# The Veritas Custom Planes - more than a review



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (21 Jan 2015)

One thing lead to another, and I wrote a series of articles ... four in all. 

It just seemed to flow in that direction. 

It began with the idea that if one could design a plane of their dream, what what they include? Lee Valley recently released the Custom Bench Plane concept, and I have a jointer and a smoother. I also have a bunch of parts ... and together they offer the opportunity to explore different combinations. And then compare these with BU equivalents and Stanley equivalents ........ 

You get the message. It became bigger than Ben Hur. 

I'd like the articles to be a springboard for discussion here. Some of it is old stuff, but there is also new stuff. I can add, modify, include what is written to the articles.

1. Introduction: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... anes1.html

2. Designing a Plane: tips on choosing and tuning: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... anes2.html

3. Designing a Plane: Knobs and Handles - or how we really use a plane! : http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... anes3.html

4. To Chipbreak or Not to Chipbreak: frog angle choice : http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... anes4.html

Happy New Year and ...

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Andy Kev. (21 Jan 2015)

That's a fascinating series of articles, particularly the bit on handles. I was thinking of switching to the more forward leaning style on my BU jointer, simply because it seemed more comfortable when I tried one on a L-N plane. I'll now take a closer look at how I push the thing before coming to a decision.


----------



## Jacob (21 Jan 2015)

For me it'd be the standard Bailey pattern, except no bolt-on frog - just a one piece casting, plus stayset cap iron, laminated blade and adjustable mouth Veritas style.


----------



## mouppe (21 Jan 2015)

My Veritas #4 is one of my most-used planes. It was the first hand plane I bought many years ago. But there is one minor drawback to the frog design and that is the narrow gap behind the adjustable mouth which hinders chamfering leg ends and other similar corners. 

But it's a minor inconvenience to what is a very good plane.


----------



## G S Haydon (21 Jan 2015)

A great deal of hard work went into that Derek, very well thought out and good to read! It would of been nice to see a regular #4 Bailey in stock trim put through it's paces but there only so many planes that can be tested at once!


----------



## woodbrains (21 Jan 2015)

Hello,

Very interesting read, Derek. I have always thought the upright handles made sense, and have said so previously here. Bridge City tools have also reasoned the same on their very futuristic, high end planes. Good Ergonomics tends towards simpler shapes (correctly proportioned, obviously) being the most comfortable, especially for long periods of use and suiting a wider anthropometric demographic, than something more complex. I'd like to own one of these custom planes, but probably never will. I did make a component selection, for fun, on their virtual build a plane feature on the website, last year. I chose exactly the same specification as your best performing variant, in your article, based upon my experience and preferences!

Mike.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (22 Jan 2015)

G S Haydon":2rosbowk said:


> A great deal of hard work went into that Derek, very well thought out and good to read! It would of been nice to see a regular #4 Bailey in stock trim put through it's paces but there only so many planes that can be tested at once!



Thanks Graham.

The "regular" #4 Bailey is not significantly different from the poshed up Bedrock #604 I used. I do find the (Stanley Replacement) Veritas chipbreaker for the #4 to be easier to set up than the original Stanley, and the thicker M4 blade does have less vibration and holds an edge longer ... but the differences for the small amount of wood planed in the tests, per se, would not amount to a lot. You can safely assume the results would hold for a regular #4.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (22 Jan 2015)

woodbrains":1jt1dbqc said:


> Hello,
> 
> ... I'd like to own one of these custom planes, but probably never will. ...
> 
> Mike.



Hi Mike

The article was not really about the custom planes, although they feature centrally. My idea has always been that the features discussed belong to all types of planes, and especially the ones that you modify or may build for yourself in the future. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Biliphuster (22 Jan 2015)

Great articles, extremely illuminating.

Those Japanese videos certainly made me think more about how I will set up my chipbreakers in future, although I rarely work tricky woods.

Just think of the arguments we could have now when adding included chipbreaker angle to the equation.


