# Plane advice please



## newt (14 May 2007)

Folks, this week I intend to treat myself to a top quality smoothing plane, my No 4 Stanley is ok but I would like to indulge myself. My choice is from the following, Clifton No 4, LN No 4 or the Veritas No 4. However I would appreciate any advice in going for a No 4.5. Of course there is the question of bevel up or the conventional bedrock system, my only experience of bevel up is with a veritas apron plane. I have read the reviews but I would much appreciate any comments of their qualities when in service. Thanks.


----------



## Chris Knight (14 May 2007)

newt,
I'll stick my neck out and say get the Veritas BU smoother. It copes with almost anything superbly and with no fuss, very easy to set up and use.


----------



## woodbloke (14 May 2007)

Newt - my money's on the LN No4 and after that the Clifton. Can't comment on the low angle BU things 'cos I like to put my forefinger on a bit of metal and there's no frog to rest it on...feels very odd, but then again it's probably just me :lol: - Rob


----------



## Paul Kierstead (14 May 2007)

I expect I am in a serious minority on this, but I find the 4.5 too wide. I've used mine a fair bit, and taking a very wide shaving is really hard work, even if it is a very light one; this makes control of pace and direct more difficult, and smoothing planes sometimes need to be manipulated around joinery or grain changes. Now you can camber the blade a little more and skew the plane to reduce the cut, but why bother with the wider plane in the first place then? Further more both can have undesirable effects; excessive camber creates a ripped effect, and skewing can reduce the effective cutting angle too much for some situations; for example, I was planing some poplar, and skewing resulted in tear-out, whereas not skewing was fine. Just something to think about.

As to brand, it is a pick-your-poison kind of deal.


----------



## pam niedermayer (14 May 2007)

I don't want to discourage buying LN/LV planes, both great companies; but how about a little interesting diversion instead? Why not try an ECE Primus reformed smoother? Granted, not the easiest mechanism with which to deal, but not horrible either; and it sure takes great shavings, leaves a smooth surface, second only to my Japanese smoothers. An even more interesting deviation would be an HNT Gordon smoother and/or try plane.

Pam


----------



## Paul Chapman (14 May 2007)

Hi Newt,

I really like my Clifton #4.5. It's quite heavy and really comfortable to use. Whether it's "better" than a #4 depends a bit on what work you do most, but I prefer it. Having said that, I recently bought a Clifton #3 - didn't really need it, but it's so nice (as are my Clifton #6 and #7  ).

Like Rob, I don't have any bevel-up smoothers so I can't comment on those.

Best advice really is to try before you buy and see how they feel in your hands.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul

PS I was in Salisbury today (popped in to see Rob) if I'd seen your post before I had left I'd have brought mine down for you to try.


----------



## DomValente (14 May 2007)

I'm with Rob and the LN, lovely plane.

Dom


----------



## Philly (14 May 2007)

Newt
All the planes you've shortlisted are great performers. It comes down to feel, pocket and personal preference.
You are very welcome to come by the workshop and try out mine - I have most on your list...  
Cheers
Philly


----------



## Lord Nibbo (14 May 2007)

Philly":1cudegpk said:


> I have most on your list...
> Cheers
> Philly



:shock: I don't believe you :^o :-#


----------



## engineer one (14 May 2007)

WARNING WARNING, DO NOT GO NEAR PHILLY'S WORKSHOP TO "TEST" :twisted: 

you will not escape without an overwhelming desire to open your wallet
to the vagaries of tool purchase :roll: 

actually the biggest worry about visiting philly's workshop is that you will feel whatever you buy is not enough, but you will certainly learn a great deal, and maybe make up your mind to buy something completely different
he has that effect :lol: :twisted: 

personally, i found the 41/2 lv a great piece of kit, but i like my bu's too :? 

paul :wink:


----------



## woodbloke (15 May 2007)

Philly wrote:


> I have most on your list...


......understatement :lol: - Rob


----------



## Anonymous (15 May 2007)

Newt

I can only commen on the planes I own and use and would have to say that the LN 4 1/2 is the best smoother without a doubt. The number 4 is a little too light and can be 'skittish' in my opinion.

