# Lie Neilsen / Veritas plane choices.



## Escudo (19 Apr 2007)

What ho all,

I spent a very enjoyable morning last Saturday with forum member WoodyAlan when I called at his workshop to drool over his wonderful collection of hand tools and receive some much needed instruction.

We chatted about chisels, planes and sharpening techniques and I left much the wiser.

On the drive home I concluded that I should buy some hand tools. 

The purpose of this post is to ask members which choices to go for and to seek a wider view point / information. I do not really have a budget, although I do not want to buy tools I will not really use. I hope my choices will cover most woodworking situations / tasks.

Alan had a number of LN and Veritas planes which caught my eye. 

After a bit of research this week and a couple of emails with Alan I am mulling over the following models.

Veritas low angle jack.
LN No. 4 OR 4 1/2 smoother. 
LN block plane No. 60 1/2 OR 102.
LN 140 skew block / rebate plane. 

I have ruled out a large jointer plane and the scrub type plane as I have my P / T for that work.

By way of background - I am a hobby woodworker. I am keen to learn more about woodworking and to improve my skills / techniques. I have some small projects in mind, nothing to elaborate. 

In short which four planes would you go for and why?

Do you think my suggestions are balanced? If I was missing something what would it be? 

Thanks in advance for any suggestions and advice.

I am away tomorrow and will not return until Friday when I will be able to respond to members thoughts and suggestions.

Cheers, Esc.


----------



## MrJay (19 Apr 2007)

I can heartily recommend the Veritas low angle block plane. It's an awesome little tool.

Also, you seem to have forgotten all the tools that aren't planes. And while you're spending all this money on new tools, don't forget you're going to want to sharpen them. I'd also suggest you could start out with less and add to the [ahem]collection[/ahem] later. A block plane and smoother or jack ought to get you started.


----------



## Hokie (19 Apr 2007)

I like my L-N Jack BU, but the Veritas one is better suited for a beginner, in my opinion, because the iron is set back farther on the sole - the L-N is farther forward making it tippy at the start. Also, if you joint using a shooting board with a square bevel, you may like the Veritas because you can adjust the iron laterally to square up the blade. 

You may still need a smoother, later on (#4 or 4 1/2) I find it easier when I plane to a slight hollow on small stock (the DC way). I like the BU here, too, because you don't have to worry about the frog and it's so easy to remove the blade and hone. Having said all that, I like the traditional planes with frogs for my #4 because it seems to be more balanced. Don't know why.


----------



## dchenard (19 Apr 2007)

Escudo":1smadvo7 said:


> What ho all,
> 
> I spent a very enjoyable morning last Saturday with forum member WoodyAlan when I called at his workshop to drool over his wonderful collection of hand tools and receive some much needed instruction.
> 
> ...



I own three of the planes you mention.

The Veritas Low Angle Jack is an absolutely wonderful plane. The weight and balance are near perfect. And it is so versatile, it can be used as a smoother, a jack (of course), a short jointer, and it can be used for shooting. With a couple extra irons set up for specific tasks, there's precious little that plane can't do. A definite must IMHO.

I tried the LN #4 once, and it felt good in my hands, although the price gives me pause (as for most of LN's offerings). Given that you can smooth with the Veritas LAJ, I would wait on that one, unless you set up your jack for a specific task and don't want to change its setup.

I own the LN 60 1/2. It does the job, and is very highly rated, but somehow I feel isolated from the wood when I use it. I have the Veritas apron plane, and once said that while the Veritas feels like a Lotus Elise, the LN 60 1/2 is more like a Mustang. Similar performance, but the Lotus will let you feel and experience the road a lot more than the other car. If you want to stick with LN, you might want to go for the 102 (which I haven't tried).

I also own the LN 140. I haven't had the opportunity to use it in real-world situations yet, so I will not pass a judgment. I was debating between buying the 60 1/2R or the 140, and the LN rep over here suggested I buy the 140 (I bought the left handed one, even though I'm right-handed, feels more natural to me when using the plane one-handed). I'm not sure I made the right choice, but I can't confirm for now.

