Good review and thanks for the effort to produce it. As a pro woodworker, I agree with you, got with the older Stanleys. I doubt that new Stanley will last anywhere near as long as the other ones. I don't like the tote either.
I currently own 42 steel bodied smoothing planes, mostly English Stanley, some Record and a couple of Kunz. Thats not counting the various wood bodied planes, the shaves, drawknives and so on. I'd be very interested in a comparison between the English made Stanley and the US made ones.
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 your work explaining these features. I learned a great deal. Looking forward to getting a reference like you used for learning about all of mine.
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.
Re the new model: The scoop at the rear of the sides on the new model allows bigger hands to access the tote. Cast parts are common today. In everthing. The integral frog makes it easy to resurface the plate. I believe the cost involved in making the old style would be simply prohibitive. Is the blade steel a higher quality than the old ones?
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.
Very detailed review. I have a classic Sweetheart No 4 that I picked up for $59 in very good condition ( I don't' think the seller new what they had) and find that it is a very good plane. Sad to see the new version is nothing like the old. I think Stanley went way too cheap and didn't want to Compete with Wood River and the likes who make a decent modern version, nor go way up market to the Lie_Neilson quality.
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.
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.
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.
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
Good review and thanks for the effort to produce it. As a pro woodworker, I agree with you, got with the older Stanleys. I doubt that new Stanley will last anywhere near as long as the other ones. I don't like the tote either.
Brightened up my Sunday morning coffee and bud time. Great vid
Thank you very much for watching.
👍🐯👍 thanks for sharing, the iron plane series was a great education for me. Thanks again and cheers.
I currently own 42 steel bodied smoothing planes, mostly English Stanley, some Record and a couple of Kunz. Thats not counting the various wood bodied planes, the shaves, drawknives and so on. I'd be very interested in a comparison between the English made Stanley and the US made ones.
43:28 Really good information all around. Thanks so much!
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 your work explaining these features. I learned a great deal. Looking forward to getting a reference like you used for learning about all of mine.
One of the best most informative channels on you tube lots of informative content
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.
lots of great information as always. my favourite smoothers are a prelateral #3 and slightly later #4 1/2, type 6 iirc
Re the new model: The scoop at the rear of the sides on the new model allows bigger hands to access the tote. Cast parts are common today. In everthing. The integral frog makes it easy to resurface the plate. I believe the cost involved in making the old style would be simply prohibitive. Is the blade steel a higher quality than the old ones?
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.
Very detailed review. I have a classic Sweetheart No 4 that I picked up for $59 in very good condition ( I don't' think the seller new what they had) and find that it is a very good plane. Sad to see the new version is nothing like the old. I think Stanley went way too cheap and didn't want to Compete with Wood River and the likes who make a decent modern version, nor go way up market to the Lie_Neilson quality.
Nice video.
LOVE the front vice.
Of that, I want to know more. Video of just that please?
Great video, the next one should be making/modifying that cherry handle. It’s very cumbersome.
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.
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.
I have a few planers, and I can not figure out how to I.D. them and date
nice video
Thank you.
It explains why some of the modern makers are still using the old Stanley designs. Bailey was in my opinion brilliant.
Totally agree with the new number 4, i was disappointed in it. I only use it with my shooting board
I found a type 2 604, a type 1 no.4 and a type 2 or 3 603for $12 at an antique store
@@u.sonomabeach6528 that’s great. I hope you use them and get them working again.
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.