Finally. I was gifted a ... well, a cheap Stanley 4 1/2 and was looking for exactly this guide. It actually seems doable, thank you for this. I'll be around.
My in-laws are Australian and every time I go over to visit, I always hit the hardware stores and bring back a few hand tools. You have a much better selection over there than we do in the States.
I also bought one of these planes about two years ago and with a couple of hours fettling, it is actually very good; better, in fact than a premium number 5 that I bought at the same time by another manufacturer. The new Stanley planes will never be what they were traditionally but they have the foundations to work well if the user is prepared to put in the time to get them there. Oh, I also changed to good quality aftermarket wooden handles (for about £10 the set), which is a definite recommendation! I know Paul Sellers and I think Rex Krueger have videos showing how to make your own wooden handle sets but for £10 ready made, just buy them!
It definitely gets the job done once correctly set up and fettled, the biggest thing is a sharp blade and a well fitted chip breaker. I agree Wooden handles definitely transform the feel of any handplane over plastic handles. Thanks for the comment.
@@AussieWoodshed I found the iron (blade) quite easy to correct but getting the chip breaker to marry with it took longer than expected. On the bright side, once it's done, it's done, for many years to come. It'll do me for the rest of my life, I'm sure.
UPDATE #2! I have now bought a bargain basement 'Faithfull Tools' #7 plane for just under £50 new; it has a serious flaw. Even when fully retracted, the blade still sticks out of the mouth by 1/16th of an inch or so - that will need sorting. Secondly (not so serious), the front of the mouth on the sole has some visible chips in it, which will need tidying up - but at the price is no surprise. Otherwise, everything else looks and feels to be at least decent, if not great, quality. It's not a problem, it's a challenge...and that's what I expected. It looks and feels like a #7 should; long, wide and heavy. The castings are actually good and true (except for the mouth chips). The components and fittings are as solid and accurate as would be expected at four times the price. Is it like a vintage Stanley? Probably as near as can be on the cheap - it's as good as a new Stanley #4, for different reasons. New premium #7's are typically expensive, as are ready-to-go quality vintage models. I've been weighing up this model for about two years before finally deciding to take the plunge and see what can be done with it; can I bring it up to a usable standard, even though I'll hardly ever use it? If so, then how much could beginners save by going down this route? Challenge number 1; should I just buy a replacement blade, which would incur more cost - or grind away for a while until it retracts? I'll try grinding away first! Challenge number 2; should I widen the mouth to clean up those chips and move the frog/blade assembly forward accordingly or just make sure the sole is flat? I'll just make sure the sole is flat (which it more or less is) because it's not a finishing plane. I reckon that from start to finish it will take the equivalent of one day to make this plane a decent quality tool; that includes everything to initialise it.
Sounds like some fun and games in the workshop with this hand plane. Thanks for the update on this plane, sounds like after a bit of work, it will be a decent plane. I have looked at these planes before also but never purchased one, i may look at getting one at some point. Thanks again.
UPDATE! I recently bought two vintage 'Made in England' Stanley planes; a #4 and a #4&half. I immediately compared the new and vintage #4's. There is very little between them except the vintage obviously came with wooden handles when it was new, unlike the plastic ones fitted to new #4's (Made in China? Not sure); simply refit with wooden handles, as mentioned in my previous comment. The most important difference was the width of the mouth, which is almost half the width on the vintage as it is on the new edition. The narrower mouth on the vintage is more suitable for fine shavings than the new model, which is considerably wider. So, the 'new' model #4 is having the iron (blade) edge radiused to become an ideal scrub plane, thereby taking advantage of it's wider mouth. As for the vintage #4&half, it's mouth is also narrower than the new #4, so it will be ideal for fine shaving harder - or more knotty - wood; the extra bulk and heft will help it to cut a little easier through more challenging timber stock.
