# LN No9 Mitre Plane



## Karl (4 Aug 2015)

Has this been discontinued??? Looks like it - not on Axi website or LN's own website. 

Wonder why? I know they brought out the 52(?), but that's handed - the No9 seemed much better value (the Rolls Royce of shooting planes as DC once called it :lol: )

Cheers

Karl


----------



## mouppe (4 Aug 2015)

Yes, discontinued. From Highland Woodworking's website:- 

"Lie-Nielsen has ceased manufacture of this plane, and we are now sold out. It has been replaced by the No. 51 Shoot Board Plane." 

http://www.highlandwoodworking.com/lie- ... plane.aspx


----------



## Mr_P (4 Aug 2015)

I've got one, mint in box possibly never used.

I'll deliver it personally for £325

pm me if your interested.


----------



## Karl (4 Aug 2015)

mouppe":122brt69 said:


> Yes, discontinued. From Highland Woodworking's website:-
> 
> "Lie-Nielsen has ceased manufacture of this plane, and we are now sold out. It has been replaced by the No. 51 Shoot Board Plane."
> 
> http://www.highlandwoodworking.com/lie- ... plane.aspx



Very convenient - replaced by a plane where you (may) need 2 (left and right handed mouldings).



Mr_P":122brt69 said:


> I've got one, mint in box possibly never used.
> 
> I'll deliver it personally for £325
> 
> pm me if your interested.



Thanks, but i'm not really in the market for one - I use my 62 for any small shooting jobs I do. 

Cheers

Karl


----------



## custard (4 Aug 2015)

That's a shame, I've tried both the 51 and the 9, for my purposes (and I appreciate your needs might be different) the 9 is far more useful. 

The 51 is great for larger sections, but you really need a dedicated shooting board with a track to get the most out of it, so it's not as versatile and the board becomes a heavy old lump to be lifting on and off your bench all the time. However, I'll use a dimension saw with a sliding table for larger stock, and a Morso for most mitres. So I'm mainly shooting veneer, where I might need a two metre long shooting board, or smaller cabinet components, where I want a simple, light shooting board that doesn't take up much bench space. Of course any block plane or bench plane will serve pretty well for these applications, but I find it's useful to have a dedicated shooting plane as the iron gets quickly worn but in only one area, which is inefficient in terms of bench plane sharpening. I realise I could make a ramped shooting board to equalise blade wear, but not for veneer work and even on a small scale the board is back to being a heavy old lump that's difficult to adjust.


----------



## Paul Chapman (4 Aug 2015)

I agree, it's a shame they've discontinued it. With its hot dog handle I find it probably the most comfortable plane to use on a shooting board - you could plane all day with it, without any discomfort





Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## CStanford (4 Aug 2015)

Seems ridiculous to discontinue them. All the R&D, design, tooling, etc. is already done. Just reduce production / raise price / make it a special order item from the factory only. They don't have to keep 10,000 of them in inventory. Makes no sense at all, especially for a small specialty company like L-N.


----------



## mouppe (4 Aug 2015)

I've been to Lie Nielsen. It's not a big facility and I think they had to make room for other items. They have rationalized many lines recently, from their saws to workbenches. Maybe it's something they'll reintroduce in the future of demand increases but perhaps current sales didn't justify its production?


----------



## Karl (4 Aug 2015)

CStanford":2st02u8h said:


> Seems ridiculous to discontinue them. All the R&D, design, tooling, etc. is already done. Just reduce production / raise price / make it a special order item from the factory only. They don't have to keep 10,000 of them in inventory. Makes no sense at all, especially for a small specialty company like L-N.



One can only assume it's been done in an attempt to push people toward the new plane.


----------



## custard (4 Aug 2015)

Karl":207z8voj said:


> One can only assume it's been done in an attempt to push people toward the new plane.



I'm not sure I would assume that. 

I've met some of the LN people and they struck me has bringing pretty high levels of integrity to a commercial enterprise. I'm guessing here, but I suspect they lose money on every No 9 plane they sell, it's an inordinately complex plane to manufacture and I think the scrap rate is through the roof. I know they have a target price for all their products, and if an item would have to be too expensive to make a reasonable profit they simply won't make it. From what I've seen of the LN operation they try and serve serious furniture makers rather than tool collectors, taking the view that quality tools manufactured in small quantities in the west are never going to be cheap, but they'll do an honest job and offer a range so the craftsman or woman can choose what suits them best, the objective was never to collect a "full set" and I think they'd look down on anyone who tried!

If the day ever comes when LN start regularly pumping out limited edition, collector's pieces, then I'll revise (lower!) my opinion of them. Until then I think they're a pretty cool bunch of people who make some pretty good tools.


----------



## JJ1 (4 Aug 2015)

According to the current Lie Nielson catalogue which arrived through the post a couple of days ago. It states that the No. 51 is a _"vastly superior plane and the No. 9 is no longer offered in their regular line-up. Although it can still be made to special order."_


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (4 Aug 2015)

I would wager they studied sales numbers over the past few years and couldn't make their ROI on the number they would need to build to justify casting the body. I would be curious on how many were sold over the past year.

But.......ya got to wonder if all of a sudden if a handful of brand spanking #9's show up on that auction site?


----------



## David C (4 Aug 2015)

At the time the no. 9 was the most comfortable to use.

After much dithering (Do I need it, no but I want to try it...) I bought a 51.

It is now my firm favorite for right hand shooting.

Heavier, skew blade and comfortable handle make this the clear favorite, (if limited to RH use).

David Charlesworth


----------



## Cheshirechappie (4 Aug 2015)

Both the No 9 and the No 52 are quite pricey planes at nigh-on £400 a pop, so either a luxury purchase or something for which a lot of work is anticipated.

If anybody really wants a LN No 9, Classic Hand Tools still list them as available, though whether that's because they've sold out and website updating hasn't happened yet, or what stock levels might be, I don't know. 

https://www.classichandtools.com/acatal ... lanes.html


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (5 Aug 2015)

I have a comparison of the LN #9 and #51 (along with the LV LA Jack) here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Furniture/ ... pared.html

For those who just want the bottom line (slacker! You should read the article), here is the essential part of the summing up ...