----------



## G S Haydon (22 Jan 2015)

Thanks for the response Derek, I had a hunch that would be the case but as I have not tried a 604 I did not want to assume.


----------



## OSM. (22 Jan 2015)

Fantastic articles as always Derek, an interesting and informed read. How would you think unhandled planes compare in regards to force direction and effort expended as opposed to handled? i.e. coffin smoothers? One would imagine that it's even more subject to bench height as there is no set 'handle' - a wrist will find its own optimum position for a given height. Ah but the front hand....

With a coffin I tend to use two main grips, the first for fast heavy/moderate cuts where I wrap my front hand completely around the toe, more to guide the cut than press down - when your really going at it I find this affords the best control for that type of cut.

however for slower lighter cuts my thumb gravitates towards the wear, while my back hand tends to relax a bit, to better feel the grain and have more overall control. I guess less effort is expended pushing the plane, more can be channelled into direction of stroke and balance, say if your spot smoothing a particularly nasty patch.



I'll have to have a play over the weekend, and pay closer attention to the variables rather than just doing what feels right.


----------



## OSM. (22 Jan 2015)

forgot photos -

full grip







pinched grip








Ollie.


----------



## dunbarhamlin (22 Jan 2015)

Good stuff.
Am however curious if that was arthritic mp/ip joints only rather than carpus as well? With the latter (as well as arthritis in (esp pollux) mp and ip joints, I find the _lack_ of wood higher up an advantage of the more shapely handle, as it allows good registration with pisiform/hypothenar eminence whilst allowing space for web and tender mp of pollux. 
We're all weirdly different and find what works best for our own quirks, foibles and peculiarities


----------



## CStanford (23 Jan 2015)

All well and good, but I think it's hard to beat a horned plane for sheer comfort. Turned front knobs are no match for German horned planes or planes with front 'buns' for that matter. Accordingly, it's all an exercise in making the most comfortable version of a design that will always be less comfortable when compared to certain others.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (23 Jan 2015)

CStanford":1o93wjep said:


> All well and good, but I think it's hard to beat a horned plane for sheer comfort. Turned front knobs are no match for German horned planes or planes with front 'buns' for that matter. Accordingly, it's all an exercise in making the most comfortable version of a design that will always be less comfortable when compared to certain others.



I have one as well, Charles, and they can be good planes. 

I know you are probably referring to the ECE smoother you have (still, after the fire?). However here is another, made by Kari Hultman a few years ago. Link to her site: http://villagecarpenter.blogspot.com.au ... art-x.html

What I find important, in the context of this thread on plane ergonomics, is how she uses it. Below is a video she made. In it it seems to me that her backhand pushes on the heel on the horizontal, while the front hand (on the horn) does not grasp it for grip or forward thrust, but stabilises her hand and then pushes down on the toe. What do you think?

And how do you use your horned smoother?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AqI6P12uGg

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## bugbear (23 Jan 2015)

Biliphuster":19fzdxmk said:


> Just think of the arguments we could have now when adding included chipbreaker angle to the equation.



Those discussions have already happened!

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (24 Jan 2015)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> CStanford":17bu7xz5 said:
> 
> 
> > All well and good, but I think it's hard to beat a horned plane for sheer comfort. Turned front knobs are no match for German horned planes or planes with front 'buns' for that matter. Accordingly, it's all an exercise in making the most comfortable version of a design that will always be less comfortable when compared to certain others.
> ...



It's hard to argue with the craftsmanship on exhibit with the Hultman plane but I prefer the completely rounded back of the ECE, plus the adjustable mouth and positive adjusting mechanism. She's made a pretty plane but I'm not sure she's made one better than she could have bought but of course that isn't always the point and I understand that.

There's is little not to like with the ECE. It can be used essentially as a single-iron, tight mouthed high angle smoother if one wishes, or as a high angle, close capiron, slightly wider mouthed smoother as seems to be the fashion post Kato and Kawai (but admittedly with a higher angle). The adjustable mouth, rather than a moveable frog, makes all the sense in the world doesn't it? I certainly think so. The bottom can of course be easily kept flat over the years and the adjustable mouth takes up the wear from this as well.