Yes, i too have noticed that the mouth of the new Stanley Bailey no 4's is about twice as wide. I have converted a no5 falcon handplane that has a wider mouth with a radiused blade to perform heavy stock removal too. I think its a good option for anyone once they end up with a restored vintage plane or a newer mid range plane, to keep making use of the new stanley bailey plane. I will have to do a video on this exact topic. Thanks for sharing your experience and knowledge to help everyone out, much appreciated. PS. thanks for the video idea its on this list now.
@@AussieWoodshed I agree, the new Stanley does have it's place in the kit, not only as a reasonable beginner smoother but later on as a very serviceable scrub plane that doesn't cost the earth. I look forward to the video, keep up the good work!
I purchased the 12-004 about 4 years ago. Subsequent to that I acquired a Record no 5 which I have used extensively as it works wonderfully well but I thought now is about time I get the 12-004 going well. I stumbled on your video which was so thoroughly well put together that I became an instant fan of your channel. So thanks for the effort to inform others of how to go about turning that was ordinary to something worth possessing for real work. Have looked at doing the same to a Stanley no 5 from Total tools?
My Pleasure, glad you found the video useful. I was unaware Total Tools had the 12-005, but found it with a quick google, i will look into doing a video on this one when time and funds permit. BTW Beyond Tools has the 12-005 cheaper shorturl.at/HMOY3 here's the link if your interested. Thanks for the comment!
Well thanks for the video, so this is what Stanley, once the benchmark of good planes have sunk to, how very sad. I bought a Set of Faithfull hand planes over the last 3 year's, half the price of new Stanley's and with the same amount of work, are just as good as my 1950's "Made in England" Stanley's, which by the way, were made to the same standard as the USA Stanley's including their "rest period" of about one year after casting before machining.
Glad you enjoyed the video, sounds like i will have to try and get my hands on a faithfull handplane. I will definitely check them out, thanks for the recommendation.
Fantastic job, watching gave the confidence to fix my new hand plane. what type of sandpaper are you using to flatten the sole? I mean the grits and the type of the sandpaper
120 Grit is what i generally use to flatten the sole, some times followed up with 240 grit but not often. Any basic sand paper works, currently i have been using fabric backed sand paper as i got a good deal on it. I have also used wet and dry paper, so really any sand paper you can get your hands on will do the job. I have a video going into more depth in regards to flattening a hand plane sole found here if your interested ruclips.net/video/L7FKj6XUVNM/видео.html Hope this helps
Lovely video thank you for sharing this. I am too looking to buy this plane as I am approaching woodworking as a total beginner. Would you recommend a number 4 like this one as a first (and only, at least for a while) hand plane? I am looking to make small to medium size furniture/decoration pieces such as boxes and I doubt I would be doing much milling work to rough wood in the beginning but rather purchase square-edge wood to get into the craft. I saw many people recommending a number 5 low-angle plane, as a more versatile tool, but a number 4 seems more suitable for a small workshop in my flat. thanks!
Sorry for the late response. I think the no 4 is best for smaller items. I know lots of people recommend no. 5 low angle, but I've never had a need for a low angle hand-plane. I did this video ruclips.net/video/qL01PP36W2s/видео.html on choosing your first hand-plane a while back if your interested. But really either a no 4 or 5 would work well. The only real difference is the extra reference from the longer sole, but a good straight edge and regular checking negates this somewhat.
The gap I'm referring to will show as light between the blade and the chip breaker, you don't want to have any gap at all. If you have a gap usually it mean either the back of the blade isn't flat or the edge of the chip breaker hasn't been prepare square and flat. You want to be looking through the hump on the chip breaker to look for this. (Sorry if i wasn't clear enough in this video) I have another video just on fitting the chip breaker which might help you a little more : ruclips.net/video/-r0xvK5lbu0/видео.html Hope this helps
I used 120 Grit sandpaper sometimes followed up by 240 grit sandpaper to flatten the sole. I have a video on how i did this, the link is ruclips.net/video/L7FKj6XUVNM/видео.html
Absolutely no point mating the blade and the chip breaker off camera. Blade orientation is probably the most common head scratcher for a lot of amateur woodworkers and you’re not showing this clearly.