_"The ranking order for these planes is LN #51 and then the rest. On balance I would rank the LN #9 and the LV LAJ equally as they have strength and weaknesses that cancel each other out. The advice I would give to one who owned a LAJ, either LV or LN, is learn to hold it correctly to realise the potential. Those that own a #9 have a wonderful plane that is easier to produce a good result. That is the strength of the #9. And to those that own none of these planes recognise that the #9 is cutting at the same angle as a #5 ½ or #6, and that the correct handhold should make these planes produce a good result (David Charlesworth has a good piece on these planes in his DVD on shooting technique) ......"_

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Bluekingfisher (7 Aug 2015)

[q, the objective was never to collect a "full set" and I think they'd look down on anyone who tried!

If the day ever comes when LN start regularly pumping out limited edition, collector's pieces, then I'll revise (lower!) my opinion of them. Until then I think they're a pretty cool bunch of people who make some pretty good tools.[/quote]

With the greatest of respect, this is a ridiculous statement, why would any company/business not wish anyone to buy as many of their products as possible, and why would they look down on anyone who did :?: 

I cannot be 100% certain, although I do believe LN have offered for sale certain lines of " collectable" limited addition tools, a bronze 4 1/2 smoother springs to mind. 

I too have had the pleasure of meeting several of the staff and in addition communicated afterwards at lenght while purchasing some of their tools. I would most certainly agree they are a top of the pack company, their onus being on customer satisfaction, education and a desire to ensure there is never an issue with any purchased item, new or otherwise. Of course, they are salesmen at the end of the day, selling a product thus recommending their tools over other brands. I do not recall them ever inferring that should I buy too many of their tools I would be considerdd auspicious or likely to be looked down on, despite being a weekend woordworker. On the contrary, more a case of a valued customer wishing to purchase and recognising quality tools, while helping keep their 60 strong work force gainfully employed.


Perhaps I have picked up the statement incorrectly, and if so, no intent to cause offence. (even if I haven't )  

David

____


----------



## Bluekingfisher (7 Aug 2015)

custard":229xbvx8 said:


> Karl":229xbvx8 said:
> 
> 
> > One can only assume it's been done in an attempt to push people toward the new plane.
> ...



With the greatest of respect, this is a ridiculous statement, why would any company/business not wish anyone to buy as many of their products as possible, and why would they look down on anyone who did :?: 

I cannot be 100% certain, although I do believe LN have offered for sale certain lines of " collectable" limited addition tools, a bronze 4 1/2 smoother springs to mind. 

I too have had the pleasure of meeting several of the staff and in addition communicated afterwards at lenght while purchasing some of their tools. I would most certainly agree they are a top of the pack company, their onus being on customer satisfaction, education and a desire to ensure there is never an issue with any purchased item, new or otherwise. Of course, they are salesmen at the end of the day, selling a product thus recommending their tools over other brands. I do not recall them ever inferring that should I buy too many of their tools I would be considerdd auspicious or likely to be looked down on, despite being a weekend woordworker. On the contrary, more a case of a valued customer wishing to purchase and recognising quality tools, while helping keep their 60 strong work force gainfully employed.


Perhaps I have picked up the statement incorrectly, and if so, no intent to cause offence. (even if I haven't )  

David

____


----------



## CStanford (7 Aug 2015)

While L-N seems pretty far from it there is a point with any company that their marketing schemes can become a little gimmicky, off-putting, and perceived as taking advantage of certain consumer psychology. Redundant, overlapping lines can start to intrude into this territory as well as frequently coming out with 'improved' versions of goods released not all that long ago, etc. The children's toy Pokemon comes to mind whose tag line was 'gotta catch 'em all'. Well you couldn't because, you guessed it, they kept coming up with new characters. It can become obvious when a company is managing the pipeline too aggressively to the point of being abusive to its loyal customers.

Ultimately, the individual has to be the judge. 

This stuff has been going on since things have been sold. Stanley provided a blueprint for a lot of this.


----------



## custard (7 Aug 2015)

David, a few years ago I was lucky enough to attend an LN event in Maine. Tom Lie Nielsen gave a little speech and commented that although he was grateful to anyone who _bought_ a LN tool he was really grateful to anyone who _used_ an LN tool. Now the audience was mainly American designer/makers, so it's entirely possible he was blowing smoke up the collective back sides of all those present...but somehow I don't think so.


----------



## CStanford (7 Aug 2015)

Sounds consistent with the way I believe he has structured his company to be able to prosper selling only woodworking tools and supplying motivated woodworking enthusiasts rather than those mostly attracted to shiny objects, UPS vans, rapid, glitzy, frequent product rollouts, and 250 page catalogs.

No gardening tools, toys, games, pot metal gewgaws, etc. just stuff for woodworking the last time I checked.

Best wishes,

Charles


----------



## yetloh (7 Aug 2015)

I'm not an LN fan - I prefer innovators to copyists - but I do have a No9 and am very fond of it. The 51 seems like a big old chunk of iron to be humping around especially for small stuff. If I was in the market ffor something like this I would go for the Veritas equivalent which seems to show a lot more imagination- not a quality that seems to be much valued at LN.

Jim


----------



## CStanford (7 Aug 2015)

Karl Holtey builds/built Norris reproductions I thought, or certainly designs very much inspired by Norris. 

There is nothing wrong with the quality of a Lee Valley plane, they are unfortunately stunningly unattractive (to be kind) but the wood doesn't know it.


----------



## bugbear (8 Aug 2015)

CStanford":3iq9mnl1 said:


> Karl Holtey builds/built Norris reproductions I thought, or certainly designs very much inspired by Norris.



He does (did) rather more than that, you'll find.

Look at the #98, and learn.

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (8 Aug 2015)

I wasn't suggesting that all his planes were Norris (et al.) inspired, but a whole lot of them were weren't they?

From his website, each referring to a different plane:

"This is an overstuffed infill plane of the traditional Norris type..."

"The A1 Panel / Jointer Infill plane (Norris style)."

"The A13 smoother is another classic dovetailed infill plane, in the style of Norris."

"This design may be more appealing to some than the Norris A7 shoulder plane. Built to the Spiers design..."

"This plane is once again based on the Norris pattern ..."

