A very well made and interesting video . I have two stanley no4 s..one is made in Australia bought used for $20 and in brand new condition. Today i got lucky and found a pre ww2 English stanley no4 with wooden knob and tote. It was actually working as found. The tote was broken and i have glued it..... I will however be making a new one from some sort of dense red hard wood from my collection of saved timber. Looking forward to your video on making one. Geoff from TAS
Excellent work. Using a thicker iron (blade) will definitely reduce the mouth opening (I never thought of that, to be honest, though after you've done it, it is obvious). You do some good stuff, fair play. Keep it up! To be honest, the plane, as it comes, is not a write off. For most people, it will do the job. It's only us lot, who are sticklers for what was and see the differences who find faults with what is on offer now. That will always be the case. I think I've mentioned before that I like the new Stanley 4 set up as a scrub plane, to take full advantage of that wide mouth. I can't think of anything cheaper with that quality to fill that space. Don't go out and spend more on a better plane for that purpose.
Thanks Pete I agree this plane does decent job as it comes. However setting the plane up as a scrub is definitely another good option. My main reason for this video was to open up even more options. For those that do full upgrade they can setup the old blade as a scrub, just switch the blade out when needed.
@@AussieWoodshed I just watched this video again and I agree that you have opened up more alternatives. For instance, I watched a Paul Sellers video where he bought one and sent it back without trying anything new with it; not what I expected, really. I'm not knocking Paul because he is a master - but I think he could have taken another look at it from outside the box - as you have done and I did by converting mine into an excellent scrub plane at no extra cost simply by adding the radius to the cutting edge. Furthermore, seeing and hearing that Jarrah being worked (which I have never had experience of), it reminds me of an exotic African hardwood (extremely hard) that we used way back in the 80's - very 'dry' and brittle. I remember, just out of interest at the time, trying to knock a nail into a scrap and there was no way it would go in - that stuff was like granite!
@@PeteLewisWoodwork Thanks Pete. I think too many people overlook the new Stanley Bailey's because countless people say they are useless without trying them for themselves. I think it's a shame and misguided to ignore them just because there are better options available although at a higher price tag. Especially when they function fine after some initial setup, which is why i was looking for ways to further improve them which the thicker blade assembly achieves. This was most noteable when doing really fine smoothing on tough hard woods in particular. This also frees up the original blade to turn it into a scrub or rough removal blade, have both options with 1 plane. That exotic woods sounds a lot like Jarrah. If you hit a nail into jarrah it will most likely split it without pre-drilling for it.
Very interesting and informative video. For decades I’ve almost exclusively used a Stanley block plane. I bought a number of second hand Stanley smoothing and jack planes a few years ago and spent an absolute eternity tuning them up. Rewarding and educational as it was, on my day job at least, I continued to use a power plane, my trusty block plane and sand paper when swinging doors and the like. However, last year I purchased a cheap low angle block plane, and then a Luban low angle block plane. Simply superb! That got me thinking about a low angle jack plane from the same manufacturer. Alas, for a long time they have been difficult to come by here in the UK, but I’m still determined to get my hands on one. Just wondering if it would make more sense to buy the Luban out right, rather than faff around with incremental improvements on an old or new Stanley.
Sorry or the late reply. As i have not used Luban hand plane and only their blades, i don't think I'm qualified to make the decision. The Luban hand planes do appear to be of decent quality but until i have one myself to test and check i can't say for sure. When i eventually get one i will do a review and comparison but for now i cant really give you an answer to this conundrum.
Best improvement on a new Stanley in 4 steps. Step 1. Source a Falcon or Falcon Pope plane on Gumtree. Step 2. Purchase the plane. Step 3. Remove plastic handles from Stanley. Step 4. Put metal parts of the Stanley out for recycling. All jokes aside, there were Australian toolmakers that were making better planes than Stanleys of the same vintage. 'The Village Woodworker" did a great comparison between Stanley and Falcon. Their cheap and vastly superior.
Great video. With the Aussie hardwoods cranky grain is normal grain much of the time. Have old English No 3 that I like and the Luban upgrade looks the Ducks Nuts. Have a couple other Lubans and they are fantastic. Am in VIC, where did you get the Luban chipbreaker? Thanks. NEVER MIND! Timbecon!