Well you clearly didn't watch the whole video as the blade assemble was put together in the video and not off camera. As for the blade orientation there is only one way the chip breaker can be oriented with the blade and that is the way you took it apart, the only thing not shown here was the chip breaker being 1-3 mm from the edge of the blade which should not be difficult to achieve. This video was also not a dedicated video on how to mate the chip breaker with the blade but a video to Fettling the new Stanley Bailey hand plane for use by flattening the surfaces, sharpening the blade and preparing the chip breaker. If you want a more dedicated video for this it can be found here ruclips.net/video/-r0xvK5lbu0/видео.html. Which is clearly listed in the video description below the video. Hope this helps
Actually, I bought one, and it is not good. It is totaly wrong builded and would spend more of human time to tix it. If I compare it with Pinie 2-48 C/P as it arrived, Pinie is like at the end of this video...
I agree these Stanley planes could be a lot better out of the box especially for their cost. I have not had the chance to see or use a Pinie hand plane and hope to some day.
I bought myself a Stanley because of this video. I followed it, and now I've got a very good plane. Thanks for this guide!
That's great news, glad it all worked out well.
Finally. I was gifted a ... well, a cheap Stanley 4 1/2 and was looking for exactly this guide. It actually seems doable, thank you for this. I'll be around.
Glad you liked the video and more importantly that it will help you out. Have fun preparing your stanley 4 1/2
My in-laws are Australian and every time I go over to visit, I always hit the hardware stores and bring back a few hand tools. You have a much better selection over there than we do in the States.
Thanks, interesting to know. Never been to the states.
That was tremendously helpful for setting up my first plane, thanks!
My pleasure, thanks for the comment
I like that attitude man
Good job
Thanks, Glad you liked it.
I also bought one of these planes about two years ago and with a couple of hours fettling, it is actually very good; better, in fact than a premium number 5 that I bought at the same time by another manufacturer. The new Stanley planes will never be what they were traditionally but they have the foundations to work well if the user is prepared to put in the time to get them there. Oh, I also changed to good quality aftermarket wooden handles (for about £10 the set), which is a definite recommendation! I know Paul Sellers and I think Rex Krueger have videos showing how to make your own wooden handle sets but for £10 ready made, just buy them!
It definitely gets the job done once correctly set up and fettled, the biggest thing is a sharp blade and a well fitted chip breaker. I agree Wooden handles definitely transform the feel of any handplane over plastic handles. Thanks for the comment.
@@AussieWoodshed I found the iron (blade) quite easy to correct but getting the chip breaker to marry with it took longer than expected. On the bright side, once it's done, it's done, for many years to come. It'll do me for the rest of my life, I'm sure.
I don't even do any wood working or anything and I love these vids! Haha
Thanks. Good to hear!
You should give it a shot , you might love it like I definitely did 🤷.
Nice explanations
Thanks, much appreciated
I only have the Made in England Stanley Planes, They do a great job and are a quality tools
That's great, thanks for sharing.
Thanks your infom 😁👍
thanks for watching
@@AussieWoodshed
Thank you 💖
UPDATE #2! I have now bought a bargain basement 'Faithfull Tools' #7 plane for just under £50 new; it has a serious flaw. Even when fully retracted, the blade still sticks out of the mouth by 1/16th of an inch or so - that will need sorting. Secondly (not so serious), the front of the mouth on the sole has some visible chips in it, which will need tidying up - but at the price is no surprise. Otherwise, everything else looks and feels to be at least decent, if not great, quality. It's not a problem, it's a challenge...and that's what I expected.
It looks and feels like a #7 should; long, wide and heavy. The castings are actually good and true (except for the mouth chips). The components and fittings are as solid and accurate as would be expected at four times the price. Is it like a vintage Stanley? Probably as near as can be on the cheap - it's as good as a new Stanley #4, for different reasons.
