Just found you, and loving your content! I’m fairly new to hand tools - my first plane was a No 5 my Dad bought new in England in the 70s, and gave to me a few years ago, and I love it. My No 4 is a Type 19 (IIRC) Made in USA, and I don’t love it. The lateral is very finicky: not quite, not quite, too far. Takes me forever to get it set. Works great when it is, but don’t touch that lever! I may have to look for an older one…
Very interesting comparison. Got me thinking. My type six number four has a blade with the hole on top. I noticed the lever cap had the end of the spring rivet showing on top. Thanks for the video.
Great video, I have a lot of the old green Clifton stay set plane's as well as many old Stanley's from 1 through to 7 and many SS Record, and some Lie Nielsen including the no 1 , plane and veritas and many old wooden plane's, i am very impressed personally with my Clifton plane's they are absolutely amazing to use , but i can get almost any plane to work, but like you quite rightly said, its all about the time it takes, you have some absolutely amazing plane's ,I love your videos many thanks , Roy Bailey from old England lol best wishes.
I have a modern #62 and, like you, I hated the tote. I wound up tracing the side profile of an old tote on the side and reshaping the tote to match the older geometry. Big improvement. I agree about the lever cap, it feels cheesy. I am not a big fan of the Norris adjuster on this plane. Because of the low bed angle the lateral adjustment can not be loched and the penetration cannot be chaged on the fly. You have to lift the plane off the workpiece to adjust the depth of cut. Having said that, reshaping the tote made the plane an acceptable user. I also like the extra weight, especially when working end grain and on a shooting board.
Very good observations. Did you see my video about the 62? Very similar experience. It’s too bad, and this is my opinion, that they didn’t consult experienced woodworkers before releasing them.
Another excellent video, I was curious but not surprised to hear how the modern Stanley faired. Your stepping through the older generations was fascinating…thanks! The ill-effect of a slightly wrong angle on the tote is similar to new cheap disposable handsaws. Cheap modern handsaws don’t seem to thrust quite right, compared to good vintage saw that fits into your hand and pushes at just the right angle.
Chester, this was a very balanced and fair analysis, and I appreciate the level of detail. I concur with your conclusion about the new No. 4: I’ll stick with antique Stanley’s. It’s just interesting, if not ironic, to me that Stanley got so much right in their old planes but seem to get so much wrong in their 21st-century ones.
One has to be a bit careful to not bite too much when starting the cut due to the wide mouth. It could be advantageous if replacing the iron for a thicker after market one. The extra weight is not an asset, in my opinion.
![แฟนแนวใด๋ - ยูริ โตเกียวมิวสิค [OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4_XVMuhhbsU/mqdefault.jpg)
One of the best most informative channels on you tube lots of informative content
nice video
Thank you.
Brightened up my Sunday morning coffee and bud time. Great vid
Thank you very much for watching.
Nice video.
LOVE the front vice.
Of that, I want to know more. Video of just that please?
Just found you, and loving your content! I’m fairly new to hand tools - my first plane was a No 5 my Dad bought new in England in the 70s, and gave to me a few years ago, and I love it. My No 4 is a Type 19 (IIRC) Made in USA, and I don’t love it. The lateral is very finicky: not quite, not quite, too far. Takes me forever to get it set. Works great when it is, but don’t touch that lever! I may have to look for an older one…
👍🐯👍 thanks for sharing, the iron plane series was a great education for me. Thanks again and cheers.
lots of great information as always. my favourite smoothers are a prelateral #3 and slightly later #4 1/2, type 6 iirc
Very interesting comparison. Got me thinking. My type six number four has a blade with the hole on top. I noticed the lever cap had the end of the spring rivet showing on top. Thanks for the video.
Yes the early ones had the hole at the top.
Great video, I have a lot of the old green Clifton stay set plane's as well as many old Stanley's from 1 through to 7 and many SS Record, and some Lie Nielsen including the no 1 , plane and veritas and many old wooden plane's, i am very impressed personally with my Clifton plane's they are absolutely amazing to use , but i can get almost any plane to work, but like you quite rightly said, its all about the time it takes, you have some absolutely amazing plane's ,I love your videos many thanks , Roy Bailey from old England lol best wishes.
Many thanks for your comments and for watching. The Clifton’s are very nice planes. I agree with you.
Lots of good info, I have a No 4 type 4 which I use more than the type 11 or the 604 type 8, enjoyed the video.
Great video, the next one should be making/modifying that cherry handle. It’s very cumbersome.
I have a modern #62 and, like you, I hated the tote. I wound up tracing the side profile of an old tote on the side and reshaping the tote to match the older geometry. Big improvement. I agree about the lever cap, it feels cheesy. I am not a big fan of the Norris adjuster on this plane. Because of the low bed angle the lateral adjustment can not be loched and the penetration cannot be chaged on the fly. You have to lift the plane off the workpiece to adjust the depth of cut. Having said that, reshaping the tote made the plane an acceptable user. I also like the extra weight, especially when working end grain and on a shooting board.
Very good observations. Did you see my video about the 62? Very similar experience. It’s too bad, and this is my opinion, that they didn’t consult experienced woodworkers before releasing them.
Another excellent video, I was curious but not surprised to hear how the modern Stanley faired. Your stepping through the older generations was fascinating…thanks!
The ill-effect of a slightly wrong angle on the tote is similar to new cheap disposable handsaws. Cheap modern handsaws don’t seem to thrust quite right, compared to good vintage saw that fits into your hand and pushes at just the right angle.
Thank you for watching and I agree about the saws
Chester, this was a very balanced and fair analysis, and I appreciate the level of detail. I concur with your conclusion about the new No. 4: I’ll stick with antique Stanley’s. It’s just interesting, if not ironic, to me that Stanley got so much right in their old planes but seem to get so much wrong in their 21st-century ones.
Totally agree with the new number 4, i was disappointed in it. I only use it with my shooting board
The Bailey pattern is still in production. They're made in Mexico. It's a good plane and should be included in comparisons too.
If I had one , I would have included it. I assume you mean Bailey’s patent? How would I find that?
Polymer handles. Hmmm. I see Rockler sells them. $79
One has to be a bit careful to not bite too much when starting the cut due to the wide mouth. It could be advantageous if replacing the iron for a thicker after market one.
The extra weight is not an asset, in my opinion.