Very nice video on a very good topic for a lot of woodworkers. I bet some of us not located in Australia wonder where you obtain the Luban chipbreakers and Luban blades. Do you have a link?
Yes, i got from my local woodworking store, Timbecon - www.timbecon.com.au/4-smoothing-plane . Choose the Cap Iron or the blade from the drop down menu, that will give you them for the no 4. If you want the other size on that website, just select the plane size and they should be on the drop down menu too. Workshop Heaven - rebrand.ly/zp3q5iy also have all the spares under the name Quangsheng as i understand they are identical. I also understand that the woodriver planes are very similar but with a few changes suggested by Rob Cosman, the blades look identical to me but having not used them i cant say for sure. Hope this helps
I purchase mine from Timbecon, but they are a little hidden to find on the website. www.timbecon.com.au/4-smoothing-plane The link above is for the no 4 smoother, if you look there is a drop down box just below the name from there you can select the blade and chip breaker and lever cap for a no 4 51mm (2 in). If you look under #6 Fore plane they have 60mm (2 3/8 in) blades And lastly under the no 3 is the smaller blade 44.5mm (1 3/4 in) NOTE: they don't appear to have the replacement blade for a no 8 at 66mm Hope this helps
Hi there, I have a newish stanley no. 7 that I am planing to upgrade both the blade and chip breaker. I had been looking at the PMv11 veritas option that are specifically designed for stanley planes (2.5mm thick blade and 3.2mm chipbreaker). But they are 105 AUD and 74 AUD respectively. You used the luban blade (3.2mm) and chipbreaker (also 3.2mm) and everything fit? I see they are only 49 AUD and 29 AUD on Timbecon. Was the leaver cap screw long enough for that extra thickness? I've been worried that the mouth would be closed too much with that much extra thickness? What is the downside to the luban ones if they fit OK? Maybe blade and breaker preperation time? Thanks for the video!
Hi Dan, as i replaced both the Chip-breaker and the blade with the Luban ones i did not have an issue with the chip-breaker screw as it came with it, i believe the length of the chip-breaker screw would only be an issue if only the blade is replaced with a thicker one. I used a brand new Stanley Bailey Hand-plane in this video and the mouth was really wide (6.75mm), however a few of my older hand-planes this blade assembly would not fit. I too was worried when i first looked at the blade and chip-breaker that it might not fit. I took a bit of a gamble as i knew the mouth was really wide, and it did pay off and fit. I also looked at the Veritas blade and chip-breaker when getting the Luban and my local woodworking store did not have them in stock, and the price also made me look for cheaper options. I also wanted to see and show others if these cheaper blade would work (mainly in regards to the new hand-plane). However, if i had been looking for a replacement blade for my older hand-planes i would have looks for new original blades or got the Veritas ones. I cant compare the Veritas and Luban blade and chip-breaker as i have never used the Veritas ones. I believe the differences in price are likely where they are manufactured and imported from, the steel used and also the machining (The Veritas products are usually well made and require little work to get right). I did a video on preparing the Luban set here ua-cam.com/video/G4abmgRbmVo/v-deo.html. Every hand-plane is a little different so i cant guarantee the Luban set would fit. I have not filed the mouth on any of my hand planes and don't intend on doing so to get a blade and chip-breaker to fit. I hope this helps you out. If you have any more questions please let me know and i will try to help you out further.
I am conflicted about this. I think you solved a problem, but not because you figured out the issue, you've simply replaced a subsystem. The sharp resonance is good, but skipping is not. You actually DO want that sound when the blade is cutting effectively. I think this is not so much the case of cap iron weight or thickness, but probably the case of contact. I would check the contact between the cap iron to the blade; the lever cap to the cap iron, the top and bottom of the frog where the blade contacts. These new planes are so poorly made that I think the issue isn't the design itself, but the tolerances and warpage, especially when cinched. You have a frog adjuster, having a wide mouth isn't really an issue other than having shavings stuck behind the frog. My wide mouth and narrow mouth both cuts perfectly fine. You can use the cap iron to limit tare out assuming it's set correctly. Stanley blades have always been accused of being thin, but I've never noticed them being insufficient. Whether they are 1910 or 2010, the steel is fine. The issue has always been setup. To be honest, toss these garbage new planes and buy a vintage one for 1/2 the price that works far better.