"Here is my No. 98 plane - the first I have designed from scratch rather than adapting and refining classic designs (??? not so sure, see his own conflicting verbiage that follows).  Through the use of modern materials such as stainless steel, the No. 98 has contemporary looks, although the design is *firmly rooted in planes of the past*. The profile of the No 98 is reminiscent of the old Sargent planes from the U.S.A. - a classic design in it's [sic] own right."


Well, yes it is. Good of him to point that out. "Firmly rooted..." "reminiscent of..." perhaps he only dipped a big toe in the waters of originality. 

Tweaking here and there and machining to a higher standard does not an original make. What makes the mass produced planes of the past so remarkable is just that - they were mass produced. They were an incredible industrial achievement. So much so that they are still copied by small batch producers who do, I'll grant, lavish a little more love on the original designs than the original industrial producers.

And so on and so forth. I suppose if one "prefers innovators rather than copyists" (quoted from another poster above who, paradoxically, calls himself 'yetloH') then they should look beyond most of the Holtey range. I'd be thrilled to have one of his copies or 'inspired by' planes though I strongly suspect that the Norris or Spiers planes upon which almost all of them are based would work just fine.


----------



## Droogs (8 Aug 2015)

To me nearly all the tools for sale now are merely refinment's not inovations. Afterall if yetloH only used tools from inovators, then I would love to see a picture of his 1880's Arnot and Spencer electric drill or his Boer war Fien electric drill and maybe even his his WW1 era Black and Decker drill driver, rescued/restored from the trenches or how about his 1950's Makita electic planer. After all these are the inovators everything since merely a refinement. I for one can't put my Leonardo Bailous NoIV planum ligna delenimenta down, what with its fancy new bronze sole and iron - yes - iron sides


----------



## yetloh (8 Aug 2015)

CStanford":24amorpc said:


> Karl Holtey builds/built Norris reproductions I thought, or certainly designs very much inspired by Norris.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with the quality of a Lee Valley plane, they are unfortunately stunningly unattractive (to be kind) but the wood doesn't know it.



As implied by another poster, Karl Holtey has announced the end of his plane making although he has not quite finished yet. While his earlier planes were often inspired by Norris and other infill makers, none is a copy and they include measures to mitigate the inherent conflicts of planes made from metal stuffed with wood - factors which were ignored by the 19th century makers and continue to be by most contemporary infill makers.

The beaury or otherwise of a Veritas plane is very much a matter of opinion. I find their more recent designs to be at least if not more attractive than LNs Stanley copies and some are technically markedly superior.

Jim


----------



## CStanford (8 Aug 2015)

I assume the little brass inserts are the solution to which you are referring. I must be a genius, then. I've used a couple dots of silicone caulk on an ECE to raise the angle a little higher. Shaved them down level with each other using a utility knife. Works a treat! It might take twenty minutes for me to inlay wood plugs or even brass ones cut off of a piece of rod stock. This can't possibly be what you consider a breakthrough, or what renders Holtey planes not essentially copies. If so, I need to set up a machine shop. I'm pretty sure that if the wood infill starts moving the little brass plugs are going to go along for the ride unless they go all the way through the wood into the metal body. Somehow.

Best wishes,

Charles


----------



## Mr_P (8 Aug 2015)

Time to get this page back on topic (well sort of).

L-N temporary tattoos anyone ?

https://www.lie-nielsen.com/nodes/4109/gifts


----------



## CStanford (8 Aug 2015)

Might be a jump the shark moment for L-N. Hard to believe.


----------



## Droogs (8 Aug 2015)

Too right 35 bucks for an A2 size poster, what a rip off, my missus just had 50 done for her fringe show for 80.


----------



## CStanford (8 Aug 2015)

Droogs":1smjzatm said:


> Too right 35 bucks for an A2 size poster, what a rip off, my missus just had 50 done for her fringe show for 80.



They don't need to be selling posters, t-shirts, note cards, and kids' rub-off tattoos that's for damned sure. Chintzy as hell if you ask me. I picture in my mind's eye a management meeting where they're sitting around discussing these items and the picture I get is not a good one. Silly and juvenile.


----------



## yetloh (8 Aug 2015)

CStanford":3ntlq98g said:


> I assume the little brass inserts are the solution you are referring to. I must be a genius, then. I've used a couple dots of silicone caulk on an ECE to raise the angle a little higher. Shaved them down level with each other using a utility knife. Works a treat! It might take twenty minutes for me to inlay wood plugs or even brass ones cut off of a piece of rod stock. This can't possibly be what you consider a breakthrough, or what renders Holtey planes not essentially copies. If so, I need to set up a machine shop.



Who said anything about a breakthrough? Certainly not me. I was actually thinking of the tubes through which the side to side fixings run so as to mitigate the effects of seasonal movement of the infills. Karl Holtey has never claimed to be doing any thing revolutionary and, if you take the trouble to study the evolution of Holtey designs, you will see it is characterised by incremental change and development - most innovations are small and the word does not require a "brealthrough". The 98 may have been inspired by something earlier but it is very different in detail and since the time of that design his planes heve evolved away from it. Take a look at the 983 block plane which is certainly not a "copy" of anything and is in my opinion probably the best blockplane in the world. To make a relevant analogy, a modern racing bicycle is still recognisably a biciycle but the reason British cycling is the best in the world is that it has systematically looked for marginal gains through small innovations, and continues to do so, because these gaind add up. karl holtey has cosistently done the same.

By the way, I'm glad you have managed to improve your ECE, although I would not have looked to squidgy silicone caulk as a means to gain a higher angle coupled with that first essential, a completely rigid blade bed. Those brass pads have nothing to do with blade angle and everything to do with maintaining a consistent and secure blade bed on a material that can move and do so inconsistently within itself.

Jim


----------



## CStanford (8 Aug 2015)

I do understand what Holtey was doing with his brass pads and they they were/are milled down to within thousandths of the surface. 

For me, the silicone worked perfectly since it was just a very temporary workaround to raise the angle of the plane for a specific purpose. I rubbed it off a few days later. I wasn't looking to 'hit' a particular angle. I just went by eye and seat-of-pants. It does squish down a bit (and one should make an allowance for this) but makes for a very secure bedding of the iron, shock absorbers if you will, and takes up any inequities in the wood bed because of its give. For what I was doing it made more sense than substituting one hard surface for another and was of course faster.

