Initial impressions / review of the new Stanley Sweetheart No. 62

Questions about tools and jigs you want to buy/build/modify.
Post Reply
User avatar
Bryan Bear
Posts: 1382
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:05 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Initial impressions / review of the new Stanley Sweetheart No. 62

Post by Bryan Bear »

Stanly 62low res.JPG
For years I have been on the lookout for an old Stanley No. 62. Specifically I wanted it for preparing scarf joints to be glued. For whatever reason, I had a hard time using bench planes to clean up this joint but was very pleased with a 60 ½ block plane for this purpose. I did however; wish the block plane was longer and wider (like a bench plane). The 62 with the low angle, bevel up design and adjustable mouth but length of a jack seemed like it would be nice to have. The problem was that they were not made in the numbers that the 4s and 5s were. The few I did see for sale cost more than the L-N and Veritas versions. I am not really willing to spend that kind of money when I get satisfactory results with what I already have. Several years ago, Stanley started trying to break into the premium plane marked (once again produce quality hand planes) and the Sweetheart No. 62 was one of the offerings. I had been following the reviews which were mixed and came away with the impression that the original offerings had serious issues but they had much improved the effort in subsequent productions. I shied away because I was worried that I would end up with old stock and be disappointed. Recently, I revisited the idea of getting one of these and figured by now the chances are good that I would get a good one. I was pleased to see that they have come down in price too. I had a $50 amazon gift card my employer gave me and Stanley had a $10 off at checkout deal on amazon. That put the cost to me at $77 delivered so I took the plunge. I half expected to return it.

I have not had much of a chance to use it but I’ll share my thoughts. This is much cheaper than the other “premium” hand planes so I didn’t have the expectation that it would be perfect right out of the box like an L-N even; some of the reviews made that claim though. The short version is that I am not going to be sending this one back. . . My impression is that it is much better than a plane you would expect from the regular suspects in the modern era (useless) but not quite up to the standards of the big guys. There are things I like and things I don’t like so much but my complaints fall mostly outside of the performance category and IMHO justify the lower price compared to the premium makers.

Performance and Feel – I didn’t expect it to be perfect right out of the box (and it wasn’t) but that is how I tested it. I didn’t even hone the iron; what I got is what I used. I was able to peel nice thin shavings without further sharpening or set up. I wouldn’t call them angel farts, but nice translucent ribbons. I did not try any endgrain cuts because it didn’t occur to me to try until just now. I did use it on several different woods and liked the results (spruce, Honduran mahogany, sapale, osage orange, curly maple, curly white oak). The bed is stout and being a low angel bevel up plane, the frog is machined from the bed casting itself, this combined with the wonderfully thick blade produced no chatter to speak of. The bedding angle is 12 degrees with a 25 degree primary bevel giving a cutting angle of 37 degrees; a 30 degree secondary bevel will give 42 degrees (close to standard bench planes. Many people get a second iron and grind a 50 degree bevel resulting in a 62 degree cutting angle which should eliminate tear out in even the most difficult woods.

Being able to adjust the mouth instead of move the frog is very convenient. The Norris style depth/lateral adjustment mechanism is something I haven’t decided on yet. I think most of my reservations are born out of my inexperience with and and my concern about over tightening the lever cap (it doesn’t actually have a lever so I suppose I should call it something else) but more on that later. I hadn’t made the connection that you can’t advance the blade with you finger while planning to set the depth. That in and of itself is not a big deal to me and it probably should have been obvious. That said, I had to learn how much to turn to get the increased cut I wanted. There is a degree of backlash in this style adjuster and I don’t have a feel for it yet. I also think that the feel will be improved when I get used to tightening the lever cap properly. All that said, I was able to get it adjusted well enough without any annoyance, so things should only get better. The blade is nice and heavy and made from A2 steel. I don’t have any A2 blades but I think I will like it. I tend to put off sharpening a little too long, once I am doing it I don’t mind if it takes a while; A2 should fit in nicely with that. . . The tote is a bit too upright for my taste, I would prefer it to be swept further forward 5 degrees or so. It is also thicker and less refined than I would like. I’d much prefer the narrower (front to back) and more rounded (no flats on the side) shape of my 19th century Stanly tote. I suspect that I will just get used to this and won’t notice after a while. My biggest complaint would be the lever cap. It is aluminum and quite thin. I’m sure it is actually up to the task at hand, after all it shouldn’t really have that much stress on it, but it feels really cheap and fragile. I was afraid to over tighten it at first, so much so that twice I turned the plane over to sight the iron down the bed only to have the lever cap and blade slip loose and fall out. Part of me wants to make a new one from some African Blackwood scraps I have and add a nice inlay too.