Next, I would go with the wide LV BU smoother - superb and definitely better than the LN BU smoother in my experience. I am extremely impressed with this plane but still find I reach for the LN 4 1/2 far more often


----------



## Alf (15 May 2007)

waterhead37":38sixh9j said:


> I'll stick my neck out and say get the Veritas BU smoother. It copes with almost anything superbly and with no fuss, very easy to set up and use.


Which is what I'd say, if forced to give an opinion.



woodbloke":38sixh9j said:


> Can't comment on the low angle BU things 'cos I like to put my forefinger on a bit of metal and there's no frog to rest it on...feels very odd, but then again it's probably just me :lol: - Rob


Not just you, Rob. I had the same issue at first but hardly give it a thought now.



pam niedermayer":38sixh9j said:


> An even more interesting deviation would be an HNT Gordon smoother and/or try plane.


Or a Mujingfang? Surprisingly good for the lettuce; at least mine is.



Philly":38sixh9j said:


> Newt
> All the planes you've shortlisted are great performers. It comes down to feel, pocket and personal preference.
> You are very welcome to come by the workshop and try out mine - I have most on your list...


Philip speaks words of wisdom. They'll all be lovely. And if you can resist the urge to bankrupt yourself (maybe entrust your wallet and access to your bank account to a responsible non-woodworker before you go?) then jump on his offer to go and have your own bench test. That'll probably decide you much more readily than any number of other people's opinions.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## MIGNAL (15 May 2007)

> I don't want to discourage buying LN/LV planes, both great companies; but how about a little interesting diversion instead? Why not try an ECE Primus reformed smoother? Granted, not the easiest mechanism with which to deal, but not horrible either;



The horn handled smoother is the most comfortable type of plane I have used, which comes very high on my list of priorities in terms of plane choice. Pity that the ECE primus is such a disgusting proposition, with it's toffee apple coating and a blade mechanism that defies belief. if you want to spend the best part of the day sharpening a plane blade the ECE primus is prima.


----------



## newt (15 May 2007)

Alf,s review of the LV bevel up smooth plane looks the business but what about the LV low angle smooth plane which has a 2 " wide but thinner blade. In the Rutlands description it says the bed angle is the same 12 degrees and it comes with a 25 degree bevel giving an effective angle of 37 but there is also a high angle blade available but no angle is stated. However it can be used for shooting. Just wondered if anyone has this and has used it with the higher angled blade. It is also lighter which may not be a good thing. I am still biased towards the conventional smoother and I guess there is not much between the 3 brands. Thanks for your comments so far. I have a problem with my spine and all planning is painful I assume the effort to shift a given thickness of shaving will be the same although the low CofG of the LV may help.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (15 May 2007)

Well, let me count what I've got: LN #4 with HA frog, several vintage Stanley #4's & 3's, LV Bu smoother, Stanley #4-1/2 & Clifton #3. What can I say? I like tools!

As far as what I use and what I like: hands down the Clifton #3 is my favorite, followed by one of the vintage Stanley #4's. I've handled larger Cliftons (#4, #5-1/2), and one of these days, one of those will follow me home.

All three Cliftons just feel right to me (personal opinion and no connection). Some have mixed opinions about the "stay set" cap iron, but I like it (I hand hone). The iron takes an edge and retains it very, very well, actually better than my other "new" planes. The sole of the plane was excellent, with just a minor hollow behind the mouth.


----------



## Philly (15 May 2007)

Newt
I have the smaller LA smoother, too  
It cuts as well as the larger BU Smoother (indeed Derek C has tested these planes back to back and came to the same conclusion) but it does "feel" different. The larger plane has a lot more mass (obvious, I know) but feels very different. I've changed the front knob on mine to the same as the LA Jack and BUS.
You know you want a bench test........... :twisted: 
Philly


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (15 May 2007)

A few questions that need to be asked when choosing a smoother:

(1) What type of wood do you expect to use the plane on - straight grained and undemanding, or interlinked and complex grained?

For the former, you can use just about anything, and standard, 45 degree angles of attack will work as well as 60 degree, high cutting angled planes.

For the latter, only a high angle of attack is recommended. While this is not the only feature that decides how well a plane will smooth this type of wood, it is a dominant feature. 