New premium #7's are typically expensive, as are ready-to-go quality vintage models. I've been weighing up this model for about two years before finally deciding to take the plunge and see what can be done with it; can I bring it up to a usable standard, even though I'll hardly ever use it? If so, then how much could beginners save by going down this route?
Challenge number 1; should I just buy a replacement blade, which would incur more cost - or grind away for a while until it retracts? I'll try grinding away first!
Challenge number 2; should I widen the mouth to clean up those chips and move the frog/blade assembly forward accordingly or just make sure the sole is flat? I'll just make sure the sole is flat (which it more or less is) because it's not a finishing plane.
I reckon that from start to finish it will take the equivalent of one day to make this plane a decent quality tool; that includes everything to initialise it.
Sounds like some fun and games in the workshop with this hand plane. Thanks for the update on this plane, sounds like after a bit of work, it will be a decent plane. I have looked at these planes before also but never purchased one, i may look at getting one at some point. Thanks again.
UPDATE! I recently bought two vintage 'Made in England' Stanley planes; a #4 and a #4&half. I immediately compared the new and vintage #4's. There is very little between them except the vintage obviously came with wooden handles when it was new, unlike the plastic ones fitted to new #4's (Made in China? Not sure); simply refit with wooden handles, as mentioned in my previous comment. The most important difference was the width of the mouth, which is almost half the width on the vintage as it is on the new edition. The narrower mouth on the vintage is more suitable for fine shavings than the new model, which is considerably wider. So, the 'new' model #4 is having the iron (blade) edge radiused to become an ideal scrub plane, thereby taking advantage of it's wider mouth. As for the vintage #4&half, it's mouth is also narrower than the new #4, so it will be ideal for fine shaving harder - or more knotty - wood; the extra bulk and heft will help it to cut a little easier through more challenging timber stock.
Yes, i too have noticed that the mouth of the new Stanley Bailey no 4's is about twice as wide. I have converted a no5 falcon handplane that has a wider mouth with a radiused blade to perform heavy stock removal too. I think its a good option for anyone once they end up with a restored vintage plane or a newer mid range plane, to keep making use of the new stanley bailey plane.
I will have to do a video on this exact topic. Thanks for sharing your experience and knowledge to help everyone out, much appreciated.
PS. thanks for the video idea its on this list now.
@@AussieWoodshed I agree, the new Stanley does have it's place in the kit, not only as a reasonable beginner smoother but later on as a very serviceable scrub plane that doesn't cost the earth. I look forward to the video, keep up the good work!
I purchased the 12-004 about 4 years ago. Subsequent to that I acquired a Record no 5 which I have used extensively as it works wonderfully well but I thought now is about time I get the 12-004 going well. I stumbled on your video which was so thoroughly well put together that I became an instant fan of your channel.
So thanks for the effort to inform others of how to go about turning that was ordinary to something worth possessing for real work.
Have looked at doing the same to a Stanley no 5 from Total tools?
My Pleasure, glad you found the video useful.
I was unaware Total Tools had the 12-005, but found it with a quick google, i will look into doing a video on this one when time and funds permit. BTW Beyond Tools has the 12-005 cheaper shorturl.at/HMOY3 here's the link if your interested.
Thanks for the comment!
Kia Ora & Good Afternoon from Auckland, New Zealand …great video bro …
Thanks glad you enjoyed it
Well thanks for the video, so this is what Stanley, once the benchmark of good planes have sunk to, how very sad. I bought a Set of Faithfull hand planes over the last 3 year's, half the price of new Stanley's and with the same amount of work, are just as good as my 1950's "Made in England" Stanley's, which by the way, were made to the same standard as the USA Stanley's including their "rest period" of about one year after casting before machining.
Glad you enjoyed the video, sounds like i will have to try and get my hands on a faithfull handplane. I will definitely check them out, thanks for the recommendation.
Fantastic job, watching gave the confidence to fix my new hand plane.
what type of sandpaper are you using to flatten the sole?