With regard to the Holtey planes themselves I stand by the man's own description of them though clearly there have been tweaks, which is more than a mild understatement. One should give him credit for starting from a very good point of inspiration -- Norris planes -- clearly good in their own right, a very good leaping off point for Holtey.

You mentioned that you have a preference for 'innovators' rather than 'copyists' ("I'm not an LN fan - I prefer innovators to copyists - but I do have a No9 and am very fond of it.") so by this and your other posts on Holtey I assume this means you own Holtey planes and I'd love to hear more about this when you have the time.


----------



## mouppe (9 Aug 2015)

CStanford":1fste0kz said:


> Droogs":1fste0kz said:
> 
> 
> > Too right 35 bucks for an A2 size poster, what a rip off, my missus just had 50 done for her fringe show for 80.
> ...



They don't need to sell them, but they do because LN is a place that welcomes whole families- not just woodworkers so it's nice to have a couple of token souvenirs for them. Every year they have an open house weekend with games, barbecues, competitions etc. and there are loads of kids there. 

If you ever visit them or attend a workshop they usually give out those items for free anyway, but I'm sure some people want to buy them so they have them for sale in case people ask. 

With LN there genuinely isn't a reason to be cynical. It's a well-run, well-intentioned company selling quality products.


----------



## David C (9 Aug 2015)

Spot on !

Also with fantastic customer care.

David


----------



## Kalimna (9 Aug 2015)

Now, if only they still did cocobolo handles.....


----------



## Droogs (9 Aug 2015)

mouppe":g3xb051z said:


> CStanford":g3xb051z said:
> 
> 
> > Droogs":g3xb051z said:
> ...



Please don't get me wrong, I do really like a lot of their kit. The fact that they promote traditional hand tools and hand working is great. It certainly provided me with tools that I thought I wouldn't be able to get. And creating and raising your brand awareness is fine. with regard to the souveniers, it's not the fact that they sell them that gets me, it's the mark up %. When my other half got her quotes, if by the time she was ordering them in lots of 1000 or more (which LN would probably do) then the price for each poster was down to 22 pence each. But then, I suppose they need to pay for the barbie and prizes etc somehow.


----------



## yetloh (9 Aug 2015)

CStanford":2imfp0m6 said:


> You mentioned that you have a preference for 'innovators' rather than 'copyists' ("I'm not an LN fan - I prefer innovators to copyists - but I do have a No9 and am very fond of it.") so by this and your other posts on Holtey I assume this means you own Holtey planes and I'd love to hear more about this when you have the time.



I'll send you a PM but probably not for a week or so.

Jim


----------



## CStanford (9 Aug 2015)

Re: Lie-Nielsen....They're fine. If that have something I need I don't hesitate. I still order saw files from them. 

I've owned their skew block, scrub plane, and dovetail saw and sold them. I still have their replica Stanley 66. The planes were replaced by vintage Stanley, which I still have, and I end up using an old Lynx gent's saw for smallish dovetails and a 10" closed handle S&J tenon saw for carcase dovetails. I had a Crown dovetail saw that worked well but it got really kinked when somebody else used it. It's in a drawer.

I do not like A2 steel. I just don't. With the media I own and am used to it just never seemed to get as sharp. The dovetail saw was super-grabby to start and I didn't think it worth the trouble to fool around with or get used to. I probably wasn't man enough for such a saw. The market is strong for these so off to EBay it went.


----------



## CStanford (9 Aug 2015)

yetloh":1allu0ye said:


> CStanford":1allu0ye said:
> 
> 
> > You mentioned that you have a preference for 'innovators' rather than 'copyists' ("I'm not an LN fan - I prefer innovators to copyists - but I do have a No9 and am very fond of it.") so by this and your other posts on Holtey I assume this means you own Holtey planes and I'd love to hear more about this when you have the time.
> ...



Only if you have time, don't go to any special trouble.


----------



## custard (9 Aug 2015)

CStanford":3obzxcr2 said:


> You mentioned that you have a preference for 'innovators' rather than 'copyists' ("I'm not an LN fan - I prefer innovators to copyists - but I do have a No9 and am very fond of it.") so by this and your other posts on Holtey I assume this means you own Holtey planes and I'd love to hear more about this when you have the time.



I'd also like to hear yetloH's experiences. 

I own a Holtey infill smoother, the Veritas/Holtey purfling cutter (with a variety of special thickness cutters that Karl made up for me), a Norris Panel Plane that Karl helped me with and that has three Holtey irons as well as as the original Norris iron, and an 06 Stanley Bedrock that's had quite a bit of work and is set up for use with a few different Holtey irons including his S53 powdered steel as well as his more usual A2.

The care and attention to detail that goes into everything carrying the Holtey name takes my breath away. They are inspirational tools that are an absolute delight to use. But do they produce results that are unobtainable with more modest tools? No they don't. The wood isn't quite as impressed as I am! I've thought about commissioning a 984, but I bought the Holtey smoother in a previous and rather more affluent life; as a full time furniture maker I'd have to think long and hard about an investment like that and I'm probably going to say no. I use a Veritas bevel up jack with a wide range of PM-V2 irons, and even though the 984 will undoubtedly be a joy in the hand, realistically I doubt it will deliver noticeably better results than the Veritas. 

The Holtey S53 steel is remarkable, it holds an edge substantially longer than any other plane iron I own, but it's a nightmare to sharpen. Water stones won't touch it, it has to be diamond plates followed by diamond paste. In reality the trade-off between edge retention and ease of sharpening isn't viable, so I use a Ray Iles D2 steel iron in an old Record 05 for dealing with the edges of plywood or cleaning up laminations bonded with Bordens UF adhesive, and PM-V2 and A2 for almost everything else.

Another interesting point is that apparently I'm one of a vanishingly small group of customers who have ever requested spare irons, suggesting the great majority of Karl's output sits in glass cases around the world. That's a bit of a shame, I use the Holtey smoother regularly and it's one of the special treats of my woodworking day.


----------



## CStanford (9 Aug 2015)

I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates your balanced, realistic assessment which is especially valuable given your professional training and experience.