(2) Do you prefer the feel of a high centre of effort (BD design), or that of a low centre of effort (BU design)?

(3) Are you interested in a wooden- or a metal bodies plane? If the former, is it essential that you have a mechanical blade adjuster (such as a Norris-type adjuster), or are you comfortable using, or learning to use, a mallet to set a blade?

Choosing the "best" smoother is often a meaningless task. If all the variables are held equal then the differences in performance may be down to the sharpness of a blade, the amount of blade projection, the size of the mouth, or the way the wind is blowing. That is not to say that all smoothers are equal. Far from it. Some are better suited to certain wood types. A lot depends on the skill of the user. It may, in the end, come down to "feel". 

On really hardwoods I much prefer a heavy plane. My favourite then is a Marcou S15.







OK, these cost a fortune, so inclusion here is just to make a point. 

Running a damn close second to the Marcou is the LV BUS. For its price it is phenomenal. It is large but not as massy as others. I have rehandled mine.






A smaller, more versatile version of the BUS is the LV LAS. This has less untimate control and stability as it has lower mass, but it provides greater feedback ("feel") and is also a superb plane on a shooting board. Again mine is rehandled.






Larger BD smoothers, such as the LN #4 1/2 are equally terrific planes. I would choose one with a high angle frog for the timber I plane, and they are now available in 45, 50 and 55 degrees. Early this year I received the bronze Anniversary model from my wife with the 50 degree frog. It performs superbly, but I must admit to preferring the BUS with regard feel.






Some of my favourite planes are my woodies. Among these the HNT Gordon Smoother is the one I grab first. It is low slung, high angle, and has a slippery slide along the wooden surface. 






These are all special planes, ones that anyone would be happy to own and use. None are perfect but all work well within their envelope. 

Happy decision-making!

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## woodbloke (15 May 2007)

Derek - a great precis of the different types, I had often wondered what the differences between the two low angles ones were and got myself a bit confused :?  ....now I know 'cos there's some pics to go with the descriptions, definitely now think Newt ought to go for the first one .....where's JK's plane, probably in it's own special category I hope - Rob


----------



## Alf (15 May 2007)

Derek, it appears you're trusting the BUS to one handle screw? Not worried?

Cheers, Alf


----------



## newt (15 May 2007)

Folks you are being very helpful with your comments and thanks Philly for the offer of a bench test. With regard to my back problem I wonder if the smaller LV LAS with the thinner 2" blade my require less effort than the larger version. However I would need the higher angle blade for normal work, so the cost (not a big issue) would work out similar. Keep your suggestions coming I have got a least another day to go before I buy. I was going to take a trip to Axminster but alas they do not stock the Veritas brand.


----------



## engineer one (15 May 2007)

newt, are you sure that your bench is the correct height also.
i am sure that many back problems are compounded by the work happening at too low a height, so that the stresses on your back are wrongly placed. 

i think for many people a hand work bench should be higher than a machine work bench, and almost the height of a kitchen unit seems to me to be a good place to start. with a better posture, you might find the back problem less complex.

paul :wink:


----------



## mr (15 May 2007)

With regards bench height and LV & LN planes, the rear handles of each are wildly different. It may be just me but the LV handle seems suited for use on a high bench and the LN feels happier on a low (Normal?) bench. The LV (LA jack) feels like it wants to be used at almost chest height to me. Im not suprised that Dereks 2 have "aftermarket" handles. I think, to someone with a sensitive back, the difference may be sufficient to warrant a bench drive if poss. 

cheers Mike


----------



## JesseM (15 May 2007)

Regarding the back pain. One thing I built which has turned out to be handy for other things as well is a smaller bench I lay on top of the real one. Its around 3 feet long, width ~10 inches, height ~4 inches made out of yellow pine. I had originally intended it as a small bench for handling strange planing situations like moldings, etc. But it has been useful for general planing and is at a pretty comfortable height. You can cut dog holes in it or make an adjustable stop or whatever your heart desires.

I'll add that I am 6'2" and my bench is kinda low for me, so you may wanna experiment with the height beforehand to see whats comfortable.


----------



## mr (15 May 2007)

JesseM":3hbe4nbd said:


> Regarding the back pain. One thing I built which has turned out to be handy for other things as well is a smaller bench I lay on top of the real one.