Hope that helps,

DC


----------



## Philly (19 Apr 2007)

Esc
Ahh......a joyful time! Full speed down the slope :lol: 

As Denis mentioned, the LAJ is a great plane. It is also a great smoother so I would heartily recommend this plane - you will love it!
For a block plane the L-N 102 bronze is a real gem. It doesn't have an adjustable mouth like its big brother but it still performs amazingly well. And it will never rust....... :wink: 
I would recommend a shoulder plane instead of the skew or rebate block planes. They are both good planes but are rather specialised (IMHO) A good shoulder plane is a very useful precision tool - once you have one you will wonder how you ever managed without it.

Good luck and enjoy!

Philly


----------



## woodbloke (19 Apr 2007)

Esc - Don't forget your ski sticks on the slope, sounds like you might need 'em  I use the LN block and it's a really cracking little plane. I agree with Philly that a good shoulder plane is an essential - I didn't have one for years and then came up against a job where one was essential. I've just bought the large LN shoulder plane which is a beauty. Can't advise on other bench planes as I use something completely different - Rob


----------



## Paul Chapman (19 Apr 2007)

In my experience, the three most useful planes are #7 (even though you have a P/T), #4.5 and a low angle block plane (with adjustable mouth). These three would meet about 90% of your needs. I agree with Rob and Philly that a large shoulder plane would be the next most useful - I don't have one but it's next on my list. It would probably be more useful than the skew block. Can't comment on bevel-up bench planes (except for the block) because I don't have any, but would always recommend the Bedrock-type frog as fitted to LN and Clifton.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Alf (19 Apr 2007)

Escudo":1vnl1mep said:


> On the drive home I concluded that I should buy some hand tools.


Someone present WoodyAlan with his Slope Greasing Proficiency badge this minute! 



dchenard":1vnl1mep said:


> I own three of the planes you mention.


Oh 'eck; I own all but one.  But enough of my problems...



Escudo":1vnl1mep said:


> In short which four planes would you go for and why?


I wouldn't. I'd get one; you'll learn a good deal more about what you need simply by using and getting familiar with _one_ IMO. It's not hypocrisy, honest; I used to by one plane at a time like a normal person once upon a time. Anyway, if the bug really bites you'll find yourself wanting to use planes for all sorts of things and you'll soon find out what you want to do that you can't, or that'd ideally need a smaller/larger plane. Or maybe that a chisel or a rasp or whatever might be better after all. _Et voila_, you end up with planes you'll use that are ideal for what _you_ want to do, rather than what we think you might want to do. Not that I think we couldn't get close, but everyone's different.

Anyway, like posters before me, I'd pump for the Veritas Low Angle Jack meself. As pointed out, if you're machining all your stock anyway then it can do excellent duty as a smoother plus it's long enough to joint an edge or two as well. Instead of getting any other planes (just now, that is. Not for _ever_ :roll: :lol: ) make sure you're suitably equipped to keep the iron sharp (essential) and consider David Charlesworth's DVD on planing - although he doesn't dabble in the world of bevel up planes, it will show you what can be done with that size of plane.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## ike (19 Apr 2007)

3 on your list I have i.e. jack, smoother and block. I started woodwork with 2 planes - a Stanley No 5 and a 220. I now have the LA jack (marvelous plane), LA smoother and LA block (inc ball tail). Don't have a rebate plane (yet) but also have a very versatile little Clifton 3110. 

I'd recommend foremost a jack plane to start and your preferred block plane will also be worthwhile to start off with.

Oh, and the high angle blade option is also handy to drop in if you are going to be planing harder grained woods.

cheers,

Ike


----------



## bugbear (19 Apr 2007)

Alf":1aq3svuo said:


> Escudo":1aq3svuo said:
> 
> 
> > In short which four planes would you go for and why?
> ...



Heartily agreed on both points; especially true if you add a high angle blade option.