Fit and Finish – Here is where it becomes obvious that this is not quite ready to run with the big boys. The machining is pretty good inasmuch as it appears to be pretty accurate where it counts, I have not yet checked to see just how flat the sole is because I always assume you will have to do some flattening. I will say that it appears to be very close. The adjustable mouth seats well but feels a little (for lack of a better description) gritty when adjusting compared to the adjustment on my 60 1/2. I am sure that some light file work will smooth that right up. This is the first time I have used a brand new plane, it is possible that the feel will get smoother with a little use. I do want to knock the corners from sole to sides down a little, they are pretty crisp and I could see them marring a surface with bad technique. The back side of the mouth is nice and straight and the bed angle looks to be ground accurately (a noted problem with the earlier offerings). Like the mouth closing, the adjustment for depth of cut and later movement don’t feel quite as smooth as I would like. Admittedly a large part of this is probably from my inexperience with the quirks of the Norris style adjuster.

The paint is okay but not great. It is definitely like the thick japanning you see on the vintage stuff. It seems a little thin. When I removed the tote, about half the bearing surface took the paint with it. It could be that the tote was screwed on while the paint was still soft or that I can expect the paint to chip off easily; only time will tell. The brass hardware is noticeably cheaper than what I am used to seeing on the old planes I have. Certainly up to the task but will probably not hold up as well over the next 100 years. Some of the brass bits had small dings scratches, it looks like they had all been rattling around in a drawer together, or, like they were on a plane that has actually been used (basically, not a big deal at all). The tote and knob are cherry and look nice. The knob on mine has a large blemish that looks like a burn mark on the top. Again, this is nothing to worry about but something that would not have come out of the L-N factory. The tote was well finished other than the shape I mentioned before, I have no complaints.

Overall my impression is that this plane is just about right for its price point. It is markedly cheaper that the fancy premium maker’s offerings with an expected reduction in quality. However, the decrease in quality is not as noticeable where it actually counts. Certainly it is difficult to produce tools that are flawless in function as well as looking like show pieces and still be low priced. It would seem that you get to pick 2 of the three. This offering picks the two I would have picked. I feel like I bought a Toyota instead of a Lexus. Further, this Toyota has features and quality not available on the Yugos you would buy from the big box stores.
PMoMC

Take care of your feet and your feet will take care of you.
Bob Hammond
Posts: 638
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: Initial impressions / review of the new Stanley Sweetheart No. 62

Post by Bob Hammond »

Hmm, I've thought about breaking my piggy bank and buying one of these. Thanks for the review, I think it's a fair assessment. After considering the mechanical aspects, I wouldn't worry too much about the 'fit & finish' part. My '86 Toyota p/u (aka the 'Burro') has shepherded several Fords, Chevies, & Dodgesto the junkyard, and on the outside it's ugly like me. Let's just say that the beauty is on the inside.

In my opinion, there is one particular aspect of the 62 design that is good if the plane was manufactured correctly, and terrible if it wasn't. It's about the casting and milling of the body, and specifically the perfection of grinding the bed of the blade. If that part of the casting is not ground properly to support the blade, then the blade will never seat properly and it will bend and wiggle. I think it would be very difficult to correct this problem in this design, and that would be a definite cause to return the item to the vendor.

Also, if I recall correctly, in the original design the body casting were somewhat fragile. If the plane was dropped then the body would fracture. But of course, here at the Museum of Unfinished Projects, that never happens.
User avatar
Bryan Bear
Posts: 1382
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:05 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Initial impressions / review of the new Stanley Sweetheart No. 62

Post by Bryan Bear »

To your point, that was the biggest factor in me avoiding this for so long. The early reviews said just that. The machining of the bed was not accurate. I think accurately machining that is somewhat difficult and it has to be right. The early ones would not adjust for a full width shaving without having to sharpen a skew to the blade. Other reviews said that the bed machining did not go far enough laterally to allow for full lateral adjustment. I think Stanley made efforts to improve this after the initial, unfavorable reviews. I got the impression that it was a matter of poor quality control at the factory. This is why I was expecting/willing to send it right back. Hopefully, the bad ones are out of circulation by now.