The main reason for using this plane is that they are available in more countries than vintage planes are available, and in a lot of countries around the world are cheaper than buying a vintage hand plane. When it comes to replacement Stanley Blades here in Australia the new Stanley blades are hard to get and are almost the same price or more expensive than the newer blades. I have also had these Stanley blades come twisted which is hard to remove. Yes, i agree the Stanley blades works fine and i use them regularly, i have a full video where i setup the new Stanley Bailey hand plane and prepare it including flattening the frog. There is some adjustment in the frog, however the mouth is wider (at least on the ones i have) than the distance you can move the frog to counter this. Replacing the blade closes this gap up, and does remove some of the tear out and vibration that occurs due to the wider mouth. Although a correctly set original chip breaker can help to limit tear out the main function that limited tear out in a hand plane is a tight mouth and then wood fibers are held ahead of the blade to prevent lifting. This is an upgrade that can be done by someone who has this plane and wants to work on more figured woods and not get tear out. If done the original blade can be easily converted into a Scrub/Rough removal blade by adding an aggressive camber and keep the replacement new blade for smoothing applications, making this plane one that can do everything with little time and knowledge needed.
@@AussieWoodshed I always feel like these aftermarket blades "glide" less well. I am not sure if it's the right word. They don't glide along with a kshhhhhh high pitched sound. Instead, they do a quiet non resonant kind of cut. I think both can work well. I will admit that a lot of casting on newer planes are poorly made and they are not conducive to adjustments.
A very well made and interesting video . I have two stanley no4 s..one is made in Australia bought used for $20 and in brand new condition. Today i got lucky and found a pre ww2 English stanley no4 with wooden knob and tote. It was actually working as found. The tote was broken and i have glued it..... I will however be making a new one from some sort of dense red hard wood from my collection of saved timber.
Looking forward to your video on making one.
Geoff from TAS
@@geoffb108 Thanks, sounds like you found a great hand plane in that pre-ww2 no.4
Excellent work. Using a thicker iron (blade) will definitely reduce the mouth opening (I never thought of that, to be honest, though after you've done it, it is obvious). You do some good stuff, fair play. Keep it up!
To be honest, the plane, as it comes, is not a write off. For most people, it will do the job.
It's only us lot, who are sticklers for what was and see the differences who find faults with what is on offer now.
That will always be the case.
I think I've mentioned before that I like the new Stanley 4 set up as a scrub plane, to take full advantage of that wide mouth. I can't think of anything cheaper with that quality to fill that space. Don't go out and spend more on a better plane for that purpose.
Thanks Pete I agree this plane does decent job as it comes. However setting the plane up as a scrub is definitely another good option.
My main reason for this video was to open up even more options. For those that do full upgrade they can setup the old blade as a scrub, just switch the blade out when needed.
@@AussieWoodshed I just watched this video again and I agree that you have opened up more alternatives. For instance, I watched a Paul Sellers video where he bought one and sent it back without trying anything new with it; not what I expected, really. I'm not knocking Paul because he is a master - but I think he could have taken another look at it from outside the box - as you have done and I did by converting mine into an excellent scrub plane at no extra cost simply by adding the radius to the cutting edge.
Furthermore, seeing and hearing that Jarrah being worked (which I have never had experience of), it reminds me of an exotic African hardwood (extremely hard) that we used way back in the 80's - very 'dry' and brittle. I remember, just out of interest at the time, trying to knock a nail into a scrap and there was no way it would go in - that stuff was like granite!
@@PeteLewisWoodwork Thanks Pete. I think too many people overlook the new Stanley Bailey's because countless people say they are useless without trying them for themselves. I think it's a shame and misguided to ignore them just because there are better options available although at a higher price tag. Especially when they function fine after some initial setup, which is why i was looking for ways to further improve them which the thicker blade assembly achieves.
This was most noteable when doing really fine smoothing on tough hard woods in particular. This also frees up the original blade to turn it into a scrub or rough removal blade, have both options with 1 plane.