(and amen on the sharpening kit comment too)

Running a smoother over power-planed stock makes a lovely "brrrrp" noise as you take off the ripple (that you might not even be able to see!).

BugBear


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (19 Apr 2007)

Hi Esc

I know that this is going to get me into trouble ... 

The best dedicated smoother on the market in its price range is the LV BU Smoother. This is not on your short list. It should be. I own this and the LN #4 1/2 and the latter is a superb plane, but it is not (in my experience) as easy to use as the BUS. I get a more consistent performance from the BUS than the #4 1/2.

I would also get the LV LA Jack. It is just such a versatile plane. You will find the LAJ useful as a panel plane, for cleaning up edges of boards (short jointer), and especially on a shooting board (where it is in a class of its own). 

I own the LN LA 60 1/2 block plane. It is wonderful, but I agree with Denis' comments (above). It feels chunky in my hand and lacks an intimacy, a "feel", that I seek in a block plane. I much prefer my LN #103, which is the small standard angle version. This is probably the favourite of all my planes. It will cut end grain extremely well, but it is better on face grain than the LA planes (assuming all have a 25 degree bevel). 

LN 140 skew block vs rebate block plane? I'd go for the latter, but I am not sure you should go for either. These are specialist planes and perhaps you should get some time with handtools under your belt before purchasing one. I'd rather spend the money on a decent set of chisels. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## promhandicam (19 Apr 2007)

Hi Escudo. I personally would recommend a look at the LV low angle jack - which seems to well liked and as Derek has just said, the LV Bevel-up smoother. The reason I say this is that they both take the same size iron. They both come with 25° irons so you could get a 38° and / or a 50° bevel angle iron which you could use in either. I went down the LV low angle smoother route, which I'm very happy with (except the rust - see recent post), but it uses a smaller iron and so as I now would like to add an LAJ, I will also have to buy additional irons. If you go down the LAJ, BUS slope, you could also add a Bevel-up Jointer - so you have a full set :lol: 

I'm sorry that I can't comment on the block plane / rebate planes, however I hope the above helps.

Finally, if you are going to buy a couple of LV planes it might work out cheaper, with the current exchange rate, to fly to New York for the weekend and buy them there!

Steve


----------



## dchenard (19 Apr 2007)

Paul Chapman":tiin5lhw said:


> Can't comment on bevel-up bench planes (except for the block) because I don't have any, but would always recommend the Bedrock-type frog as fitted to LN and Clifton.
> 
> Paul



Rhetorical question, how can you recommend the Bedrock type planes over the BU bench planes, if you can't comment on the latter (does this mean you've never tried them)?

Just curious,

DC


----------



## dchenard (19 Apr 2007)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> The best dedicated smoother on the market in its price range is the LV BU Smoother. This is not on your short list. It should be. I own this and the LN #4 1/2 and the latter is a superb plane, but it is not (in my experience) as easy to use as the BUS. I get a more consistent performance from the BUS than the #4 1/2.



I know we are getting into the subjective here, but what do you get from the BUS that you don't with a LAJ using the same iron? Not weight (LAJ is a pound heavier), neither balance (the LAJ is quite a bit easier to control as it is less "tippy", easier registration to the work piece), and the price is the same. 

The only advantage I can think of for the BUS is its shorter length, allowing one to plane problem areas more easily. Other than that, I can't think of anything else...

Cheers,

DC


----------



## paulm (19 Apr 2007)

A lot of recommendations for the LV LAJ and smoother but not for the LN equivalents ?

I am not clear if people are preferring the LA versions over standard versions of the planes more than anything, rather than preferring the LV versions of the LA planes over the LN versions of same, if you see what I mean ! :? 

Cheers, Paul.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (19 Apr 2007)

Paul notes:


> A lot of recommendations for the LV LAJ and smoother but not for the LN equivalents ?
> 
> I am not clear if people are preferring the LA versions over standard versions of the planes more than anything, rather than preferring the LV versions of the LA planes over the LN versions of same, if you see what I mean !