I mean the grits and the type of the sandpaper
120 Grit is what i generally use to flatten the sole, some times followed up with 240 grit but not often. Any basic sand paper works, currently i have been using fabric backed sand paper as i got a good deal on it. I have also used wet and dry paper, so really any sand paper you can get your hands on will do the job. I have a video going into more depth in regards to flattening a hand plane sole found here if your interested ruclips.net/video/L7FKj6XUVNM/видео.html
Hope this helps
Plane good
it can definitely get the job done once prepare correctly
that seemed not much different to refurbishing an old one appart from any rust issues. Does it feel the same as an old one when you are using it?
It is very similar to a refurbishment. Other than the plastic handles it feel the same to me.
Güzel bir çalışmaydı 🙏🙏🇹🇷
Thanks 👍
I should have bought this instead of Groz which the defects cannot be corrected. 🤦♂️
These new Stanley Bailey planes are far from perfect, however they do get the job done. Thanks for sharing your experience with the Groz planes
Lovely video thank you for sharing this. I am too looking to buy this plane as I am approaching woodworking as a total beginner. Would you recommend a number 4 like this one as a first (and only, at least for a while) hand plane? I am looking to make small to medium size furniture/decoration pieces such as boxes and I doubt I would be doing much milling work to rough wood in the beginning but rather purchase square-edge wood to get into the craft. I saw many people recommending a number 5 low-angle plane, as a more versatile tool, but a number 4 seems more suitable for a small workshop in my flat. thanks!
Sorry for the late response. I think the no 4 is best for smaller items. I know lots of people recommend no. 5 low angle, but I've never had a need for a low angle hand-plane. I did this video ruclips.net/video/qL01PP36W2s/видео.html on choosing your first hand-plane a while back if your interested. But really either a no 4 or 5 would work well. The only real difference is the extra reference from the longer sole, but a good straight edge and regular checking negates this somewhat.
@@AussieWoodshed thanks so much for your reply and for you content, it’s really nicely made
You said look at the gap between the edge of the breaker and the blade.
How big should the gap be?
The gap I'm referring to will show as light between the blade and the chip breaker, you don't want to have any gap at all. If you have a gap usually it mean either the back of the blade isn't flat or the edge of the chip breaker hasn't been prepare square and flat.
You want to be looking through the hump on the chip breaker to look for this. (Sorry if i wasn't clear enough in this video)
I have another video just on fitting the chip breaker which might help you a little more : ruclips.net/video/-r0xvK5lbu0/видео.html
Hope this helps
What grit sandpaper did you use to flatten the sole?
I used 120 Grit sandpaper sometimes followed up by 240 grit sandpaper to flatten the sole. I have a video on how i did this, the link is ruclips.net/video/L7FKj6XUVNM/видео.html
@@AussieWoodshed thanks! Planning to do this on the weekend
Absolutely no point mating the blade and the chip breaker off camera. Blade orientation is probably the most common head scratcher for a lot of amateur woodworkers and you’re not showing this clearly.
Well you clearly didn't watch the whole video as the blade assemble was put together in the video and not off camera. As for the blade orientation there is only one way the chip breaker can be oriented with the blade and that is the way you took it apart, the only thing not shown here was the chip breaker being 1-3 mm from the edge of the blade which should not be difficult to achieve.
This video was also not a dedicated video on how to mate the chip breaker with the blade but a video to Fettling the new Stanley Bailey hand plane for use by flattening the surfaces, sharpening the blade and preparing the chip breaker.
If you want a more dedicated video for this it can be found here ruclips.net/video/-r0xvK5lbu0/видео.html. Which is clearly listed in the video description below the video.
Hope this helps
Actually, I bought one, and it is not good. It is totaly wrong builded and would spend more of human time to tix it. If I compare it with Pinie 2-48 C/P as it arrived, Pinie is like at the end of this video...
I agree these Stanley planes could be a lot better out of the box especially for their cost. I have not had the chance to see or use a Pinie hand plane and hope to some day.