Bench on a bench stylee? 
http://www.cornishworkshop.co.uk/benchraiser.html
Cheers Mike


----------



## JesseM (15 May 2007)

mr":wcceym8b said:


> JesseM":wcceym8b said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding the back pain. One thing I built which has turned out to be handy for other things as well is a smaller bench I lay on top of the real one.
> ...


Similar, but not as high and mine is a bit longer. It is not fancy and was cranked out in an hour. Cut some dadoes in 2" stock to house the legs. Doing anything fine in SYP is an exercise in futility. The stuff is nasty, but strong.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 May 2007)

Alf wrote:


> Derek, it appears you're trusting the BUS to one handle screw? Not worried?



Alf, all is not what it seems. The handle does have one extenal screw but also has two bolts. The second bolt is inside the handle and prevents twisting. Owing to the curve of the tote, there was not enough meat there for the bolt to extend through and be tightened down with a screw. How well this arrangement works - well time will tell. So far it feels taut.

Mike wrote:


> With regards bench height and LV & LN planes, the rear handles of each are wildly different. It may be just me but the LV handle seems suited for use on a high bench and the LN feels happier on a low (Normal?) bench.



I discussed on this in one of my reviews. The heavier the plane, the less down force needed. A smoother such as the BUS requires less down force than the LAS. A higher bench seems to suit a heavy plane since all one has to do is push forward.

It is probaly not easily discernable in the pictures, but the tote for my LAS has been reconfigured to produce about 10% more down force than the original. The tote for my BUS is still quite upright (just more comfortable in my hand).

I do have a picture here, but it may not be any easier to recognise (I'm still experimenting with the idea).







Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Alf (16 May 2007)

Derek, ah, I had a feeling, hence the "apparently". I imagine boring the hole for a snug fit must have been a little testing. Be interested to know how it goes over time though.



engineer one":3td8cc20 said:


> i think for many people a hand work bench should be higher than a machine work bench


That's interesting, Paul; the received wisdom seems to be the exact opposite but I must admit I find a prefer a higher bench to that calculated by the recommended methods. Then you've got the difference between using the metal planes to the thick stocked wooden ones that naturally feel better at a lower height. And yet despite all this people still think they can build their "perfect" bench? :lol: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## engineer one (16 May 2007)

we are both right alf, there is no "perfect height", not least because none of us are exactly the same height.

percieved wisdom in metalworking was that you built the bench so that your metal vice was just below elbow height, since you did almost all of the hand work in the vice. however i find that the vice should be just above the middle of your elbow because then it is easier to ensure that you file flat because it is natural to move your arm in the arc that basically stays horizontal.

personally i would doubt that many of us amateurs will often plane too many pieces of wood that are more than 4 inches thick, so we should i guess aim for a height which makes that and 1-3 inch thick wood comfortable, and that is without thinking about the plane thickness itself.

when i returned to the "art" i believed like so many that the thing to do was to push the plane to cut whereas in fact i now know that it is better as derek says to let the plane do the work. it seems to me that when we start particularly with little proper training , we all want to take too thick a cut,
whereas it is more efficient and more effective to take smaller shavings. certainly my recent minimal experience shows that the smaller the shaving the more speedily i get to where i want, and more importantly i get there more accurately, which is really the point.

these days i have joint pains, particularly in the wrists and thus having these more in line with my arm is more comfortable, and thus more effective. it also makes it easier to move along a longer piece of wood. having finally finished the basics of my latest bench, i am presently making the holes for my veritas bench dogs. amazing how few spade bit holes my 12 volt dewalt will drill on each charge, through the 40mm beech top. lovely smell of burning wood :lol: :lol: 

with my arm span i can plane about 600 mm easily in one movement but 1200 requires me to move at least once. with my arms locked in the horizontal, i find it much easier to do the "chuck berry duck walk" ( shows how old i really am :roll: ) this bench is 900 high to the top of the table, which allows me to use both my metal planes and my wooden ones in my normal stock which tends to be up to 50mm thick.

