Beginner’s Guide to Buying your FIRST Hand Plane(s) - what to look for and what to avoid 

Fair point!

Millers Falls made a great plane! I’ll always be partial to Stanley but there’s no denying that they had some solid competition in the hand plane game

@@justplanefun I have a couple of Miller's Falls planes, several egg-beater drills, a bit brace and carving chisels from them and they're all great. I have two Craftsman planes and a set of lathe tools made by them and those are great too. Actually I have a Craftsman smoother (made by Miller's Falls) that's such a joy to use that I can even forgive it for having plastic handles.

Sounds interesting. I’d have to see pics to verify but it sure sounds like it could be Stanley made

Thanks! I’m glad it worked out as we hoped

I really appreciate you watching! Hope you got some helpful tips from the video. One of these days I should do a follow-up video for this one

I’m glad you liked it! Let me know how it goes when you go out hunting for a plane or 5

The “C72” in the bed makes me think it may be later. I’m used to seeing that kind of casting mark on planes from the 1940s and later. Feel free to email me some pics to jplanefun@gmail.com

Thanks for watching!

Thanks! I’m trying to offer something different from the many, many other hand tool RU-vid channels. I’m putting that parts spin on it!

@@justplanefun Maybe in the future You will want to expand into transition planes ,but that market is minimal however if You put together kits for building wooden planes that is maybe much larger market.Those are my thoughts maybe wrong ,but maybe worth a try.

That’s outstanding! I’m glad you found the video helpful. Let me know if you have any specific questions, maybe I can help. Be sure to check out some of my other videos if you haven’t already done so!

How much for a good #4 worker?#5 worker and #5 1/2 worker? Type 10 - 19 left me you said. things like matching blades don’t really matter to me.

Thank you! If you ever need any parts, you know where to look!

If you don't have the budget for a Veritas a modern Stanley Sweathart No.62 is a good starter. The one thing to be aware of in the low angle planes and all Veritas bench planes is you are deealing with a Noris style adjuster and not a Bailey style one. With regards to restorations apart from finishing widening the mouth as I ended up changing the iron I have a type 14 Stanley No.5½ type 14. Untill I finish widening the mouth it can only be used for smoothing operations rather than the full range of tasks that a jack plane does.

Thanks Bill!

Thanks for watching!

Thank you 🙏🏻

I think collectors sometimes lean toward corrugated soles solely because in some cases the Cs are less common - the No2c and the No5 1/4c are a couple of prime examples. For users, there seems to be a fairly even split. For lots of folks it’s an either or and they don’t care for the other camp

@@justplanefun I am not sure about collectors, but from what I have learned that the reason for them is that they are easier to slide across the work piece because there is less surface area in contact with the wood and has less friction. The reason most think that the solid surface is better is for things like edge work or something where the grooves could affect the direction of travel.

@@JoesStyle the myth of less surface area / less friction was mostly a marketing gimmick by Stanley to sell more hand planes. They are easier to flatten though, for the folks who are into lapping a sole until it’s flat flat

Great Neck isn’t typically a good name in the hand plane world, at least not from what I’ve seen 😬

It’s definitely 100% a personal preference. A corrugated sole is easier to to flatten (if you’re into that kind of thing) but the corrugations tend to get gummed up with shavings, especially if you use wax. Smooth soles are just soles that didn’t get finished at the factory 😅 I personally prefer a corrugated sole but that’s “solely” because that’s what I started with.

2-3 years ago I would have been more critical of the Cordovans but I’ve since come to realize that they’re not that bad. Some folks make like em better, on account of their weight (some folks like using a heavy plane). If any of those items get to irritating you, some of them could be swapped out, such as the tote and steel adjuster. Like a lot of folks, I prefer what I already know, which is what I’m already comfortable with - the Stanley Baileys, Bedrocks, and Lie Nielsens

That’s outstanding that you’ve kept it and found a use for it. I had a similar experience with a lower-end block plane early on. Fortunately the blade was ridiculously sharp when I got it so I was able to really make some moves with it from the very beginning

I have a Kobalt block plane with an adjustable mouth. I flattened the bottom, sharpened the iron and adjusted the mouth. Still going strong. Great for small jobs.