It was not my intent to make this a BU vs BD or a LV vs LN contest. I use and like both configurations and both makes. But for this price range in a metal plane then the BU planes rule in my opinion. Of course this is just opinion, and you must take it in the spirit of friendly discussion. 

To take the point a step further, and to answer your question, I would argue that LN make the better BD planes and LV make the better BU planes. Therefore, if you decide on the BU configuration, LV is the way to go. Hence the LV BUS, etc.

Then Denis wrote:


> but what do you get from the BUS that you don't with a LAJ using the same iron?



I agree that the LA Jack is a plane capable of superior performance as a smoother. But its length can have limitations. The longer the plane, the more it will reduce the thickness of a board when smoothing. A short plane rides the hill and valleys. A long plane removes the hills to get to the valleys. That said, Esc probably would not be as affected as his boards are flattened by a jointer before being planed. Still, I like to dedicate a plane as a smoother, and the LA Jack is too versatile to do this to. In the end it comes down to available finances.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## ydb1md (19 Apr 2007)

Alf":zrkz8dvm said:


> dchenard":zrkz8dvm said:
> 
> 
> > I own three of the planes you mention.
> ...



I happen to own all six -- I think I have a condition.  

Were I to make choices given your criteria . . . 
As others have said, the LV BUJ is an outstanding, very versatile plane. 

For a smoother, I'd actually make the choice between a no3 or a no4. I like my no3 quite a bit for small projects. 

I would definitely take the 60-1/2 over the 102 just for the fact that in many situations (for me) the 102 doesn't have the authority (weight) behind it that the 60-1/2 does. I've used the 60-1/2 for shooting miters when installing baseboards, etc. It's a plane that I grab very often. The 102 I use mainly for breaking sharp edges on projects. 

I'm constantly on the fence regarding shoulder planes. I had a large LV shoulder and used it but found it too big and bulky so I sold it. Do I have a shoulder plane now? No. Do I need one? Maybe. I trim tenon shoulders w/ my 60-1/2R. Not the ideal tool, but it gets it done. I'm thinking about purchasing the right hand version of the LN 140 to use for shoulders -- I currently own the left hand version for trimming tenon cheeks, etc. I could use the LN 140 righty for a lot more than trimming shoulders whereas a dedicated shoulder plane wouldn't get reached for very often.


----------



## Alf (19 Apr 2007)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Paul notes:
> 
> 
> > A lot of recommendations for the LV LAJ and smoother but not for the LN equivalents ? <snip>
> ...


I'll go with that - indeed I already have on a boringly large number of occasions. In fact maybe I should just shut up...

Dave, we think you have a condition too - probably extreme suckage. :lol: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## ydb1md (19 Apr 2007)

Alf":rdc695aj said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> > Paul notes:
> ...



I think that puts me in fine company around here. lol


----------



## Philly (19 Apr 2007)

Possibly :lol: 
Although you do have a bigger range of suckage...... :wink: 
Philly


----------



## ydb1md (19 Apr 2007)

Philly":3bdhuwgq said:


> Possibly :lol:
> Although you do have a bigger range of suckage...... :wink:
> Philly



How did you know I was speaking in your direction . . .


----------



## Philly (19 Apr 2007)

Uum....ahhh...splutter  :roll: 
Philly :lol:


----------



## dchenard (20 Apr 2007)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Then Denis wrote:
> 
> 
> > but what do you get from the BUS that you don't with a LAJ using the same iron?
> ...



I understand the theory, but in practice the BUS is 10" long, still two-thirds of the length of the LAJ (substitute your favourite brand here, this is not a LV issue). So there will still be spots of tearout that the BUS can't reach. Wouldn't it be better to have an even shorter plane to deal with tearout patches, like a #2 or thereabouts?

I have a short (4" or so) high angle Mujingfang that I've dedicated to that purpose, and I've contemplated getting the Veritas low angle block plane with the tote and knob attachment (tried it, works great) once finances permit...