I have also read about the low bed angel making the back of the mouth fragile. I don't suppose there is much that can be done about that. I plan to not drop or abuse mine. I know the L-N and Veritas planes are made with ductile cast iron but can't remember if the Stanley is (I think it is but can't be 100% sure) that should go a long way towards preventing damage there.

edit: I just checked, it is indeed ductile cast iron
PMoMC

Take care of your feet and your feet will take care of you.
Todd Stock
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Initial impressions / review of the new Stanley Sweetheart No. 62

Post by Todd Stock »

I've had both the LN and Veritas versions of the #62, as well as LN's longer jointer - all work well, and do a fine job of surfacing end grain and softwoods, which is the role the plane was designed to perform. The reason why the plane became popular for general woodworking was the lack of middle and York pitch metal planes for working difficult grain, and the discovery that a set of extra blades ground and honed to higher angles would provide a lot of the benefits associated with higher frog angles. If sharpened at 25 degrees and honed at 27 (too fussy for me), the 39 degree bedding angle is nice for end grain and plane softwoods work, while honing at 30-35 degrees gets things nicely in the common pitch neighborhood of 45 degrees. Going a little steeper, and you get to middle and York numbers, although edge wear increases rapidly as honed angle increases past 30 degrees.

What a #62 does not do that well is shoot edges, which is the the usual sole bench plane in shop's primary duty for some luthiers and of no interest to others. For those that are looking for one bench plane (and the #62 an other LA smoothers, jacks, and jointers are LABU bench planes in present day use). the #62 with a spare blade or two gives good service...even the Stanley is going to be a step up from Chinese and Indian standard bench planes. For shooting; however, a #5 or #5-1/2 is going to have better registration on the shooting board and do a better job of producing a good joint.

One thing about the Stanley and the LN - the ergonomics are heads and shoulders beyond the Veritas, which seems to have the same grip that Gen 3 Glocks got...someone thought a 2x4 with the edges knocked off would work just fine, or so it seems. That said, the Stanley and the Veritas plane grips can be dramatically improved with a few minutes of work with rasp, cabinet file, scraper, and sandpaper (the Veritas is far worse than the Stanley, but both can be brought close to the perfection that is the LN's tote).

Finally...a hand plane will be in service for generations...saving a few bucks and putting up with the sort of issues I see on low-end planes just does not seem to be a good value proposition for most of us. If really constrained on dollars, I would buy a Stanley #5 or #605 made between the early 1900's and end of WWII and upgrade blade and chipbreaker (or just use as-is with a good job on tuning and sharpening...still going to handle 95% of luthiery woods just fine), rather than an economy version of the #62. Or just forego lattes for a few weeks and buy the LN or Veritas version (the LN is lighter and lacks some 'training wheel' features, but is a more comfortable tool to use than the Veritas, which has a heavier casting, lateral adjuster, and better blade squaring adjustability for novices).
Bob Hammond
Posts: 638
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: Initial impressions / review of the new Stanley Sweetheart No. 62

Post by Bob Hammond »

Todd, I agree with you about the mechanics of the 62 and the usefulness of additional blades, and of the importance of acquiring well-made handplanes whether new or old. You're preaching to the choir here. About for the fitting of a plane to one's hand, well, that's a matter of opinion. As a matter of fact, today I've thought about refitting a couple of old Stanleys with new knobs & totes.
Todd Stock
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Initial impressions / review of the new Stanley Sweetheart No. 62

Post by Todd Stock »

Agree - pretty easy for folks that carve necks on a routine basis to reshape a handle. I've heard that some folks like that 2 x4 grip on a Gen 3...
User avatar
Bryan Bear
Posts: 1382
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:05 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Initial impressions / review of the new Stanley Sweetheart No. 62

Post by Bryan Bear »

For about a year now, I have bee flirting with the idea of making all new matching totes for my planes out of osage. Then they would all be just how I wanted them. But since I don't have a lathe to turn matching knobs, I don't bother. . . but to Todd's point, I could easily reshape the ones I don't like.
PMoMC

Take care of your feet and your feet will take care of you.
User avatar
Bob Gramann
Posts: 1111
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:08 am
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Contact:

Re: Initial impressions / review of the new Stanley Sweetheart No. 62

Post by Bob Gramann »

Turn the knobs on your drill press? Rig some kind of center between the table and the knob so that the chuck can't work out.
Bob Hammond
Posts: 638
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: Initial impressions / review of the new Stanley Sweetheart No. 62

Post by Bob Hammond »

Bob, a drill press can certainly do that job, if a lathe isn't available.