I do most of my selling thru Facebook. I have a FB group called Just Plane Fun - the parts division. Are you in FB? Some stuff goes on eBay and I’ve been more active there lately. Are you looking for something in particular?

@@justplanefun I got on Facebook as a college freshman in 04-05, and got off about 3 years ago because I couldn’t understand how people could express completely Asinine opinions and think they were correct. I got into this plane mess as Covid started when I found my grandfather’s craftsman jack, I also needed to build a desk for my nephew, and decided to do those things the hard way. By hand. Returned the jack (Sargent) to service because my WWII SeaBee grandfather would’ve kicked my ass if he saw it in that condition, then glued up a table top. However many months later and I have several No5’s (type 15 and newer) a 5.5 (type 19 maybe?) a 4.5, a bunch of weird department label 3’s & 4’s and several Dunlaps made by millers falls. And some spoke shaves. Before this, I was a nut & bolt weld-it guy that hadn’t worked with plant cadavers since 8th grade shop class. Now look at me! Pining over a hand tractor that levels bumpy wood. I used to use wood under jack stands, now I shave it to relax after a shitty day. Worse than dope. Totally hooked. I am not always looking for something, but I am looking I want to check the right places. Thank you for getting back to me, and for the informative entertainment i.e. feeding the addiction. -Castor

Glad you’re enjoying them!

Shoot me some pics to jplanefun@gmail.com Sargent made Fulton planes. B casting marks are typically associated with what we now call Type 8 Stanley planes

You nailed it - that’s exactly what I’m trying to focus on - making the type of content I wish I had access to when I first started out

I think that’s how a lot of us start out. Just buying everything. Then we get a little culture and we stop buying Pextos at least. 😅

I’m a type 11 guy so my favorite Stanley No4 is the style with 3 patent dates behind the frog, a low knob, and a small brass adjuster. My favorite overall no4 is the bronze Lie Nielsen. It seems odd since I’m a vintage tool guy but it’s tough to beat a Lie Nielsen!

I have a series of type study videos here on my channel. Do they have any patent dates in the bed? If the frog makes contact with the sole at the leading edge, they’re probably somewhere between type 9 thru type 20. The type study breakdown videos go thru type 16 so far

The few Merit hand planes I’ve seen didn’t seem like they were especially high quality tools but I certainly haven’t seen them all. Feel free to email me pics to jplanefun@gmail.com I have several hand planes in stock and while I probably can’t sell a no5 for $40 (plus shipping), I can probably get down to around $50 (plus shipping) for one with hardwood handles.

@@justplanefun great thank you will do and look into that!

Where would I be able to see the planes you have in stock?

The frog adjustment screw was introduced on the type 10 Stanley Bailey planes (not type 11). They were on the bedrocks from the beginning, starting in 1898 (in the Stanley catalog around 1900). I have other videos on my channel that cover both

I hope that’s a good thing and that you found it helpful 🤓

If it has the dark blue paint inside the sole, it’s probably a type 20. They didn’t make all the changes at once. Does it have yellow paint in the background behind Stanley on the lever cap? It could be from the very beginning of what we now call the type 20s

@@justplanefun yes yellow infill . thank u for your help

so with the older parts its basically a type 19 exept the blue color

Feel free to shoot me pics of it - jplanefun@gmail.com

OK I'll do thank

It’s kind of a middle size - too big to be a jack plane and on the smaller size to serve as a jointer. I agree that they get a lot of hate but I can’t help but think that folks would rather pony up the extra $20-25 to get a no7 vs. “settling” for a No6. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Email me pics at jplanefun@gmail.com

That’s a fair point. Here’s my take on them - with beginners in mind: The Stanley Low Angle Jack planes (No62) are too expensive for a beginner. Worse yet, the mouth on them is too weak for regular use. One false move will turn a $300-$350 plane into a parts plane or a $200 shelf queen due to its blown out mouth. The next best option is a Lie Nielsen which can also be cost prohibitive for a beginner. The Low Angle Jack is a great plane but I think it’s further down on the list of planes to buy when first starting out.