The thing is, when tearout rears its ugly face, in practice it is deep enough that eliminating it leaves a "divot" in the board deep enough to be noticeable, no matter how one "feathers" it out. Sign of hand workmanship for sure, but there's a limit to what's acceptable...

So for me the logic tells me to err on the cautious side and use a plane with a high enough effective blade pitch to avoid tearout in the first place, back at the jointer stage. 

A couple weeks ago I was cleaning up the outside of dovetailed drawers that I had built (14 in all). The wood was white birch, planes wonderfully with the grain, but is an absolute b***h against the grain. I tried regular pitch planes and ended with ugly tearout in spots. Switched to the LAJ with a 50 degree blade, no more problems...

If it seems like a waste to use a LAJ as a smoother because of its versatility, then buy a second one! :shock: :lol: Honestly, I've been thinking about it...

DC


----------



## ydb1md (20 Apr 2007)

dchenard":vrt7i8rf said:


> I understand the theory, but in practice the BUS is 10" long, still two-thirds of the length of the LAJ (substitute your favourite brand here, this is not a LV issue). So there will still be spots of tearout that the BUS can't reach. Wouldn't it be better to have an even shorter plane to deal with tearout patches, like a #2 or thereabouts?



I use my no3 smoother quite a lot. I've never tried a no2 so I can't speak to that. My no1 does well but I will say that my LN 9-1/2 does just as good a job smoothing as the no1 does. Small smoothers definitely have their place in the shop.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (20 Apr 2007)

Denis wrote:


> I understand the theory, but in practice the BUS is 10" long, still two-thirds of the length of the LAJ (substitute your favourite brand here, this is not a LV issue). So there will still be spots of tearout that the BUS can't reach. Wouldn't it be better to have an even shorter plane to deal with tearout patches, like a #2 or thereabouts?
> 
> I have a short (4" or so) high angle Mujingfang that I've dedicated to that purpose, and I've contemplated getting the Veritas low angle block plane with the tote and knob attachment (tried it, works great) once finances permit...



I fear we are talking at cross purposes. I understand what you are saying about tearout, but I am taking about removing less surface area when smoothing (with a shorter smoother).

As you must know (I think we have so much info about each others workshop armoury by now!), I have many smoothers from which I can choose. My all out best smoother, certainly the one to ensure the absence of tearout, is the Marcou S15. It is simply the best smoother I have ever used. But it is a long smoother (11"), and sometimes too much for a task. At the other end of the spectrum I could use the LV "Little Victor" in scraper mode (75 degree cutting angle) or a Mugingfang mini smoother (60 degree cutting angle), but both are very narrow. So I could use the 7 1/2" infill I recently built. This is an extremely capable smoother and nearly as good as the LV BUS, but with a 1 3/4" wide blade. 

So many options. Why use the LV BU Jack as a smoother?

Just a few ...












Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## dchenard (20 Apr 2007)

I now understand what you were referring to regarding available finances, with that kind of arsenal my available finances would be depleted too! :shock: :lol: 

DC


----------



## Escudo (20 Apr 2007)

Thanks for all the replies and for taking the time to respond.

I will study these in detail, and with Alans help draw some conclusions.

Initial thoughts,

It would seem that the Veritas Low Angle Jack (otherwise referred to as the LV LAJ BU :wink: ) is a popular and well liked plane. It was on my list and seems like a winner. 

By purchasing the above I could defer, for now, buying a dedicated smoother. 

The block plane choice does not seem so clear with each of the respondents having a favorite. It did not escape my attention that a number have more than one of these handy little planes. I am drawn to the LN 102 bronze but suspect the answer here might be to handle and try a few. 

It would seem that opinion is against the LN 140 skew (perhaps to specialized) and more in favour of a shoulder plane.

I will write again with my final conclusions when decided. Please keep the thread going if any further thoughts / comments occur.

On another note, I intend to purchase the LN chisels and a number of sharpening stones to go with my Tormek. I have also got my eye on the LN Tite-Mark gauge which I fiddled with (sorry examined) at Alans.