After all is said and done, a clean pass with a plane is a clean pass.


----------



## G S Haydon (9 Aug 2015)

Just to make this thread meander back to LN. I actually think the temp tats and posters are a neat idea. A good way of marking a good day out for a youngster after a tour. If things are fun Kids are much more likely to be involved.

I also think it's a mark of their success that people speculate to some cheeky reason for changing the line up. They are very much the good guys though so no need to worry about that.

The only very small amount of feedback would be about a recent video they did. As a rule their videos are very well presented, even if someone does not agree with the message they are very well put over and explained (much better than my dros). However https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te3VuCoTLvE had my toes curling just a touch. I'm not sure how the different iron used in the body of a shoulder plane will outperforms the Record? I know the LN is a superb bit of kit but it seemed a leap to far. I also had a little chuckle about about the saw being better by a million to one . Again, doubtless it's terrific but again too much for me.

Sorry, there is more. The demo of the normal saw and cutting past the line was getting a touch silly but the biggest point was https://youtu.be/Te3VuCoTLvE?t=5m57s . I'm not sure I'd do that with my hardpoint saws .

I think on balance I'd like to see a more accomplished woodworker demonstrate the process. I hope they can return to the excellent standard of video soon.


----------



## Paul Chapman (9 Aug 2015)

G S Haydon":2yiebunm said:


> Sorry, there is more. The demo of the normal saw and cutting past the line was getting a touch silly but the biggest point was https://youtu.be/Te3VuCoTLvE?t=5m57s . I'm not sure I'd do that with my hardpoint saws .



I was amazed when I saw him do that :shock: He then went on to stress that it was a thin-plate saw and should be treated accordingly. Perhaps they need to re-make that video :-k :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## G S Haydon (9 Aug 2015)

:lol: It made me chuckle and toes curl at the same time, bit like a Ricky Gervais comedy. All joking aside with a reputation hard won it'd be a shame to see it eroded with well meant but ultimately poor video. Why no do another take?


----------



## CStanford (9 Aug 2015)

Horrible video. I guess this guy is supposed to be the bumbling 'everyman' who can do nothing right except write a check.


----------



## G S Haydon (9 Aug 2015)

I think it could be staff, they did a nice one on tool care that was well presented and I think that was a staff member. I think the guy did his best, it's not the most easy thing in the world to do an infomercial like that, just would of been nicer with a Klausz or similar.


----------



## CStanford (10 Aug 2015)

They can certainly do better, and should.


----------



## mouppe (10 Aug 2015)

It's indeed a bit of a weak video. I even left a comment when it was first issued and it was never responded to. I asked why a tapered saw could not be progressively pitched just like any other saw.


----------



## woodbrains (10 Aug 2015)

Hello,

Although not ideal in many respects, I understand why the video is as it is. For a well known celebrity woodworker to do the vid, there would have to be endorsement involved, which would preclude many who are affiliated with other manufacturers and magazine contributions. With fees, royalties and whatever other cost involved, inevitably lawyers and goodness knows what else, it just would not be worth the bother for a relatively marginal business. After all, the vid just shows a saw making some cuts. The inclusivity of LN staff is nice to see, and probably a better advertising 'gimmick' than a famous face anyway. In fact all the other marketing paraphernalia such as temporary tats and posters are completely understandable, too. It does not and could never detract from the quality of their tools, but promoting sales for a business is difficult. Any thing that raises awareness is important, especially to those who are not into woodwork yet!

To answer moupee's post, if you watch the video, the presenter explains why LN moved away from progressive pitch. A thin plate with regular tooth spacing gives the speedy cut of PP saws, but with better cut quality. 

Mike.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (10 Aug 2015)

Maybe I'm just in grumpy old grouch mode, but I can't say I'm all that impressed with thin-plate saws, taper blades, progressive pitch (on backsaws, anyway - there might be an argument for it on coarse rip saws).

The one thing that makes the most difference to saw performance is whether or not it's sharp. Everything else is just a bit of a gimmick. If you're sawing past your baselines, take a careful look at your technique - keep the saw level, and you won't overcut.


----------



## CStanford (10 Aug 2015)

Bunch o' gimmicks. 

So much of this stuff, so very much of it, looked (and looks) better on paper and in conversation than any difference it makes in real use. It gets put into production as much for the marketing aspect as anything else. You could blindfold a thousand woodworkers and one might know he (she) was sawing with a taper-ground saw, much less any of this other bullsheet. And even the one woodworker is doubtful. The vast majority of people can't consistently saw dead square to the face so none of these other 'enhancements' could really even work until that happens. I mean dead square. The only thing that gets dirty are the teeth. 

Somebody standing over a rip cut contemplating how much easier it might be with a thin-kerf saw, progressive pitch saw, etc. etc. simply needs to buy a tablesaw. End of story. Sawing lumber by hand, particularly ripping, is hard work. All tools have their own 'feels' and once the new has worn off you'll sweat just as much using the new one as you did the old one. Keep it sharp, make sure the blade is straight. Learning to saw dead square to the face will relieve some of the effort -- nothing but the toothline in the cut. If the sides of the saw are bouncing around in the walls of the kerf it's like a bobsled banging the walls going down the course -- slows down the action.

After this, not much else helps. Learn not to press the saw. It's going to cut as fast as it's going to cut. Cut square and cut with a sharp straight saw is about all you can do.

People who think that a new saw, with all this garbage and price-tag that comes with, is an epiphany is probably sawing with a sharp saw for the first time in their life, full stop. Once they're used to sharp all the rest of it is just ad copy.


----------



## woodbrains (10 Aug 2015)

CStanford":3dun3aso said:


> Bunch o' gimmicks.
> 
> So much of this stuff, so very much of it, looked (and looks) better on paper and in conversation than any difference it makes in real use. It gets put into production as much for the marketing aspect as anything else. You could blindfold a thousand woodworkers and one might know he (she) was sawing with a taper-ground saw, much less any of this other bullsheet. And even the one woodworker is doubtful. The vast majority of people can't consistently saw dead square to the face so none of these other 'enhancements' could really even work until that happens. I mean dead square. The only thing that gets dirty are the teeth.
> 
> ...



