[jbay]

That could be part of it. But I think survivor bias generally gets much more credit as an explanation than it deserves, and I strongly doubt that older generations of tools would have been designed like modern tools even if, say, simulation software had been available then.

It could be just relentless pressure to reduce costs, after the people who knew why it should be done a certain way had all retired, and a customer base that changed into one that either didn't know how to recognize quality, or valued it less.

Maybe we can do without heat-treating the surface? Maybe just give a quick grind instead of hand scraping the ways? Maybe outsource the castings instead of doing them in-house using the process we'd honed over decades?

[deckard1]

If you dive into the history of Stanley's woodworking hand planes, you'll see a 140 year history of bamboozlement going on. A sort of tug-of-war between consumers valuing quality and Stanley cheapening out on designs. You have their subpar Definance line, their Handyman line, and probably others from them. They possibly sold under other names as well. Their main line also went under various changes through the years. They've been putting out junk hand planes since the 1940s and perhaps earlier.

A modern Lie-Nielsen is easily as good as the best Stanley planes.

Old tools are hit or miss. Sure, the design on a drill press hasn't changed in 50 years. But the newer model probably has less runout and a better motor. Bandsaws are the same. One old tool you could never pay me enough to use is an old table saw, or radial arm saw. I like my limbs, and the only saw worth paying money for right now is a SawStop. It's like asking someone if they want to drive a car without seat belts or airbags.