A thread on Woodnet about how "restored" a restored plane should be seems to be hotting up nicely. Rather to my horror I find myself agreeing with Todd Hughes, which is a bit of a worry... The idea of making an old plane that's earnt its wrinkles look newer than an LN or Veritas just seems, well, wrong. You can see what I mean by looking at this page, with both restored "old" and new planes photographed by the same person. You may need tinted glasses to protect your eyes from the glare... As for stripping off the finish and refinishing with x, y or z regardless; why? Does it make it work any better? Of course all that doesn't really matter one jot; after they're all their tools and the usual run of Stanleys are hardly valuable. What really bothers me is the whole "strip it and blast it" mentality seems to be getting greater coverage than a more sensitive approach, and it's only a matter of time before someone who knows zip does it to something valuable. Oh well, I'll just have to hope I never hear about it. What the eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't grieve over.
"a more sensitive approach"....
ReplyDeleteAh, Alf-you are starting to sound a bit like a certain Mr Krenov there...
Was quite shocked when I looked at the guys plane collection-newer than new!!!! Whatever happened to patina?
I guess actually using them makes a bit of a difference, eh? ;)
Philly