not sure how much this helps in choosing the plane, but i looked and now i have the following lv no6 and 4 1/2, ln 62, 164, and a number 9, plus a clifton no 5. plus a number of wooden planes including a couple of coffin ones which i must learn to fettle properly. i am also fettling at last the record no 4 and my bailey 41/2 planes which are going to be interesting to compare.

paul :wink:


----------



## newt (16 May 2007)

Folks again very interesting and useful, a good example of how the forum can help. Derek, you have both the LV smoothers do you find the smaller one ok with perhaps less effort, and do you use the higher angle blade (angle not stated in Rutlands Cat) for normal routine smoothing. The bench height issue I will definitely look into, anything to reduce the pain. Interestingly I find sharpening the most painful process when standing, but sitting on a high stool with my back curved helps a lot. Many thanks again.


----------



## Alf (16 May 2007)

Newt, I suddenly wondered - what d'you have on the floor? Amazing how that can effect the back.

Btw, I would guess the high angle blade would be the 38° one; effective pitch 50°. Fwiw, I use that the majority of the time in my BUs but then I'm using hardwoods most of the time too.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 May 2007)

> do you find the smaller one ok with perhaps less effort, and do you use the higher angle blade (angle not stated in Rutlands Cat) for normal routine smoothing.



Hi Newt

The LAS is used with both a low- (for shooting board) and high cutting angle (all types of timber).

Here is an extract from my review of the BUS, written in 2005, in which I compare it with the LAS. Full review at http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/dCoh ... /index.asp

The background here is pertinent. I was sent the BUS by Lee Valley for feedback several months after I purchased the LAS. I really liked the LAS and, certainly at that time, I much preferred lighter, smaller smoothers. In fact I found my larger smoothers, such as the Stanley #4 1/2 too cumbersome and lacking in feedback. 

_*Is it true that bigger is better?*

It is time to compare the BUS with the LAS.

I recall when the BUS arrived and I removed it from its box. Compared to the LAS it looked squat and ungainly. And heavy. Did I mention it felt much heavier than the LAS? Or that it had a thicker, more cumbersome handle? I was determined not to like this interloper.






Of course I had to try it out. I am only made of flesh and blood. So, with a freshly honed and carefully set blade in a minute mouth … take one Cherry board ……place the BUS down on the timber. It feels as squat as it looks – like a suction on a glass plate. It feels low. Mmmm…it “feels” lower than the LAS.

About a month ago I reviewed the LV Scrub plane and complained about the thickness of the rear tote. The BUS has the same rear tote. This time I barely noticed it.

A short aside about the rear tote…..

I have been using the BU Jointer for the past month. It is just a superb instrument and totally outperforms every jointer I have used to date. My head had really been with the BU Smoother review I am finishing, but the Jointer gave me pause for thought in regard to the rear totes. While I still find the centre of the tote too thick for my personal tastes, it had been less of an issue than with the LV Scrub. It occurred to me that I was also not so fussed with the tote when using the BU Smoother. The question was why? The answer may have a lot to do with the weight of these planes and the momentum they achieve compared to a lighter plane.

My workbench is moderately high - 35 ½ “ - compared to those of Frank Klausz at 33” (since Frank is 6’0” tall, this bench is clearly very low) and Ian Kirby at 34” (he is 5’9”, about an inch shorter than myself). (information available from The Workbench Book by Scott Landis). It was built many years ago and before I thought to dedicate it to handtool use. It occurred to me that the smaller and lighter planes (such as the LA Smoother) require more down force, and that the thinner totes permit me a tighter grip to control them. Perhaps higher benches are better suited to planes that require less downforce?

The second factor is the angle of the tote (according to my protractor, approximately 80° for the LV and 50° for the Stanley). The angles of the LAS and BUS are the same, but significantly more upright (vertical) than the Stanley. What is the effect of this? Once again it appeared to me that the Stanley tote was designed for a different bench height (and a different era of handplaning) than the LV. More downforce may have been applied to the Stanley because benches were lower. By contrast, the natural orientation of the LV seems to be that of forward, that is, in the horizontal, and this seems to be better suited to taller benches (modern benches designed for both hand- and power tools?).