Cheers for all your kind and on going help, assistance and wisdom 

Esc.


----------



## Alf (20 Apr 2007)

Escudo":3li19258 said:


> I intend to purchase the LN chisels


I'm tempted to say "make me an offer". Hell, make me an offer anyway and if it's a good one... Set of five, leather roll, barely used, postage at cost.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Escudo (20 Apr 2007)

Alf,

I am sorry, but it is difficult to offer for your chisels as I have already spoken to Classic Hand Tools about a set which they have to one side. I'm going for the Cocobolo handles with a spare Hornbeam handle.

This is part of a bigger order which will attract a discount, and I do not want to jeapordise my arrangement.

In any event, I'm sure if you want to move them on there will be plenty of suitors.

Esc.


----------



## Alf (20 Apr 2007)

No worries - just don't get cocobolo handles. Strictly for collectors. The A2 is lousy for paring (high angles required) and the cocobolo isn't as sturdy for hitting.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## dchenard (20 Apr 2007)

Alf":1zssipt8 said:


> No worries - just don't get cocobolo handles. Strictly for collectors. The A2 is lousy for paring (high angles required) and the cocobolo isn't as sturdy for hitting.
> 
> Cheers, Alf



Do I gather that you don't like these chisels? :lol: 

I have a sample of one LN chisel, with a cocobolo handle, and it has gone through the process of chopping a bunch of dovetails with hardly a dent on the handle. Maybe I stumbled on a tough sample :wink: 

I was planning on bringing my chisel's bevel down to 20 degrees or so, but your and other comments I've read suggest I avoid doing that. I might just try anyway, out of stubbornness :roll: But the edge at 30 degree already doesn't hold as well as my Japanese chisels honed at 25, so...

Too bad, I really like the feel of the LN chisels...

DC


----------



## paulm (20 Apr 2007)

Alf":209dqnm7 said:


> No worries - just don't get cocobolo handles. Strictly for collectors. The A2 is lousy for paring (high angles required) and the cocobolo isn't as sturdy for hitting.
> 
> Cheers, Alf



Oh no, I'm a collector :shock:  :lol: 

Couldn't resist the cocobolo handles that Mike Hancock had at Yandles and sprung for the set of five. Absolutely beautiful to look at and to handle. Have given them a few belts with a mallet to help seat the handles with no ill effects, so although they probably won't take a sustained beating they seem to me to be fine for more shall we say refined woodworking, but time will tell.

In any event, bieng a turner in my spare time (which there isn't much of !) I plan to turn up some spare handles in something more durable, haven't decided what yet, for those occasions when a bit more sustained encouragement might be needed.

Go on, treat yourself to the A2 and the cocobolo handles, like all beautiful things in life (women, cars, whatever.......) :shock: you will not worry much about the practicalities and enjoy them all the more for not bieng the practical, commensense choice.

Cheers, Paul  

(showing definite collector symptoms :lol: )


----------



## Alf (21 Apr 2007)

dchenard":3jvy080p said:


> Do I gather that you don't like these chisels? :lol:


Erm... well I suppose "sort of" would be closest. Like you, I really like the feel of them, and the fact I didn't have to mess with the backs at all. But A2 is not my favourite stuff and has real disadvantages with chisels of this sort IMO (unless you a. a wide range of other chisels, and b. you use a lot of very hard and abrasive timbers) , it'd be nice to have a forged chisel rather than machined, and I confess to having a problem with marketing the same chisel with a longer handle as somehow turning it into a paring chisel. Apart from that... :lol: No, they do have "something", they just don't tick enough boxes to make me entirely happy that I failed to resist them. :? 

Maybe if they had cocobolo handles I'd be happier...? :-k :lol:

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Modernist (22 Apr 2007)

Just to go back to the beginning I own all the LN's but (unfortunately) not the LA Jack.

