# The Marcou S15/BU Smoother - Reviewed



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (31 May 2006)

Dear friends

Below is a link to the latest handplane review, the Marcou S15/BU Smoother, the handwork of Philip Marcou from New Zealand.

http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/dCohen/marcou1/index.asp

This is a high-end smoother, with looks, performance and price to match. 







What is interesting is the combination of traditional construction with up-to-the-moment design. Many special features, and a superlative performance. Here it is contrasted with the Veritas Bevel Up Smoother (BUS) and, to a lesser extent, the LN #4 1/2 Smoother.

Enjoy (lots of tool porn and construction techniques included). About 8 pages worth.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Shady (31 May 2006)

Oh Lordy - Derek, you are a bad person. I can feel this 'plane building' bug getting ever more deeply into my soul....


----------



## Chris Knight (31 May 2006)

Dereek,
Thanks for the link to your great review. It sounds as if you rather liked that plane :wink:


----------



## bugbear (31 May 2006)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Dear friends
> 
> Below is a link to the latest handplane review, the Marcou S15/BU Smoother, the handwork of Philip Marcou from New Zealand.
> 
> http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/dCohen/marcou1/index.asp



Nice(!) plane. Interesting comments on the BUS performance from all 3 writers.

On an unrelated note, I see this on the pages:



> Copyright © 1995-2006 wkFineTools.com. All Rights Reserved.



Have you (really) signed over the copyright, Derek?

BugBear


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (31 May 2006)

> Have you (really) signed over the copyright, Derek?



Hi BB

Not as far as I am aware. Thanks for drawing it to my attention. I will have a word with Wiktor about this.

Yes, doesn't the BUS come out well. I am waiting on a new iron for the LN #4 1/2, then I will put them head-to-head. That will probably interest a lot of people.

The Marcou is just in another class. Unfortunately the wood I had was not enough to reveal this more objectively - not to detract from the BUS and LN, which are super smoothers.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## bugbear (31 May 2006)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> The Marcou is just in another class. Unfortunately the wood I had was not enough to reveal this more objectively



Hmm. This may mean that the Marcou solves a problem that most people don't have... !

As you say:


> With high-end smoothers there is a law of diminishing returns.



I guess the final balance is between an induividual's perception of the value of the plane, and an induividuals's perception of the value of $2000.

BugBear

P.S. You don't state the currency for the $2000 tag


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (31 May 2006)

> P.S. You don't state the currency for the $2000 tag



Gad BB, do you want a job as Editor of my scribblings? I could do with a decent proff-retter. Ther is alwys sometyhj missing. :lol: 

Answer: Kiwi Dollars 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jake (31 May 2006)

£700 give or take, to save others having to look it up.


----------



## Alf (31 May 2006)

Proofreader and Editor are different jobs... (says the proofreader, pedantically and editorially  )

So what I'm getting from this is that evidentaly he's undercharging, whilst at the same time the vast majority really wouldn't notice the £550 difference over the BUS making it "not worth the money" even at the current price (if you see what I mean). Ah t'is a blissful contradiction, is it not?  So it's down to looks I suppose.

Derek, does Philip use any other bedding angle than 15°? Just wondering about a higher angle after the discussion there's been on Traditional Tools. Also the adjuster being held in place so it doesn't pop out when the blade is removed; anyone think why that might be a bad idea? Just wondering about getting out the ol' tap 'n' die set and having a look at the BUPP again... :-k

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (31 May 2006)

> does Philip use any other bedding angle than 15°?



Hi Alf

Yes. He also has the S20, which has a 20° bed. This has been one of my pet topics for quite a while, as you may know from TT and other forums. I would like to see dedicated BU smoothers with a 20° bed. This is what I see for the BUS. I wonder if Veritas will do it?!

Philip also has a mitre plane coming out. I hope that he will arise from his slumbers soon to discuss all these planes since I only have a rudimentary knowledge of them.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Anonymous (31 May 2006)

Wonderful work, Derek! I'm sure you had a great deal of fun with your buddies and these fine planes but that was a lot of hard (and much appreciated!) work.
=D> =D> =D>


----------



## bugbear (31 May 2006)

Alf":3w4q5jc4 said:


> So what I'm getting from this is that evidentaly he's undercharging, whilst at the same time the vast majority really wouldn't notice the £550 difference over the BUS making it "not worth the money" even at the current price (if you see what I mean).



He's undercharging w.r.t to work that goes in, not the actual benefit (i.e. planing results).

Sadly, it's all too easy to put (costly) work into an artefact that doesn't generate enough benefit that people want to pay for.

For example...one could polish all the nuts and bolts on a car. It would put the cost up, and I suppose you could call it a better car. I'm not sure many people would want to pay the difference.

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (31 May 2006)

Someone should point out that the current price of a Holtey #98 is 1980.00 + V.A.T.

Someone has.

BugBear


----------



## Scott (31 May 2006)

Thanks for an excellent and very interesting review Derek!

Cheers


----------



## Paul Kierstead (31 May 2006)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> The Marcou is just in another class. Unfortunately the wood I had was not enough to reveal this more objectively - not to detract from the BUS and LN, which are super smoothers.