That exotic woods sounds a lot like Jarrah. If you hit a nail into jarrah it will most likely split it without pre-drilling for it.
Thank you thank you I couldn't find vintage ones, I learn new things here.
My pleasure, glad this video was useful for you.
Very interesting and informative video. For decades I’ve almost exclusively used a Stanley block plane. I bought a number of second hand Stanley smoothing and jack planes a few years ago and spent an absolute eternity tuning them up. Rewarding and educational as it was, on my day job at least, I continued to use a power plane, my trusty block plane and sand paper when swinging doors and the like. However, last year I purchased a cheap low angle block plane, and then a Luban low angle block plane. Simply superb! That got me thinking about a low angle jack plane from the same manufacturer. Alas, for a long time they have been difficult to come by here in the UK, but I’m still determined to get my hands on one.
Just wondering if it would make more sense to buy the Luban out right, rather than faff around with incremental improvements on an old or new Stanley.
Sorry or the late reply. As i have not used Luban hand plane and only their blades, i don't think I'm qualified to make the decision. The Luban hand planes do appear to be of decent quality but until i have one myself to test and check i can't say for sure. When i eventually get one i will do a review and comparison but for now i cant really give you an answer to this conundrum.
A very thought provoking video ; especially with a couple of additional Record/Stanley no5 I have; one being Stanley G series I picked up cheaply
Im sure you'll have those planes all working perfectly in no time at all
Thank you Sir.🎉
@@DraganIlich-r1s Thanks for watching
Best improvement on a new Stanley in 4 steps. Step 1. Source a Falcon or Falcon Pope plane on Gumtree. Step 2. Purchase the plane. Step 3. Remove plastic handles from Stanley. Step 4. Put metal parts of the Stanley out for recycling. All jokes aside, there were Australian toolmakers that were making better planes than Stanleys of the same vintage. 'The Village Woodworker" did a great comparison between Stanley and Falcon. Their cheap and vastly superior.
Thanjs for sharing, definitely another way of doing it. I'll check that comparison out.
Great video. With the Aussie hardwoods cranky grain is normal grain much of the time. Have old English No 3 that I like and the Luban upgrade looks the Ducks Nuts. Have a couple other Lubans and they are fantastic. Am in VIC, where did you get the Luban chipbreaker? Thanks. NEVER MIND! Timbecon!
Glad you liked it. Yeah all the Aussie hard woods seem to have cranky grain. Thanks for the comment
Very nice video on a very good topic for a lot of woodworkers. I bet some of us not located in Australia wonder where you obtain the Luban chipbreakers and Luban blades. Do you have a link?
Yes, i got from my local woodworking store, Timbecon - www.timbecon.com.au/4-smoothing-plane . Choose the Cap Iron or the blade from the drop down menu, that will give you them for the no 4. If you want the other size on that website, just select the plane size and they should be on the drop down menu too. Workshop Heaven - rebrand.ly/zp3q5iy also have all the spares under the name Quangsheng as i understand they are identical. I also understand that the woodriver planes are very similar but with a few changes suggested by Rob Cosman, the blades look identical to me but having not used them i cant say for sure.
Hope this helps
hi mate in this video you talked about replacing the chip braker and blade with luban brand where did you get them from thank you
I purchase mine from Timbecon, but they are a little hidden to find on the website.
www.timbecon.com.au/4-smoothing-plane
The link above is for the no 4 smoother, if you look there is a drop down box just below the name from there you can select the blade and chip breaker and lever cap for a no 4 51mm (2 in).
If you look under #6 Fore plane they have 60mm (2 3/8 in) blades
And lastly under the no 3 is the smaller blade 44.5mm (1 3/4 in)
NOTE: they don't appear to have the replacement blade for a no 8 at 66mm
Hope this helps
Hi there,
I have a newish stanley no. 7 that I am planing to upgrade both the blade and chip breaker. I had been looking at the PMv11 veritas option that are specifically designed for stanley planes (2.5mm thick blade and 3.2mm chipbreaker). But they are 105 AUD and 74 AUD respectively.
You used the luban blade (3.2mm) and chipbreaker (also 3.2mm) and everything fit? I see they are only 49 AUD and 29 AUD on Timbecon. Was the leaver cap screw long enough for that extra thickness? I've been worried that the mouth would be closed too much with that much extra thickness? What is the downside to the luban ones if they fit OK? Maybe blade and breaker preperation time?