One's hands seem to fall into place and with regard to the pushing hand, holding the plane doesn't result in essentially making a fist around a rear tote, which I find helpful for my arthritic thumb. In fact, I can keep this thumb extended (which reduces pain) and plane perfectly fine. This can be done on a regular tote too but for me doesn't seem to be as comfortable or effective. I understand the plane is also available in a left hand model where the horn leans in the opposite direction.

An iron with replaceable cutting edges is available (in packages of five) as are HSS cutters for working abrasive timbers, though Kunz also make HSS cutters that can replace those in Bailey pattern planes.


----------



## n0legs (24 Jan 2015)

I found it very interesting Derek.
I'm afraid I don't have a lot to add to a discussion but I will be watching this as it unfolds.
Your article, especially the frog angle section, has got me thinking (and plotting).
Thanks for sharing it with us.


----------



## GLFaria (27 Jan 2015)

Thank you very much, Derek, for these most interesting and informative articles - as always is the case with your writings, IMO.

G.


----------



## CStanford (27 Jan 2015)

New planes ... meet saturated market.

Hellloooo.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (28 Jan 2015)

CStanford":13ttv3v9 said:


> New planes ... meet saturated market.
> 
> Hellloooo.




That is a point. I wonder how saturated the market actually is? Is it still expanding, and if so, how much more will it expand? 

When I started woodworking about 30 years ago, we had no decent new planes being manufactured, secondhand being available in local junkshops and from a very small handful of specialist dealers, and not many people really either knowing much about or actively persuing hand-tool work. Now we have a range of high-end plane makers (right up to Karl Holtey), decent quality imports, and a seemingly never-ending secondhand supply available at the click of a mouse from internet auctions and specialist dealers, to a seemingly expanding number of hand-tool users.

I suppose we'll know the market is saturated when somebody either ceases production of handplanes or goes out of business. At some point, the supply of secondhand tools must start to dry up, too. However, neither seem to be happening yet.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (28 Jan 2015)

There is no such thing as a saturated market in amateur woodworking. 

Do you believe that handplanes reached a zenith, say 100, 200 years ago? After all, a million Stanley planes were made, with little change to the shape of the handle, and the use of a double iron? 

The fact that a plane will work because the blade is sharp and is bedded securely does not constitute, in my book, what defines a "good" plane. It defines an adequate plane. The question then is, do we accept adequate planes, or do we search for something more? 

There are those who will accept adequate and there are those who do not. Upgrading is everywhere, not just woodwork. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Cheshirechappie (28 Jan 2015)

It's not just metal planes for which there's a market, either. Consider wooden planes. In the UK, there seems to be an almost never-ending supply of quite decent secondhand wooden planes (and a lot of firewood, too), often at near give-away prices (99p plus postage is not that uncommon). In other parts of the world, they're not quite so common, but you can certainly find most types without too much hunting. Nonetheless, there's a market for new wooden planes, and at quite significant prices, too. The makers of new wooden planes can't keep up with demand, despite the prices they must charge in order to make a living.

Nope. The market ain't saturated yet. Nor anywhere near.


----------



## G S Haydon (28 Jan 2015)

Very interesting point Derek. I think our needs have shifted a great deal as is to be expected. Being a boring person such as I am I have been reflecting on this idea. If we chose to be totally "unplugged" from any planing machine I'm not sure any of the modern metal planes would be part of the core of what we use. I think where they would be welcome would be for fine finishing or use as a panel plane. Due to the weight and friction of metal planes would the typical user 100 years ago or before deem our innovations to be at best a burden for many tasks or at worst a folly? Ergonomics of the planes that preceded what we have now would likely be at worst good otherwise workers would have demanded a significant change. 
In reality, these days machines do most of the tough work for us so perhaps it is right to view these modern metal planes in respect of fine refinement tools only? On that basis it provides a very interesting topic to find out works best given the circumstances of today but what we lack is the perspective of the trade users of 100 and earlier making furniture and joinery for 5 to 6 days a week for long hours. Our perspective as passionate amateur woodworkers is perhaps creating a different standard to which things are judged and that's fine. It's just hard to be definitive with good/adequate beyond the typical qualities that anyone would expect in a plane.
And on saturation, not even close! Changing needs combined with whims, personal preference, high levels of finish, the human urge to have more stuff and a ton of other reasons ensure people will keep buying all kinds of things. Planes and tools included.