I do like the standard pitch 4 1/2 which is a consistent performer and holds it's edge better than any other I've tried. I agree the 60 1/2 is a bit lacking in feel (stangely it seems too narrow for the weight for me). I went for a LH Iron 140 which is excellent for trimming tenons etc and I preferred the iron to the bronze on this occasion as strength in the mouth is inevitably compromised in this design. 

As an afterthought I have recently bought a Veritas bull nosed shoulder plane which is such a beauty and has a superb feel that I am tempted to try some more from the Veritas stable. I did try the normal smoothers when I bought the LN but was not impressed. That was just after the launch and the exhibition samples were not at their best so maybe it was not a fair test.


----------



## Escudo (22 Apr 2007)

Thanks all for the responses to this post, very formative and helpful.

On the plane front I have decided for now to get -

The Veritas low angle jack plane, and
The LN 102 bronze block plane

As previously stated I am also getting the LN chisels, some sharpening stones and accessories.

This could be the start of that slippery slope, although, I didn't expect to be called a collector at this stage :wink: 

Cheers, Esc.


----------



## Keith Smith (23 Apr 2007)

I think the Veritas low angle jack is a great plane and you won't be disappointed, the LN102 on the other hand is a great little apron plane, and fine if you have other planes to turn to, but can be limited because of the fixed mouth. If you have already ordered it you will use it a lot, but I think the Veritas low angle block would be more generally useful to you. Especially if you otherwise only have the LA Jack.

I too have a set of the LN chisels, they are very nice but IMHO only if you have another set of chisels for general use.

As for a third plane, if you have any money left by now :roll: how about the Veritas Bullnose, it does so many jobs well, small shoulder and rebate plus the nose is easily removed to convert it into a chisel plane.

Keith


----------



## Chris Knight (23 Apr 2007)

My LN 102 is probably my most used plane. It might be a case of "everything looking like a nail" but I have never found the fixed mouth to be a serious disadvantage. I have the LN 60 1/2 too but I hardly use that by comparison.


----------



## Paul Chapman (23 Apr 2007)

waterhead37":20qtt8j9 said:


> I have never found the fixed mouth to be a serious disadvantage.



I'm intrigued that so many users do not feel that an adjustable mouth on a block plane is necessary. That is the opposite of my experience. It depends somewhat on what you are planing, but I've found that when planing very small pieces (chamfering the end of a very small piece, for example) as the plane passes over the wood, the plane can drop slightly as the mouth passes over the wood, spoiling the work. It's all about the size of the mouth in relation to the size of the piece being planed. The way to avoid this is to close up the mouth as close as you can get it while still allowing the shavings to pass. Of course, if you can afford more than one block plane it doesn't really matter, but if buying just one, I would always recommend the low angle block with adjustable mouth. 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Alf (23 Apr 2007)

As regards Keith's thought, I think maybe the usefulness of the bullnose is open to some debate. Registering that vestigial nose on the work to use it as a shoulder plane can be done (and many have) but could be a world of aggravation for the tyro.

As for the adjustable mouth block plane - I bought into the thought that you must have one, I've even repeated the thought and spread the disease. Truth is, like Chris, I find reaching for a larger block plane is the exception rather than the rule. I wonder, could the difference be between the size of the fixed mouth on the old Stanleys and Records as opposed to the size on Ls N & V? I don't know - I resisted a whole load of old block planes just yesterday so have nothing to compare to. #-o Could it also be that generally fixed mouth blocks used to also equal not as good bedding/adjustments etc so generally weren't as nice to use, and that, again, is not an issue with the spendier blocks now available? I don't know - but I do know sometimes I go to do a task with my 103 and think "what foolishness - I'll end up getting the adjustable mouth one for this job in the end" but I do it anyway and it works and I really don't know why it should. Final thought aka teaching Paul to suck eggs  - swinging the weight back towards the heel will help prevent any tendency for the mouth to dive over the work and swallow it up IME. 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Paul Chapman (23 Apr 2007)