Bryan, this shopmade apparatus would work for turning knobs and other items. it could be fun, too:

http://books.google.com/books?id=htgDAA ... &q&f=false
User avatar
Bryan Bear
Posts: 1382
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:05 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Initial impressions / review of the new Stanley Sweetheart No. 62

Post by Bryan Bear »

My drill press is a bench top model and I worry about pushing it too hard. I have a radial arm saw that sits in the corner enjoying the fact that it is too hard to get rid of now that I built the workbench close to the door. I have a drill chuck for it and sometimes turn strap buttons or other small things. I suppose I could turn knobs vertically by using a fixed point mounted to the table. I know Very little about turning; I'd need to figure out what tools I would need and if something hard like Osage would turn well at the fixed speed I would get from RAS.
PMoMC

Take care of your feet and your feet will take care of you.
User avatar
Bob Gramann
Posts: 1111
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:08 am
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Contact:

Re: Initial impressions / review of the new Stanley Sweetheart No. 62

Post by Bob Gramann »

I've turned Osage in small diameters (.75 inches) at about 850 rpm. I haven't, and probably won't, run the experiment at higher speeds. Osage is hard--if the chisel grabs, you know it. I have a cheap lathe. I wish I could run it slower than 350 rpm some times. I'd love to have a bigger one with a speed control, but I don't use it enough to justify the expense.
User avatar
Bryan Bear
Posts: 1382
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:05 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Initial impressions / review of the new Stanley Sweetheart No. 62

Post by Bryan Bear »

Thanks Bob.
PMoMC

Take care of your feet and your feet will take care of you.
Bob Hammond
Posts: 638
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: Initial impressions / review of the new Stanley Sweetheart No. 62

Post by Bob Hammond »

>>>Always use a faceshield and dustmask when turning.<<<

Generally, a conservative formula for the lower and upper speeds for turning a piece of wood of diameter 'D' is: lower RPM=5000/D and upper RPM=7000/D (many turners use 6000 & 9000 factors). For that shopmade faceplate lathe, a 1725 RPM motor would work just fine, but a 3450 RPM motor should do ok too for small work. To make turning easier, safer, and quicker, use your hand plane to shape the wood into a rough cylinder before turning. For sanding, the RPM should be set low, about 100-300 RPM (this can be done on the drill press). The paper will wear out quickly at higher speeds.

For more on the subject of turning: http://www.docgreenwoodturner.com/lathespeed.html

I don't think that I would use the RAS as a lathe without the proper parts. (Btw, if it's 1950s era DeWalt then it's probably a very good and useful machine.) As for using a drill press as a lathe, the spindle is not designed to take a lateral load, and the chucks are not either, but a small item turned with light touch might be ok.
User avatar
Bryan Bear
Posts: 1382
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:05 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Initial impressions / review of the new Stanley Sweetheart No. 62

Post by Bryan Bear »

More good info posted form a Bob. <g>
PMoMC

Take care of your feet and your feet will take care of you.
Jeff Lewis
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 10:19 am
Location: Way Out West

Re: Initial impressions / review of the new Stanley Sweetheart No. 62

Post by Jeff Lewis »

I went with the Veritas. I like the heft for larger work, and once you get used to the handle geometry it cuts very well. The handle is positioned to push the plane forward, not down like a smoother. Which might help on end grain? I usually end up filing the handles of my planes to fit anyway. (So far I haven't filed any pistol grips; I'm partial to the Ruger GP100 not the Glock.) I bought a higher angle blade for standard plaining tasks and am glad I did. The higher angle is much better on surfacing hardwoods with less tear out. The ability to swap blades is quite handy.

Also, I have the Stanley Sweetheart block plane with the aluminum cap; it works well but I may fill the cap with JB Weld or make a new cap iron from brass or some iron wood I have. Aluminum just seems cheap. The plane however is quite good, why Stanley went with an aluminum cap iron I dunno. Maybe to reduce weight for an already heavy block plane?

Anyway, good review. Thanks.
Arnt Rian
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:41 am
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Contact:

Re: Initial impressions / review of the new Stanley Sweetheart No. 62

Post by Arnt Rian »

I bought the LN 62 a few years ago, mostly out of curiosity since there's so much talk about them, and all the interest for the originals among hand plane enthusiasts. The LN sure is well made and pretty, but I have not found many uses for it in instrument making, that it does better than other planes. For example, I prefer my old 5 1/2 for jointing and thicknessing tops (and some backs), my 60 1/2 for several small tasks, my 93 for profiling the reinforcement strip and so on. The 62 is a super tool that I enjoy owning, sort of like my Spiers infill, I just wish I had more use for them, other than looking fancy in my tool chest. I remember reading somewhere that it should work well for truing up butcher blocks (all end grain), maybe I should look into that as a side business. ;-)
Bill Raymond
Posts: 369
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:37 pm
Location: Red Bluff California

Re: Initial impressions / review of the new Stanley Sweetheart No. 62

Post by Bill Raymond »

Darn you Bob Hammond. Everytime you post a link to one of those old Popular Mechanics magazines, I find myself having to scan them cover to cover looking for interesting articles. What didn't Rosario Capotosto think of and build?
Post Reply

Return to “Tools and Jigs”