I absolutely agree with ya on the new Sweetheart line, at least the bench planes. The blocks are IMHO not too shabby. A bit bulky for my liking but thats just a matter of personal taste. I've really come to like smallish block planes. My favorite go to plane is by far the little apron plane that LV puts out. Just a gem of a plane.
Can't comment on their shoulder planes, never used or held one but I wouldn't be surprised. Wood River shoulders have caught my eye of late. Looking like the ole Records...LV makes some sharp ones as well. I have several Japanese style wooden shoulders that are so/so quality at best, (aka cheapo's) BUT I have used quality Japanese shoulders and they were a pleasure to use.
I have some wooden planes that My father and grandfather made...
all special purpose... fixed T&G, concave and convex soles left over from wagon making days of different widths and radii...
what in the world do you nee a 2'' R bullnose plane for today...
same for a 2'' R roundover...
rip double chamfers and finish w/ the plane...
it was a wagon tongue for crying out loud....a spoke shave would have been just fine..
the ones I pushed till Hades froze over went to the wood pile decades ago...
I'll never make a wheel spoke or hub by hand again... ever...
for some reason my shoulders, shoulder blades, upper spine and arms just started to ache...
the Stanley 92 shoulder...
what I and others have had to say...
It's very painful to the heel of your hand to use....
blade is a PITA to adjust by .001"...
Casting is poorly cast/machined...
blade is wider than the body by way too much....
The slotted adjustment screws are chintzy...
The iron came poorly ground and dull...
Needs resharpening often.... very often...
I honestly believe that the iron isn't F2 steel or even close.
The iron takes some/lot of fiddling to get in and out...
Sides parallel to each other, but not at a right angles to base.
Sole cupped.
Mouth creeps during use.
QC sucks..........
this plane has pissed me off....
REVIEWS:
Ya made me go dig up some reviews.... (not at the sellers sites either)
ya'd thunk I wrote them....
the older 92's got good reviews.. the newest, not so good, some of them weren't as kind as I was...
and I honestly believe that the iron isn't A2 steel or even close... more like F2...
the sole isn't square to the sides... and is cupped...
*
Review: UK-Stanley No 92 Not Worth The Money Saved - by HorizontalMike @ LumberJocks.com ~ woodworking community
*
http://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/stanley-sweetheart-92-shoulder-plane-first-impressions-t40896.htm...
*
Sides parallel to each other, but not at a right angles to base. Off by nominally 1/3 degree. That can be "tuned" out with a lot of effort when lapping the base/sole.
Big problem, the blade was narrower than body/sole. Blade should be about 0.002" per side (0.004" total) wider than sole/body. Body was nominally 0.753". Blade was less than 0.749" wide. That is at least 0.008" shy of a rebate plane that has any chance of working. One can tune a plane (or tuna fish), but adding width to a blade is not in that category. Nor is lapping the body/sole down to below blade width--at least for a woodworker without a machine shop.
*
This review is from: Stanley 12-140 No.92 Shoulder and Chisel Plane (Tools & Home Improvement)
I went to the local Woodcraft looking for a rabbit plane and this was the best solution. The overall finish is good no machine marks blade square to the body so i bought it. Once i started using it the problem list grew fast. The lever cap is machined too lose and doesn't stay square to the body. You can not adjust the mouth opening for a light shaving. The other problem is that when you push the plane it opens the mouth. I was using it on a hardwood, but it still it should keep a tight mouth. The chisel part of the plane is just as bad. I am going to try to return. Unfortunately Stanley put the SW stamp on it and what once was a great trade mark in a era of great tools Stanley ruined it.
*
I own the smoothing and jack planes that are part of this new series of Sweetheart planes from stanley. Both the smoothing and jack planes were impressive right out of the box. They both required some work, honing of the blades and smoothing out the sole. They are not as 'refined' as my Lie Nielsen planes but then 'you get what you pay for'.
So when this shoulder plane became available I ordered it. On first impression it is a nice looking plane. But when picked up it was uncomfortable to hold (a bit of a problem for a 'hand' tool) This was due to the sharp edges all around the top and sides. The blade had some serious machining marks and the A2 steel took a LONG time to get those marks out and hone. It did not help that the back side of the blade was not flat. The sole was also not flat and took a REAL LONG time to flatten. The sharp top edges of the planes body had to be carefully relieved taking care not to scratch the front sides and back in the process.
The 92's new design does make it easier than the old model to set and adjust the blade. The heftier body and blade allows it cut very nicely.
For the money I think I would have preferred to pay extra for a Lie Nielsen or Veritas shoulder plane.
I was disappointed that this shoulder plane did not match the quality of its sibling smoother and jack planes.
*
The Stanley Sweetheart No. 92 shoulder plane feels reasonably good in the hand and has good length and heft, but out of the box it is far from usable, or at least that was the case with mine. The instruction sheet claims the iron is honed and ready for use out of the box, but that is seldom the case and was no different here. That was easily remedied by my WorkSharp grinder, however. The sole had a slight cupping just behind the mouth, but this also was fairly easy to flatten out. The big problem for me has been the plane's frog, which is cast as part of the body, not a separate adjustable piece. Removing the iron revealed that the frog was very poorly ground and skewed badly to the right, which explained why the plane would cut on the right side, but no amount of adjusting gave me any shavings off the left side. The body shape makes it impossible to simply grind the frog flat, so instead it took a considerable amount of time with a flat file to get things half way usable. Having just used the plane trimming several cherry tenons, I know I still have some work to do to get things where they ought to be. I know many would consider this a "cheap" plane, but for $80, I hoped for better workmanship. I would not recommend it unless you are prepared to spend a couple hours getting it in shape.
*
This plane was pretty much as others have stated. Looked nice out of the box, edges sharp. The body was .750 wide, blade was .748. The sides were parallel and 90 degrees to the sole. The sole was flat. The back side of the blade was easy to hone flat. As another has said the real problem was the frog. It was machined off. The blade cut a shaving about 1/4'' wide on the right side only. After setting it up and checking it with an indicator it was off .007 across the frog side to side. After setting it up on a surface grinder and grinding it to where it should have been out of the box, it works great. If you don't have access to a surface grinder there would be a lot of time involved trying to get it right. Should not be this way, hopefully quality control will take note.