Thanks for the video!
Hi Dan, as i replaced both the Chip-breaker and the blade with the Luban ones i did not have an issue with the chip-breaker screw as it came with it, i believe the length of the chip-breaker screw would only be an issue if only the blade is replaced with a thicker one.
I used a brand new Stanley Bailey Hand-plane in this video and the mouth was really wide (6.75mm), however a few of my older hand-planes this blade assembly would not fit.
I too was worried when i first looked at the blade and chip-breaker that it might not fit. I took a bit of a gamble as i knew the mouth was really wide, and it did pay off and fit.
I also looked at the Veritas blade and chip-breaker when getting the Luban and my local woodworking store did not have them in stock, and the price also made me look for cheaper options. I also wanted to see and show others if these cheaper blade would work (mainly in regards to the new hand-plane). However, if i had been looking for a replacement blade for my older hand-planes i would have looks for new original blades or got the Veritas ones.
I cant compare the Veritas and Luban blade and chip-breaker as i have never used the Veritas ones. I believe the differences in price are likely where they are manufactured and imported from, the steel used and also the machining (The Veritas products are usually well made and require little work to get right). I did a video on preparing the Luban set here ua-cam.com/video/G4abmgRbmVo/v-deo.html.
Every hand-plane is a little different so i cant guarantee the Luban set would fit. I have not filed the mouth on any of my hand planes and don't intend on doing so to get a blade and chip-breaker to fit.
I hope this helps you out. If you have any more questions please let me know and i will try to help you out further.
Thanks, my no. 7 also has a 6.7mm mouth opening, so I might save some money and try the luban ones!
I am conflicted about this. I think you solved a problem, but not because you figured out the issue, you've simply replaced a subsystem. The sharp resonance is good, but skipping is not. You actually DO want that sound when the blade is cutting effectively. I think this is not so much the case of cap iron weight or thickness, but probably the case of contact. I would check the contact between the cap iron to the blade; the lever cap to the cap iron, the top and bottom of the frog where the blade contacts. These new planes are so poorly made that I think the issue isn't the design itself, but the tolerances and warpage, especially when cinched.
You have a frog adjuster, having a wide mouth isn't really an issue other than having shavings stuck behind the frog. My wide mouth and narrow mouth both cuts perfectly fine. You can use the cap iron to limit tare out assuming it's set correctly.
Stanley blades have always been accused of being thin, but I've never noticed them being insufficient. Whether they are 1910 or 2010, the steel is fine. The issue has always been setup.
To be honest, toss these garbage new planes and buy a vintage one for 1/2 the price that works far better.
The main reason for using this plane is that they are available in more countries than vintage planes are available, and in a lot of countries around the world are cheaper than buying a vintage hand plane. When it comes to replacement Stanley Blades here in Australia the new Stanley blades are hard to get and are almost the same price or more expensive than the newer blades. I have also had these Stanley blades come twisted which is hard to remove.
Yes, i agree the Stanley blades works fine and i use them regularly, i have a full video where i setup the new Stanley Bailey hand plane and prepare it including flattening the frog.
There is some adjustment in the frog, however the mouth is wider (at least on the ones i have) than the distance you can move the frog to counter this. Replacing the blade closes this gap up, and does remove some of the tear out and vibration that occurs due to the wider mouth.
Although a correctly set original chip breaker can help to limit tear out the main function that limited tear out in a hand plane is a tight mouth and then wood fibers are held ahead of the blade to prevent lifting. This is an upgrade that can be done by someone who has this plane and wants to work on more figured woods and not get tear out.
If done the original blade can be easily converted into a Scrub/Rough removal blade by adding an aggressive camber and keep the replacement new blade for smoothing applications, making this plane one that can do everything with little time and knowledge needed.
@@AussieWoodshed I always feel like these aftermarket blades "glide" less well. I am not sure if it's the right word. They don't glide along with a kshhhhhh high pitched sound. Instead, they do a quiet non resonant kind of cut. I think both can work well.
I will admit that a lot of casting on newer planes are poorly made and they are not conducive to adjustments.