@@justplanefun I believe if cost is a true belief, why not wooden planes. After watching several restorations of worn out Stanley planes or trying to make “Harbor Freight “ types work. Wooden block boxes planes usually require flattening the sole with sandpaper and using fine grade sandpaper to sharpen the blade. Yes junk is junk. Looking at the mouth of the plane, wedge and over all fit before purchase. Rob Cosman sharpening system will price many beginners out of the hobby. Enjoyed your video. Good luck

On the one hand, I appreciate you watching my video(s). On the other hand, I respectfully disagree with your points. There’s a reason why Lie Nielsen went with a thicker iron when they brought the design back. As did Wood River. And Ron Hock. The decision to produce thicker irons was based on research. If thinner irons were just as effective, that’s what we would still have as they’re cheaper to manufacture - both back then and now. Bedrocks were Stanley’s premium line of planes and not everyone could afford them, especially not apprentice and journeyman cabinet makers & other craftsmen who were using hand planes everyday at work.

@@justplanefun Looks like you have bought into the marketing hype that has been so pervasive over the last 40 years, and the RU-vid presenters' virtual reality. Research? Maybe marketing research. Could it be that Lee and WR needed a plane that didn't look like the cheap crap that was produced after '55? They needed something "new and improved", otherwise people would just buy a used quality Stanley (like most users today) instead of paying an exorbitant amount of money for something that didn't offer anything better than what Stanley had sold for years? And Hook- with the glut of used Stanley plane irons available, he also needed to push and used "chatter" as a problem to have something to sell. Again chatter is a cause of a poorly set plane, someone who doesn't know how to properly use one, or marketing hyperbole, nothing more. You can spend half a day sharpening a thick iron, not me, I'll take a regular Stanly iron and in less than 2 minutes I am back at it. If they had done real research, they would have figured out what millions of users/workers did and not produced the bedrock copy. I don't fault them for their planes or their thick irons- they are just fine and their marketing research provided them with a market to sell to. I just don't think everyone should be doing the marketing for them. It is marketing and not truth. I also don't buy the "they couldn't afford them", especially not the "apprentice and journeyman cabinet makers & other craftsmen" bit. Look who is buying quality tools today, it is "journeyman, cabinet makers & other craftsmen". The people who buy the cheap stuff today (as in times past) are the homeowners (and RU-vid presenters, unless they are sponsored). The quality stuff is at the job site and the cheap stuff is in the homeowner's garages, the same as in times past. I have spent my whole life at the job site and they are the ones buying the "good" stuff", if it really is the good stuff. If it is fluff, it doesn't get purchased. They also don't waste money on marketing hype. As in time past, tools have to give a good value. If something is all hype and expensive, the tradespeople don't buy it (like the bedrock). As for Bedrock- Stanley wanted to add to their line of tools, but for a variety of reasons it never caught on. The bedrock offered no real value, they were heavy (try using one all day, day in and day out) the frog adjustment gimmick made no difference, etc., and all that hype at a higher price. The tradespeople didn't buy it either, and not because they didn't have the money. Anyone who works with tools for a living knows a cheap tool is far more expensive than a quality tool. I am just a guy who learned from the generation who used hand tools daily and saw what planes were being used, YMMV.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DykzsRWznro.html I’d like to invite you to view another video (or set of videos) made by James Wright. Like you, he doesn’t place a lot of emphasis on the thickness of a plane iron. However, by his own research, with iron thickness weighted relatively low in the overall assessment criteria - Veritas, Lie Nielsen, and Woodriver irons took home the top 3 spots in overall quality. So while we can debate endlessly about whether chatter is a thing or not, research still shows that a thicker iron is superior to a thin one. As for the Bedrocks (and their contemporary replicas), it’s not just the frog adjustment that set them apart (even if many owners of these planes don’t use that feature regularly) - it’s also how the frog mates to the sole of the plane. The design is superior to other plane designs. As I mentioned in the video, Tom Lie Nielsen had many options to choose from when he decided to replicate a vintage hand plane - and he chose Bedrock because it was the best. You mentioned that contemporary craftsman are willing to spend the money to buy the best tools - I get that you’ve been doing this a long time and I’m sure you know plenty of woodworkers, so let me ask you this - how many of them use Lie Nielsen planes regularly? I’m asking because I know hundreds upon hundreds of woodworkers - professionals, hobbyists and everywhere in between, and a high percentage of them own and use a handful of (or a few dozen) Lie Nielsen planes (basically most anyone who can afford them is using LN planes - directly to your point about contemporary craftsmen being willing to spend money on the best tools they can find). I don’t know of anyone who has actually used a LN plane more than once and then had anything very negative to say about it’s performance.