Interesting comments, Alf. I have no experience of fixed mouth block planes other than a Stanley 130 (which I no longer have) - mine are a Stanley #60.5, Record #09.5 and a Veritas low angle (far superior to the other two) all with adjustable mouths - so I can't comment on older and newer fixed-mouth blocks. However, from experience, I've often found that the workpiece can get caught in the mouth if the workpiece is small and the mouth not closed up. For work on larger pieces it's not really an issue. Having said all that, a lot of users rave about the LN 102 and say it's their favourite plane, so it must be good. At the end of the day, you pay your money and make your choice :wink:

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (23 Apr 2007)

I echo Alf's comments about a fixed- verses an adjustable mouth block plane. The only time that a tight mouth is helpful on a block plane is when planing face grain with a low cutting angle (a case where the standard pitch is a better choice), which is really not its strength anyway. One does not need a tight mouth for end grain since it does not tear out. What you want is a sharp blade. A very sharp blade.

A little demonstration (a few years ago on WC):

http://woodcentral.com.ldh0138.uslec.ne ... read=68098

And that was the reason my Orange Block Plane did so well. 

http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/dCoh ... /index.asp

The other issue is a 12 degree verses a 20 degree bed. Several years ago I was in the market for a new block plane. I had a LN #102 in my sights since it was on special at my local store, and I had heard so many good things about it. So one wet, wintery Friday afternoon I braved the traffic in the rain and made a dash to the store after work. In time for the weekend! I must say that it was everything that it was reputed to be. Its ability to shave endgrain was second to none and it felt like an extension of my hand. It quickly became - and has remained - my favourite plane of all. Iraved about the little LA block plane to everyone, recommending it with the utmost confidence. Fast forward a number of years and I see an auction on eBay for a NOS LN LA #60 1/2 adjustable blockplane, the one that everyone says it The Best. Amazingly no one else bids and I get the plane for a song. It duly arrives and I proudly display my collection .. uh selection of blockplanes on the coffee table as I am watching TV (don't we all do this?), these comprising the two LNs and Stanleys #65 and #18. Something looks odd, I think to myself, the blade angles are not the same for the #102 and #60 1/2. The #60 1/2 is the same as the #65 and the #102 is the same as the #18. Mmmm. So I take a closer look at the #102 ... and discover the numbers #103 underneath! All these yearsI was proclaiming this plane for its LA attributes on end grain ... And of course the moral of the story is that a standard angle block plane is probably the better of the two configurations to own. The advantage of the LA (12 degree) version is that one has a choice.

One last comment. The LN #60 1/2 is a great blockplane. It is a real looker and has superb performance. But it lacks "feel". I find it a bit dead in my hand. The Stanley #65 is nicer (and has better performance - well, mine has with a Hock blade). But of all, the little #103 is the nicest of them all. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Paul Chapman (23 Apr 2007)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> I proudly display my collection .. uh selection of blockplanes on the coffee table as I am watching TV (don't we all do this?)



No - because the wife doesn't know about half the planes I've bought  :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Keith Smith (23 Apr 2007)

Paul I know I'm so lucky, my wife bought many of my planes, and occasionally lets me use them :lol: 

Alf, I agree the bullnose isn't the perfect shoulder plane but it will do the job, as well as many more, jobs that is. If I could only have one specialist plane it is the one I would choose. Although if money were no object I could draw up a long list while sliding down that slippery slope :roll: :lol: 

It's the same with the block, if I only had a jack and could only have one more plane then there is one almighty gap between the Jack and the 102.

Too many planes too little money 

It's an interesting thought, if you could only have only 3 planes which would they be?

Keith


----------



## Alf (23 Apr 2007)

Have a heart, Keith - I found choosing only _four_ impossible! :lol: Can we at least have a Desert Island Discs number to play with? Plus favourite hand plane-related book and luxury item (Philly's likely to get "swept away" with that idea I daresay... :lol: )

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Philly (23 Apr 2007)

Alf":2s2fa21p said:


> Philly's likely to get "swept away" with that idea I daresay... :lol:


_Ooohh... very good_ :lol: 
Philly


----------