What of the front knob? The mushroom knob of the BUS is very comfortable easy to hold. It reminds me a little of the low Stanley knobs of the Type 11 and earlier era. The front knob of the LAS is smaller and more akin to modern Stanley knobs. It is also comfortable. Why are knobs round? Probably because this permits them to be held at different angles. Why does the BUS have a larger knob that the LAS? Probably because it is heavier and requires extra leverage to lift at the end of a stroke. The knobs meet different needs in different circumstances. In my opinion they suit the planes they are on.

Back to the BUS and the Cherry board…. I push the plane…. It feels like a train on tracks….. It gains momentum and it seems as if nothing can stand in its path….. It feels quite effortless – quite a different sensation to both the LAS and HINT Gordon. The latter planes need to be pressed down onto the surface. The BUS just needs to be pushed forward – its weight provides all the needed pressure downward.

Now the LAS is capable of as superb a finish as the BUS. Its performance was measured on the Camphor. 

There is a difference, nonetheless. It is simply that with the BUS it is less effort to produce these results.

Compared to the LAS, what the BUS lacks in “feel” it makes up in control. With its sole waxed, it has all the speed that one could wish for and, in this situation, it did not feel heavy.

So which do I do prefer?

For the majority of the smoothing, especially that involving hardwoods, I will turn to the BUS. Does this mean that the LAS has been superseded? Definitely not - where boards are smaller, particularly where surfaces are narrower and feel is desired, then the LAS will come into its own and be preferred. Not only that, the LAS has a wide range of uses. For example, it is a superior plane on a shooting board. The BUS cannot be used on a shooting board. The owner of a BUS will have this option covered and be seeking this plane as an ultimate, dedicated smoother._

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## newt (16 May 2007)

Once again thanks, Alf I will look into covering the floor with something softer than concrete that just may help I have seen the material on your floor in some of your pictures. Derek thanks again for going to the trouble of giving me an in depth assessment so quickly especially with the time difference. It seems that the BUV with the higher mass requires less effort and that makes sense to me. One more thing all my sharpening diamond stones are 2" wide I assume that this would not be a problem when sharpening wider blades particularly to your very fine limits.


----------



## engineer one (16 May 2007)

newt, axminster do that composition mat which is supposed to cushion you.

extra thought about actually planing. which i know has been covered before but always useful to re-learn

i know that when you plane a cupped board on a machine, you do the cupped side first, but if the board is longer than your jointer, say number 7 or 8, how do you ensure that you get it flat and level when the convex side will rock? i understand a gauge line, but surely the convex side being planed first would offer advantages? :? 

paul :wink:


----------



## Paul Kierstead (16 May 2007)

engineer one":6qr1g0wd said:


> how do you ensure that you get it flat and level when the convex side will rock?



Wedge, clamp or very roughly take the convexity out first (good scrub or rough jack job). You can also target you planing to make up for the rocking, but it is a PITA.



> i understand a gauge line, but surely the convex side being planed first would offer advantages? :?



Hmmm....maybe, but I'd still prefer to start on the concave side, especially if it is bowed (i.e. along the length). Most of seem twisted as well anyway. Convexity can be a real bother to plane out, especially when the middle of the board will bow down, meaning you have to wedge in the middle of the board instead of the ends...


----------



## pam niedermayer (16 May 2007)

newt":xfdx8y4p said:


> ...Interestingly I find sharpening the most painful process when standing, but sitting on a high stool with my back curved helps a lot.



I assume you mean curved outward. If correct, that's precisely the wrong thing to do to your back, which needs to maintain what's called lordosis, or inward curve. Keeping this inward curve whenever sitting helps an enormous amount. If you also exercise (specific exercises plus walking, e.g.) to make/keep your back strong, you'll most likely have no more problems.

Pam


----------



## woodbloke (16 May 2007)

Bench height is crucial to efficient working. I agree that in a metalwork bench, the correct height should be when the horizontal forearm (when using a file say) is level with the top of the metalwork vice. 

Alan Peters recommends in his book that the bench height for woodworkers ought to be the individuals inside leg measurement :shock: plus about 75mm. In his book there is a pic of a worker in his shop using a standard Emir bench (I think) which has been jacked up on some blocks to get it to the correct height - Rob


----------



## Vormulac (17 May 2007)

I am in the process of fitting out my workshop and I have been trying to determine the ideal height for a workbench. The most common 'guides' seem to be either where your little finger meets your hand when your arm is hanging loosely at your side, or alternatively belt buckle height. Unfortunately I am 6'2" with arms like an orangutan, so there is a considerable discrepancy between these two 'ideals' for me! :lol: 
I've built a couple of workstations to roughly belt buckle height, and although I think they will be fine for maybe assembly or small work, I suspect they will be far too high for planing or sawing.