Hello,

Whilst I agree with much of this in terms of seasoned woodworkers, beginners have to start with good tools, if they are not going to have some tuition in how to get them good in the first place. I don't think a saw, plane or whatever, made to a fine standard, by a Western manufacturer can ever be cheaper than LN make them, so arguing cost is moot. The fine antique tools that can be fettled by those in the know, to perform well, were essentially high end tools of their day, costing in real terms the same order as the LN, LA Clifton et al cost nowadays. These tools are not Holtey or the likes, they are work a day tools and ar expected to be. 

Incidentally, the saws in question are not taper ground, but tapered plates from heel to toe. This is something that saws of yesteryear also exhibited, so not a gimmick even if not essential.LN copy old Sheffield saw makers and Disston models, which were good examples of their type.

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (10 Aug 2015)

The price of entry with respect to a decent saw is certainly well below Lie-Nielsen prices.

Competition 'in the day' had to have been cutthroat. If somebody could shave a little metal off here or there and proclaim some sort of magic then that's just what they did. Again, a lot of this stuff sounds like a great idea but in practice makes little if any difference. Tapers, breasting, it was all just an attempt at a marketing advantage. If I put a blindfold on you no way you could tell me if the plate was breasted, tapered, pitched differently from toe to heel, etc. etc. About the only you would be able to tell is a dull saw from a sharp one and whether or not you found the handle to be comfortable. A whole lot of people probably wouldn't even be able to tell if they were sawing with a crosscut saw or a rip saw if not allowed to touch the teeth. Further, I bet a lot of people in fact I feel sure that many would pick as their favourite (love the "u") one of the relatively cheap saws with Japanese style teeth that are arranged to cut on the push stroke, or actually cut both ways on the inbound and outbound stroke.

Poor, poor beginners they fall for all this marketing fluff and end up having to buy cheap softwoods to work because the money is all gone. That or they have more money than sense and get jerked around by the nose by this marketing piece and that marketing piece and end up with a woodworking store all their own.

I'd be willing to bet money that a Stanley Jet Cut (or the Spear and Jackson equivalent) could crosscut a board in fewer strokes and leave cleaner margins than the best big crosscut saw Lie-Nielsen sells. If there was a difference it would be negligible.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (11 Aug 2015)

CStanford":22iqzo5j said:


> The price of entry with respect to a decent saw is certainly well below Lie-Nielsen prices.
> 
> Competition 'in the day' had to have been cutthroat. If somebody could shave a little metal off here or there and proclaim some sort of magic then that's just what they did. Again, a lot of this stuff sounds like a great idea but in practice makes little if any difference. Tapers, breasting, it was all just an attempt at a marketing advantage. If I put a blindfold on you no way you could tell me if the plate was breasted, tapered, pitched differently from toe to heel, etc. etc. About the only you would be able to tell is a dull saw from a sharp one and whether or not you found the handle to be comfortable. A whole lot of people probably wouldn't even be able to tell if they were sawing with a crosscut saw or a rip saw if not allowed to touch the teeth. Further, I bet a lot of people in fact I feel sure that many would pick as their favourite (love the "u") one of the relatively cheap saws with Japanese style teeth that are arranged to cut on the push stroke, or actually cut both ways on the inbound and outbound stroke.
> 
> ...



Although a relative handtool beginner I have learned enough so far as to agree with the above post. I have a LN 16ppi dovetail saw and a LV saw of similar tooth configuration. Yes they are nice and they cut well, however I wondered how well they would fair over time and with the realisation they would need to be sharpened one day I put them to one side fearful of wearing them out and only brought them out on high days and Saturdays. This of course is ridiciulous so I started to use them again. I was however keen to learn how to sharpen a hand saw, so with the help of YouTube and a couple of cheap ebay saw purchases I set out to learn to sharpen a saw. I must say it was surprisingly straight forward and simple. Even the first sharpening on a £5 vintage saw returned fantastic results and so I was hooked. After a few more experiments with filing, sharpening and setting of teeth ( haven't tried X cut sharpening as yet) I have several old saws able to cut every bit as good as the LN with equally thin kerfs.

Rather than buy a LN saw first off, I would recommend the beginner buy a couple of old saws, suitable files , a tin of brasso and paste wax and set about learning to sharpen them. If you get it wrong first off, no big deal, even really bad mistakes or missing or broken teeth can be rectified with a little practice and patience. Not only will you quickly learn how to sharpen and set up a saw you will learn so much about the saw itself, its required maintenance and capabilities. An older saw may take a little longer to sharpen and set when first acquired, although subsequent ( and not all that often sharpenings) take around 5 minutes, so can be done on the job and no need to send off to a saw doctor, if you can fnd one that is. Besides, craftsmen and artisans of old would have been expected to maintain their tools are part of their craft, a skill or belief we are sadly losing. 

David


----------



## woodbrains (11 Aug 2015)

CStanford":3m9cofab said:


> I'd be willing to bet money that a Stanley Jet Cut (or the Spear and Jackson equivalent) could crosscut a board in fewer strokes and leave cleaner margins than the best big crosscut saw Lie-Nielsen sells. If there was a difference it would be negligible.



Hello,

This is true, I'm sure a Stanley jet cut would do as good a job. But they are made in the Far East or Mexico or somewhere the labour force are slaves. And this is the only example you can think of, isn't it. Find a dovetail saw or try plane or whatever, made by fairly paid Western producers that is significantly cheaper than LN, Veritas, LV et al. These tools are fairly priced and do what they should without flaw. Nice antique examples were priced similarly to the craftsmen of the day, make no bones about it. A Stanley smoother, around the time of its introduction cost a craftsman about a weeks wages, compared with a Norris which cost about a months, essentially causing the demise of that type of plane. A LN smoother, about a weeks wages and superior to the Stanley. If you can find old examples of tools, make them work because you have the knowledge, great. But some people do not and should not be hamstrung from the start with lousy tools. Others just want to work wood with good tools and don't much care for the (often hours) of refurbishment they require.

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (11 Aug 2015)

I think of all the hobbies and professions out there, woodworking surely must have the highest number of amateur economists, international diplomats, and human rights activists.

