for the reply.

[@craigw1957]

@@NearbyCactus hi. Just double checked on the bunnings website mate. The smoothing plane is definitely there and was the one I seen onsite last week. They also have a bench plane for the exact same price. That being sais I wasn't aware that stanley did a budget line and a better line. I own 7 or 8 Stanley's and was so disappointed to see the poor quality of the new one demonstrated. Needless to say I will be investing soon in a low angle Luban. The quality look impeccable. Cheers for your replies

[@tombez3638]

Apologies but this comparison is not adequate, you should compare at least stanley sweetheart No4 smoother -still not the same price but close enough. Stop comparing Audi A1 vs A8

[@willb3698]

18:01 - LOOK AT THE STATE OF THAT LEVER! Look at the casting. There's no point in blaming "Chinese manufacturing" Chinese manufacturing can be superb...this is STANLEY, and Stanley only. Terrible they should put themselves out of their own misery and stick to "FatMax". I am a saddened Englishman.

[@bougie86]

Ok, Timbecon is trying to promoted their brand by making others look bad. This is the comparison of a ~$300AUD price plane to the ~$129AUD in Bunnings, so reasonable, there are Stanley that are still made in UK or USA, pick the right fighter. Timbecon is just 10min from my place and I'm a woodworker by hobby, loved the store but now it's different. Not many original brands woodworking tool in the store. Even got advised that their "home brand" are better, Kreg, Sawstop, and lot of Japanese hand tools are just ranged second after their Chinese replica products. Don't get me wrong, China made great tools but not these......sad

[@johnybaskin]

Stanley owner, planner makers and designers want buyer to find them and nail them with new Stanley planes. The y want and ask for death!

[@bigkiv47]

WOuld be great if anything you just wrote actually made sense lol

[@zaneh6224]

ALL Stanley tools are rubbish compared to what they used to be, since they merged with Black & Decker in 2010 their tools went downhill not only in quality but in usability, reliability and design or should I say (poor design)

[@makenchips]

Dmthat because Black and Dercker product are worst than India products@ they absorb and I'm sure they are trying to suck the luve out of this to line. I dont buy B&D products. It's a shame they also are good at one time, they only have been counters there any more, who dont ever err not know how bvb to use there on tools.

[@makenchips]

Your compating 2 price class of hand planes. Sorry this is just a commercial for luban products. In a sense you comparing a Mercedes to a Volkswagen. What your saying is true about stanley big box entry level plane, vs a 250 dollar or more product. Good review but do you homework next time! You should watch some of Rob Cosman reviews! Surprized you didn't pick the Hp-12 from Bridgecity!

[@roybailey9554]

The new Stanley's are no where near as good as the old Stanley's plane , infact prewar Stanley plane's were the best after the war they went down hill, and now they are just cheap and nasty.

[@vChilem]

Thank you very much for your review. IMHO, chinese stanley is a crappy piece of sh*t, excuse my french. I bougth two others chinese tools: a mini hand plane and a spokeshave from tactix, both of them high quality tools. I bought too a very very old (as old as me) brazilian stanley number 6, pure quality.

[@choCOOLatte]

so bias, so this old man mentioned stanley plane, try to compare it Stanley BedRock No.4C or No.63 you'll see how is uninspiring generic garbage luban🤣