----------



## bugbear (17 May 2007)

woodbloke":3o1lgwmv said:


> Bench height is crucial to efficient working. I agree that in a metalwork bench, the correct height should be when the horizontal forearm (when using a file say) is level with the top of the metalwork vice.
> 
> Alan Peters recommends in his book that the bench height for woodworkers ought to be the individuals inside leg measurement :shock: plus about 75mm. In his book there is a pic of a worker in his shop using a standard Emir bench (I think) which has been jacked up on some blocks to get it to the correct height - Rob



Sadly, the ideal height varies with the task performed, which means all heights are a compromise.

Stock preparation by hand plane, and "bulk" sawing probably require the lowest benches, and fine work the highest.

So you need to factor in not only your height, but your work style.

BugBear (whose bench is too high for most things he does)


----------



## Lord Nibbo (17 May 2007)

Vormulac":130zdks6 said:


> I have been trying to determine the ideal height for a workbench. The most common 'guides' seem to be either where your little finger meets your hand when your arm is hanging loosely at your side, or alternatively belt buckle height. Unfortunately I am 6'2" with arms like an orangutan, so there is a considerable discrepancy between these two 'ideals' for me! :lol:



34" - 34 1/2" seems the average on any bought bench, I'm 6' and find 34" perfect for me. Do you have an old low bench you could experiment with, like putting blocks under the legs to raise it?


----------



## Vormulac (17 May 2007)

That's a good point yer Lordship, I should experiment with my nasty cheapo workmate clone for a while at different heights.

God, if I had another half a brain I'd be dangerous... 

Is that 34" the amazing bench of myth and legend presented in all it's glory in a different thread? It'd be worth digging out a trench in the workshop floor or wearing platform shoes to be able to work at that exquisite article!  

V.


----------



## newt (18 May 2007)

Well folks, yesterday I bought a LN no4 bronze. I nearly bought the Clifton. I an am real sucker for fine engineering it looked so dam good. Anyway got home read the instructions and it said you can use it from the box, so I did, and got a 1.5thou shaving on some Oak. I also bought a 10000 grit ceramic stone which I used after honing a 27 degree bevel as recommended the blade was at 25 out of the box. The back was as flat as I could measure and had a very high polish. Following the final polish on the ceramic and setting the mouth tight I managed consistent 3/4 thou shavings on a one inch wide piece of Oak. This is the first plane I have owned with zero backlash of the adjuster, I am sure there will be some with use. The sole seemed very flat I could not get a 1 thou feeler under the straight edge anywhere. Both sides were a right angle with the sole. It feels well balanced and the totes are just right for my hands. I got a free sock with the plane. It really is so nice it is a shame to use it but I will of course. All that I need to do now is pay for an MRI scan £400 and then an op cost unknown so I can use the plane perhaps pain free.


----------



## Paul Chapman (18 May 2007)

Sounds very nice, Newt. Enjoy it  

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## woodbloke (18 May 2007)

Newt - looking forward to seeing it (and having a play ) when Paul comes to Salisbury next week maybe - Rob


----------



## Paul Chapman (18 May 2007)

woodbloke":2vho47rb said:


> Newt - looking forward to seeing it (and having a play ) when Paul comes to Salisbury next week maybe - Rob



Sounds good \/ 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## woodbloke (18 May 2007)

Paul Chapman":3gi5qyn2 said:


> woodbloke":3gi5qyn2 said:
> 
> 
> > Newt - looking forward to seeing it (and having a play ) when Paul comes to Salisbury next week maybe - Rob
> ...



Looks like it could be a Mini-Midweek Bash :lol: - Rob


----------



## the_g_ster (29 May 2007)

Oh pants, I am only down the road in pompey and would have been curious to pop up.

Right now classichandtools is beckoning for a couple of planes, the force is strong.

G


----------