If L-N is the cost of entry, before one buys a single stick of decent material - the most inherently and unavoidably expensive aspect of the whole affair, then the hobby is becoming too gentrified. This is a real shame in my opinion.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (11 Aug 2015)

woodbrains":axbcezt2 said:


> CStanford":axbcezt2 said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be willing to bet money that a Stanley Jet Cut (or the Spear and Jackson equivalent) could crosscut a board in fewer strokes and leave cleaner margins than the best big crosscut saw Lie-Nielsen sells. If there was a difference it would be negligible.
> ...



I would agree with you Mike, no one wants lousy tools and if they can be purchased at a fair price ready to go then that is undoubtedly beneficial. However, most hand tools require some sort of fettling or tuning prior to use, even set accordingly for the individual users requirements. 

The Stanleys when introduced would have been a revolation for woodworkers of the day I am sure, although they were no where near ready for use when bought new, certainly from the vintage ones I have acquired over the years. I also accept that some do not wish to spend time fettling planes and would rather be working wood. I would however consider tuning them is a neccesary evil prior to ensuring the time spent working wood becomes both efficient and enjoyable. Perhaps too, the expectation of todays woodworkers is somewhart different to craftsmen of the past? Certainly, some expect gossimer thin shavings from a plane for example, probably because someone on an internet video has led us to believe that is what is required as a minimum standard.

I have no formal woodwork training, although having spoken to older woodworkers over the years on this subject it was apparent a fair part of their training was directed and dedicated to tool maintenance/repair and care. Maybe we have become too reliant on others or accepting of todays disposable society. 

David


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (11 Aug 2015)

CStanford":5adh89id said:


> I think of all the hobbies and professions out there, woodworking surely must have the highest number of amateur economists, international diplomats, and human rights activists.



This sort of snide dig is unbecoming of any hobby or profession.


----------



## CStanford (11 Aug 2015)

What's particularly interesting are the statements like "a Stanley cost X days wages" "and an XYZ plane cost this many days' wages." Where are these calculations coming from and can we see them? Whose price deflators are being used? Wages in what country? For what time period? From what statistical source(s)? Wages for whom, experienced or entry-level cabinetmakers? How do these wages compare to wages in other industries for the same time period? In what size firm were these individuals employed? Why would a nonprofessional woodworker even attempt this calculation? What question are they trying to answer or position are they trying to support? And the list of questions could go on and on.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (11 Aug 2015)

You ask and interesting question here Charles How do we compare prices over time, do LN and the like cost more than Stanley and diston did 50 years ago? You are correct that we do not necessarily have reliable data to make comparisons (certainly I don't). As I find this an interesting question I am starting a new thread to ask older forum users what insite they can offer on this question.
Paddy


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (11 Aug 2015)

> I suggest we use this forum as a resource to examine this question. So is their anyone reading this who bought Stanley/record/disston tools 50 years ago?



Well, Jacob, what can you tell us ... 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (11 Aug 2015)

Paddy Roxburgh":3roul2h5 said:


> You ask and interesting question here Charles How do we compare prices over time, do LN and the like cost more than Stanley and diston did 50 years ago? You are correct that we do not necessarily have reliable data to make comparisons (certainly I don't). As I find this an interesting question I am starting a new thread to ask older forum users what insite they can offer on this question.
> Paddy



*Given Stanley's output*, if they were charging what would compute to be an equivalent amount to today's L-N plane they were just blatantly raping their market. Imagine Thomas Lie-Nielsen producing and selling as many planes as Stanley did and at the current amount he charges for planes. He would be worth millions and millions of dollars. Does not pass the laugh test. Seriously.

I would GUESS that six months' to a year's worth of production at Stanley's peak will have represented the entire production of Lie-Nielsen from birth of the company to whatever point in time they cease production. Stanley made a boatload of planes in their day. I would imagine Stanley scrapped more planes in a year than Lie-Nielsen sells in a year and probably by a wide margin.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (11 Aug 2015)

Derek, I edited my post and have posted my question in a slightly less rambling way in a new thread.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (11 Aug 2015)

Paddy Roxburgh":11ycc5qb said:


> Derek, I edited my post and have posted my question in a slightly less rambling way in a new thread.



Rats! Think we should leave the post in?  

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (11 Aug 2015)

CStanford":30ufbmmm said:


> Paddy Roxburgh":30ufbmmm said:
> 
> 
> > You ask and interesting question here Charles How do we compare prices over time, do LN and the like cost more than Stanley and diston did 50 years ago? You are correct that we do not necessarily have reliable data to make comparisons (certainly I don't). As I find this an interesting question I am starting a new thread to ask older forum users what insite they can offer on this question.
> ...




I think you'll find Stanley were worth millions and millions of dollars. As I explained in my new thread I can't be wrong (or right) about this as I don't know the answer,but purely how many planes were made does not answer the question. Data from a few people on this forum will not give a clear answer either, for example we are only comparing the wages of a craftsman not the amateur market. A plane may have cost a weeks wages for a craftsmen but only a days wages to a middleclass professional, but it will give us some indication.
Saying all of this does not mean that I think you need to buy LN or the like. We live in time of the internet and a glut of secondhand tools. I think that al my planes and saws and most of my chisels (If you don't count the AI gouges I bought for violin making) cost less that the price of one LN plane, and do work fine.Indeed for me the fact that decent tools could be bought so cheap has been part of my slow conversion away from spinning blades to cutting edges. 
Paddy



Y




Paddy


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (11 Aug 2015)

CStanford":3cnjczya said:


> Paddy Roxburgh":3cnjczya said:
> 
> 
> > You ask and interesting question here Charles How do we compare prices over time, do LN and the like cost more than Stanley and diston did 50 years ago? You are correct that we do not necessarily have reliable data to make comparisons (certainly I don't). As I find this an interesting question I am starting a new thread to ask older forum users what insite they can offer on this question.
> ...



Charles, you are not comparing Apples with Apples. Thomas Lie-Nielsen has never marketed his planes to the masses. Neither would, I imagine, most serious mass-producing furniture makers be purchasing handtools such as LN. They would be using power. These are tools for the serious amateur. Some discerning professionals too. 

