| |
|
|
The return of
a collectible classic.
Does the user care?
|
|
The
Lie-Nielsen version of the Stanley No. 51 is superior in
every way possible, from its durability to its
performance in the cut. |
I have never been a fan of specialty planes or gizmos. I’d rather
use a No. 7 bench plane to square an edge than use a No. 95
edge-trimming plane or even a Stanley bench plane with an accessory
fence.
|
While the
Lie-Nielsen improved on the functional characteristics of
the Stanley model, little could be done about the appearance
of the tool. The tote and frog
still jut out at odd angles. |
|
Part of my preference has to do with my salary. As a writer (a
low-paying trade much like woodworking), my salary limits the tools
I can purchase.
Yes, I know that if you have been reading this
column for many years that it looks like I can afford lots of tools.
But many of those tools are either sold when I am done or returned
to the owners I borrowed them from.
So I don’t have a lot of money available for tools that don’t earn
their place in my tool chest.
And that’s why I (effortlessly) resisted buying the new Lie-Nielsen
No. 51 Chute Board plane.
I shoot my edges and ends with my jointer
plane, which has all of the mass I need to plow through tough end
grain. The No. 51 wasn’t even on my “when I win the lottery” list.
|
But the readers of my blog and web site had other ideas. They wanted
to know if the Lie-Nielsen version of this highly collectible
vintage plane was something that a user should consider. Or should
the Lie-Nielsen plane be something left to the 500 or so collectors
out there who couldn’t find a mint No. 51 from The Stanley Works.
I begrudgingly bought a Lie-Nielsen No. 51 for full price ($500 in
late 2010). Months later, I do not regret that purchase one single
bit. I won’t be selling the tool, returning the tool or even letting
my co-workers cast lustful gazes upon it. But I am working it to
death.
Compared to the Stanley
Last year I got to use a few vintage Stanley No. 51s that were
loaned to me by a house builder who swore by them. His 51s were set
up perfectly with no broken parts. He didn’t use them on a Stanley
No. 52 Chute Board. Instead, he built his own chute boards out of
shop scraps.
One of the nice
improvements with the Lie-Nielsen version of this tool is
that you can tighten up the mouth just like you would on a Bed Rock
plane.
This is handy on shooting boards designed for long-grain edges.
The vintage 51s were impressive. I liked using them more than using
a bench plane or even a Stanley No. 9 on the chute board.
The 51 is
easier to hold and guide – thanks to its cocked tote. Plus, you can
easily capture the tool into a track on your chute board to make it
impossible for the tool to drift out of the cut.
In other words, you can’t miss when you shoot with a No. 51. You
simply press the work against the sole of the tool in front of the
blade and thrust the tool forward. If the iron is sharp, it will
take a beautiful end-grain shaving. And the work will be clean and
square – a small miracle even with a powered chop saw.
The other huge
improvement Lie-Nielsen made to the Stanley model was in the frog.
The Lie-Nielsen frog is robust, adjustable and supports the blade
fully.
And while I was smitten by the vintage Stanley No. 51, it has its
problems. Some parts of the tool – especially the frog – are fragile
and frequently broken (one of the ones I borrowed had been brazed).
And the frog didn’t supply the complete support of the blade that
makes for a perfect cut.
|