So, your results did not correlate to your expectations w.r.t. to the performance, therefore it was the wood the hampered complete objectivity?

Surely you see the contradiction there. One could try numerous different pieces of wood until the plane showed that it was in its own class, but that would be quite counter to objectivity instead of reenforcing it.


----------



## philip marcou (1 Jun 2006)

Right Derek, I have arisen from my slumbers, thanks for fielding the odd question or two there :wink: 
Alice-what is BUPP? Anyway , you can you can use a 3mm x 10 c/s machine screw for that job, being careful to locate the hole reasonably accurately so that the screw head overlaps suitably-that's for a polished job. For an inferior job you could just center punch the perimeter a little.... :wink: 
Bug- I have a policy of invoicing in New Zealand dollars, so the plane is getting even cheaper at the moment.
You mention polished screws- I buy these in stainless steel-already polished  Regarding "cosmetic" work, the trick is to be able to do it fast, especially if it does not enhance the working properties of the plane-I expect the customer to be paying for other more important qualities. However it must look good to me at least....


----------



## Alf (1 Jun 2006)

philip marcou":258l2hir said:


> Alice-what is BUPP?


Sorry; Bevel Up Panel Plane - aka Low Angle Jack



philip marcou":258l2hir said:


> For an inferior job you could just center punch the perimeter a little.... :wink:.


#-o Doh! Never thought of that. Not that I'd do an inferior job anyway. No sir. 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (1 Jun 2006)

> So, your results did not correlate to your expectations w.r.t. to the performance, therefore it was the wood the hampered complete objectivity?



Paul

My feeling is that the woods did not test the upper limit of any of the planes, and that the upper limit of the Marcou was a lot higher than either the LV or LN. The only way I could determine this objectively is with increasingly difficult wood to plane. 

But it is really just theoretical. The woods I planed were really beyond the "average" smoother and, as I mentioned in one of my other reviews, many woodworkers will never deal with truly complex and difficult timber. For the "average" woodworker, using mostly softwoods, even a LN or LV is overkill. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Paul Kierstead (1 Jun 2006)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> My feeling is that the woods did not test the upper limit of any of the planes, and that the upper limit of the Marcou was a lot higher than either the LV or LN. The only way I could determine this objectively is with increasingly difficult wood to plane.



Ah well now, that is much better sounding. 



> For the "average" woodworker, using mostly softwoods, even a LN or LV is overkill.



Actually, as I am sure you know, softwoods can play a lot of havoc while planing; it certainly isn't only hardness that can make a wood difficult.

But irrespective of all that, it looks like a sufficient pleasure to use that I still want one.


----------



## Rob Lee (2 Jun 2006)

Paul Kierstead":3lmhpbxy said:


> (snip) But irrespective of all that, it looks like a sufficient pleasure to use that I still want one.



Me too.... :shock: 

:lol: :lol:


----------



## Midnight (3 Jun 2006)

> My feeling is that the woods did not test the upper limit of any of the planes, and that the upper limit of the Marcou was a lot higher than either the LV or LN.



I'm curious.. when your review clearly states that the testing of the L-N was abandoned through the blade issue, how do you justify that remark...???


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (3 Jun 2006)

> I'm curious.. when your review clearly states that the testing of the L-N was abandoned through the blade issue, how do you justify that remark...???


Hi Mike

A more detailed answer:

Two of the boards chosen for the test were selected because they were extremely difficult to plane without tearout. The two tuned and sharp Stanleys (my UK #4 and Colins' USA Type 11 #4 1/2) could not deal with the Maple (documented in the Review), and they simply could not cope with the Jarrah (implied when discussing the Jarrah). The control plane of Peter, his Slater infill with a Hock blade, equally was unable to cope with the boards against the grain.

The third board, the Tasmanian Blackwood, was spectactular, and it is the type of wood that is very unpredictable. One does not approach this wood without care - too expensive and too wonderful to destroy. In this case, it planed easily enough with the review planes (not attempted with the Stanleys!), and the surface result was assessed more subjectively. I pointed out that planing with the Marcou left a deeper shine.

All the review planes had no difficulty with the "difficult" boards. This was achieved more easily with the Marcou - again a conclusion that was more subjective (but echoed by all three reviewers). Of the LN and LV, the latter was the easier to use but the difference should not necessarily be due to the LN having a Clifton blade. I have had excellent performance from the Clifton - however, it will not have the durability of the A2 LN and LV blades. I expect that the addition of the LN blade should lift its performance, but not necessarily for short-term planing and rather for the results after the HCS Clifton would be expected to be dulling. So I plan to repeat the testing with a complete LN plane. I am just waiting for the new blade to arrive from LN. 

The research design did not require evidence that the Marcou planed to a level where the LV and LN simply were no longer able to keep up. While interesting, this type of result is somewhat artificial and academic for most potential users of this plane. What was the aim was to determine that the Marcou could smooth difficult timber at least as well as the LV and LN, the benchmarks for excellence.