@@justplanefun If you are basing all your information off of what James posts, you lost me- I saw those videos and the others James posted when they originally came out. There was little if anything of real value for the everyday hand plane user and the only thing he showed was he had a disk sharpener and a cool sharp tester. I could write a thesis on how his test was flawed and not applicable to how a plane iron is sharpened or used. I am amazed how you throw out the standard dogma or company line with phrases like "research still shows that a thicker iron is superior to a thin one", What research, Where, When, BY WHOM (the most important)? And "Bedrock because it was the best", best to whom? So you are telling me millions of actual users, who were actual craftsmen and not a bunch of privileged hobbyists or RU-vid presenters were all wrong, that somehow today we gained better skills, we are far smarter and more skilled than those who worked with hand planes 10 hours a day 6 days a week? Be careful my friend- your RU-vid reality is becoming your real reality. Just because it is on the internet doesn't mean it is true! I would suggest you refrain from using emphatic words like "the best" unless you have the years in the saddle to back it up. Relying on heresy is dangerous. Though you have invalid points and a feeble argument, this discussion does help the algorithm. I'm out.

@@bestbuilder1st I'm late to the fray and new to all of this. I own a surf form and a block plane I've had and used in simple rough work carpentry for years. That said I do a lot of reading and pondering. Lies come from limited experience and bias blindness. Back in the day, when Stanley came out with high carbon steel thin blades, it was superior to the low carbon thick blades used by tradesmen, who only possessed an Arkansas stone for maintaining the edge. If there was a soft stone wheel. they could maintain the bevel. If their was a wheel. Today, we would not believe how often they took their stone to the wheel. Stanley did not come to dominate the world market by disappointing products declining in quality, while increasing in price. That's why Bedrocks never took over the market and Veritas won't either, while maintaining their place. Times change. What is profitable changes. For us and the companies who serve us. "Bailey's claim to distinction was that he saw clearly the desirability of a thin steel cutter of uniform thickness, which could be kept in condition by honing only and whose original condition could therefore be more easily maintained." I'm pondering wood working. Thin bladed common planes, two sided Norton stones, and similar quality chisels will build my early benches, tools and fixture. Tools such as these were good enough for even the best European and American masters who considered their work, and their tools with the systems to support them. They mastered chatter and many other things with knowledge from whom they apprenticed and experience resulting in many wisdoms scarce then, and even scarcer today. I can't call myself an expert in anything. I am a student. Keep a cool tongue and a clear head, boys. God bless.😉🙃🙂🙏🙏🙏 h stones. ttps://ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vo9HtfcrPkE.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6rU_Bnf6NDY.html