This does not constitute agreement with you that LN is seen as an entry tool - although there are plenty of amateurs from all walks of income who might aspire to them. Why not - they are aspirational tools - sometimes they are working tools as well. What I do agree with you on is that there could be a "rite of passage" to better tools. What I am not comfortable with is prescribing this or expecting this - it smacks too much of jealousy or envy for those that can afford what you may not. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## iNewbie (11 Aug 2015)

Sporky McGuffin":1s55jvct said:


> CStanford":1s55jvct said:
> 
> 
> > I think of all the hobbies and professions out there, woodworking surely must have the highest number of amateur economists, international diplomats, and human rights activists.
> ...



I'm professing these digs are his hobby...


/you'll get used to it.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (12 Aug 2015)

iNewbie":3dayma0t said:


> Sporky McGuffin":3dayma0t said:
> 
> 
> > CStanford":3dayma0t said:
> ...




..................Or perhaps just an observation.


----------



## yetloh (18 Aug 2015)

Looks like this may be the answer for those who mourn the No 9 http://www.leevalley.com/en/wood/page.aspx?p=73208&cat=1

With the PMVII blade it may well be better than the LN although there will doubtless be some who wil reject it because it doesn't look nice enough. I've not heard any word about its UK availability.

Jim


----------



## yetloh (18 Aug 2015)

custard":32hkz568 said:


> I'd also like to hear yetloH's experiences.



Custard,

I've sent you a PM.

Jim


----------



## CStanford (18 Aug 2015)

Jim, tried to respond to your PM but having trouble with the send function for some reason.


----------



## mouppe (19 Aug 2015)

yetloh":38mhoxei said:


> Looks like this may be the answer for those who mourn the No 9 http://www.leevalley.com/en/wood/page.aspx?p=73208&cat=1
> 
> With the PMVII blade it may well be better than the LN although there will doubtless be some who wil reject it because it doesn't look nice enough. I've not heard any word about its UK availability.
> 
> Jim



I don't understand where this plane fits in the line-up? Veritas already have a shooting plane for the same price with a similar blade angle. This new mitre plane seems to be just a block plane with an extra knob. 

Can anyone enlighten me?


----------



## yetloh (19 Aug 2015)

It's quite a bit bigger than a block plane and primarily intended for end grain, like the LN #9, hence the low angle. The shooting plane is mainly for long grain edges.

Jim


----------



## Karl (19 Aug 2015)

The Veritas offering looks quite interesting - be interesting to see how the price compares over here (although Dieter Schmidt will be cheaper than Axi no doubt). 

Wonder if this is part of the reason for LN ceasing production of the No9 - they got wind that LV were introducing a similar mitre plane and saw their market share for a specialist plane being eaten into. :-k 

Cheers

Karl


----------



## mouppe (20 Aug 2015)

yetloh":wutmzmm8 said:


> It's quite a bit bigger than a block plane and primarily intended for end grain, like the LN #9, hence the low angle. The shooting plane is mainly for long grain edges.
> 
> Jim



They are both low angle and the blade widths are within 1/4" of each other. Seems like much of a muchness to me.


----------



## Jacob (29 Aug 2015)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> > I suggest we use this forum as a resource to examine this question. So is their anyone reading this who bought Stanley/record/disston tools 50 years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't remember, but they were very expensive. I first bought a few new tools in about 1969, including an orange B&D 720 hammer drill. The plane was an expensive and difficult decision and I could only afford one so I bought a Stanley 7. This was a mistake I realised years later when I bought a 5 1/2, which is a much better general purpose jack plane.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (29 Aug 2015)

Jacob, you and I must be about the same age. I was purchasing very similar tools about the same time as you. My first power purchases were a BD drill and jigsaw - not orange, but I recall an olive-tan colour - and my first plane a Stanley #5 1/2. I still have it.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Benchwayze (29 Aug 2015)

I daresay there's someone who could make a wooden version?  

I still use a Record 5-1/2 for shooting. 
For shooting picture frames and the like, I turn to my trusty old mitre-trimmer; works both ways, without having to buy both right and left handed planes.

But I did fancy one of the LN shooting planes. I hope they aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot, by discontinuing the plane. 8) :?

Two posts magically appeared! 
Someone asked about tools bought in the 1960s. 

I bought my first plane in '62. A Stanley No. 4 would you believe, from Hall's Tools in Birmingham, right next to where the WMP Headquarters is now situated. On the corner, there was a great Victorian themed restaurant called 'Fanny's'. Those were the days. A full kit of basic hand-tools for £15.00 (Approx) then round to Fanny's for a delicious steak and kidney pudding!


----------



## Fromey (29 Aug 2015)

I have a LN no. 9 for sale. Will be cleaning it up, sharpening it, taking some photos and putting it in the sale forum some time next week.


----------



## yetloh (30 Aug 2015)

Benchwayze":12ib3hmd said:


> I daresay there's someone who could make a wooden version?
> 
> I still use a Record 5-1/2 for shooting.
> For shooting picture frames and the like, I turn to my trusty old mitre-trimmer; works both ways, without having to buy both right and left handed planes.
> ...



My sister bought me a Stanley No 4 for my 21st birthday in 1963. At that time I was naive enough to think that a plane should work out of the box apart from sharpening, which I did on an oilstone. Try as I might, whatever I did I could not get it to work. In the end, I concluded it must be my incompetence and bought a Surform! Of course, I now realise that it was bought at something close to the nadir of Stanley quality. A few years later I inherited my father's pre-war Record No5 which did at least work tolerably well for the low level stuff I was doing. 25 years on when I got serious about woodwork I dusted off the the Record, fettled it and fitted a laminated Japanese blade. I love it dearly. I never bothered with the Stanley and no longer have it.

Jim


----------



## bobbybirds (31 Aug 2015)

mouppe":hndl6bjq said:


> yetloh":hndl6bjq said:
> 
> 
> > It's quite a bit bigger than a block plane and primarily intended for end grain, like the LN #9, hence the low angle. The shooting plane is mainly for long grain edges.
> ...



The weight is like 5lbs which is a lot more than the block plane, so definitely gives it a bit more heft for shooting, and the grip for shooting is great! I found it much more comfortable to use when I played with it for a bit. Nice tool really. Whether or not it is worth it for the user will be up to them of course...


----------

