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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