----------



## CStanford (28 Jan 2015)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> There is no such thing as a saturated market in amateur woodworking.
> 
> Do you believe that handplanes reached a zenith, say 100, 200 years ago? After all, a million Stanley planes were made, with little change to the shape of the handle, and the use of a double iron?
> 
> ...



Cue Beyonce' : lemme, lemme, lemme upgrade 'ya.


----------



## CStanford (28 Jan 2015)

Cheshirechappie":kwh2p203 said:


> CStanford":kwh2p203 said:
> 
> 
> > New planes ... meet saturated market.
> ...



Plane makers having been going into and out of business, both large, medium, and boutique makers, continuously for at least 200 years all the way up to the present day.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (28 Jan 2015)

I can't think of many that have either withdrawn from the market or gone out of business recently. Several new entrants in the last couple of decades, though - LN, LV, Clifton, several quite decent offerings from China (maybe from the same maker), even Stanley have launched a premium line. Not to mention any number of small-volume high-end makers.

It's true that the 'bulk' makers - Record and Stanley - have changed significantly, but the brands are still out there. Not what they were, but still available.


----------



## Jacob (28 Jan 2015)

The relationship between "brand" and "maker" has always been loose. Even in the good old days a lot of different tool makers could all be using components from the same source. The "brand" would be in the label, the handle, finish etc.
A foundry (such as Qualcast in Derby) would be making plane bodies for several different brands - just like Quansheng today.


----------



## ali27 (26 Apr 2015)

> Q: Where did the idea to make Custom Bench Planes come from and why did we decide to offer them?
> 
> A: Historically, Veritas has always offered customers a choice of blade metals for their planes. We began with O1 and were an early provider of A2 in a commercially available plane. Our introduction of PM-V11® gave customers yet another choice, so we have a history of offering customers some (albeit limited) ability to customize their planes.
> 
> When we embarked on the Custom Bench Planes project, one of the benchmarks we looked at was our own line of bevel-up planes. *One of the features of the bevel-up planes is the ability to change the cutting angle by merely changing the blade to one with a different bevel angle. Thinking "how could we provide this functionality in a bevel-down configuration?" resulted in the design requirement to have user-replaceable frogs, and the ability for the user to specify the exact angle.* (An important note is that this is not a Veritas innovation. Removeable frogs are not new, and we didn't come up with the idea. Being able to specify the exact angle you want, however, is quite innovative and no one else does this in a production-scale product.)



Guess they don't know about putting a back bevel on a plane iron.

The roundness of the plane blades is not my cup of tea. Great functionality, but design......

Rob, if you are reading this thread, how about giving buyers the option of choosing a bailey design adjuster. I like to adjust the depth on the fly.

Ali


----------



## MIGNAL (26 Apr 2015)

CStanford":1ilv28xh said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> > CStanford":1ilv28xh said:
> ...



The horn on the front of the Hultman is a far cry away from that of the ECE, at least in ergonomic terms. The ECE is very tactile, rounded and beautifully shaped. I'm afraid the horn on the Hultman appears to be square with hard edges and awkward (to hold) corners. 
One is a design in function and ergonomics, the other has been designed to display some very attractive carving (which it does).


----------



## CStanford (26 Apr 2015)

Yep, ECE have been quietly making planes for as long, if not longer, than Stanley did. They've certainly figured out their style.


----------