So a top end of the planes was not attempted. It is my intention to address this in my next article, which will (as I have noted) pit the LN BUS and LN #4 1/2 head-to-head in the areas of performance and handling. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Javier (3 Jun 2006)

I thought it interesting that the last reviewer said given a choice he'd choose
the LV. Colin Webb said:
"The Lee Valley smoother performs at least as well as the Marcou plane. It handled
the truly difficult task of smoothing that knotty, gnarly jarrah with aplomb."


----------



## Midnight (3 Jun 2006)

> So a top end of the planes was not attempted.



ahhhh... diagnosis by wishfull thinking.... gotchya...

you ummmm.... ever think about a carear in politics..???


----------



## gcpt (3 Jun 2006)

Good review Derek. Your work is informative and well presented. I have read posts from others across the pond questioning your ethics as a reviewer. I say that you made full disclosure and the reader can draw their own conclusions about your motives.

I eagerly await your review of the LV BUS vs the LN 4 1/2. Do you have a time line on that?

Does he ship to north america?
ethicsheers,

Gordon


----------



## Jake (4 Jun 2006)

I find it fascinating how defensive, and actually a little bit vicious, the supporters of a certain brand of planes can be.


----------



## Rob Lee (4 Jun 2006)

gcpt":3ceafkoz said:


> (snip)
> Does he ship to north america?
> 
> Gordon



Hi Gordon...

Apparently he does... :wink: :wink: 

Cheers - 

Rob


----------



## wiktor (16 Aug 2006)

> Does he ship to north america?
> ethicsheers,
> 
> Gordon


[/quote]

Gordon,

I just completed one phase of development on Marcou's website.

The URL is: www.MarcouPlanes.com

There are many new models and more coming.

Wiktor


----------



## CONGER (16 Aug 2006)

;-))


----------



## David C (16 Aug 2006)

Jake,

In the original posts, the ones that provoked the furore, there was a certain "difficulty" with blade preparation and sharpening. The observations should never have been published uintil this issue had been resolved.

The direct comparison of two bevel up planes with one bevel down seems very questionable to me. 

An equivalent test for someone to try might be L-N to Holtey or Sauer.

People have their preferences, but the two types are fundamentally different.

If I needed another plane, I would get a Marcou immediately! They appear to be the bargain of the century.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Aug 2006)

> In the original posts, the ones that provoked the furore, there was a certain "difficulty" with blade preparation and sharpening. The observations should never have been published uintil this issue had been resolved.



David, I quite agree with you - I should have resolved the blade issue in an unambiguous way beforehand. This may have avoided the response that followed from LN supporters (let's be blunt about that) who, however, continued to misinterpret my comments at the time, both in the article and on the WC forum. Having said that, I take responsibility for opening the door in the first place.



> The direct comparison of two bevel up planes with one bevel down seems very questionable to me.



I did answer this one earlier on. Briefly, this was not about the comparison of types of planes, but about setting a minimum performance level (the LV and LN) as the bar that the Marcou had to jump over for credibility of a "performance" tool. Therefore this was a valid demonstration in the review.

I really have no desire to rehash this thread. But I will say that I had several open discusions with Thomas L-N during and after the subsequent unsavoury "debate" on WC forum, and I even posted his assessment of the blade. In fact, Thomas offered me the opportunity to review some of his planes at the time, which sounds a great idea for some stage in the future.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## bugbear (16 Aug 2006)

David C":3gp11idb said:


> If I needed another plane, I would get a Marcou immediately! They appear to be the bargain of the century.
> 
> David Charlesworth



Infill prices don't 'alf vary. The commonest planes are A6 and A13 smoothers (all prices in GBP)

name A6 A13
Karl Holtey 4020 3840
Darryl - 750
Sauer/S 1166 -
Gerd Fritsche 867 837

(the other makers don't make this model AFAIK)

BugBear (confused, or norfolk)


----------



## David C (17 Aug 2006)

Bugbear,

Ray Iles? Very reasonable price.

I think it must have something to do with, reputation, experience, cofidence, and many of those marketing and selling issues which I never understand. If I put a dead animal in a tank I would not get the same price as Damien whatsit.

They will not all be made to the same standard, and the 80-20 rule may have something to do with it. ie the last 20% of increased quality takes 80% more time?

I don't know the answer, but these are some suspicions.


----------



## bugbear (17 Aug 2006)

David C":shwvng33 said:


> Bugbear,
> 
> Ray Iles? Very reasonable price.


Damn. It was inevitable that I'd miss one-or-more.

His website doesn't list it (it's woefully out of date) but
toolsforworkinwood has his A6 at 899 dollars = 473 quid



> I think it must have something to do with, reputation, experience, cofidence, and many of those marketing and selling issues which I never understand. If I put a dead animal in a tank I would not get the same price as Damien whatsit.



All agreed.



> They will not all be made to the same standard, and the 80-20 rule may have something to do with it. ie the last 20% of increased quality takes 80% more time?



AKA law of diminishing returns, a point made a little lower down the scale by Derek, of course.

BugBear


----------



## philip marcou (18 Aug 2006)

David, 

"People have their preferences, but the two types are fundamentally different. " This will soon be addressed , in the form of a smaller smoother, thick blade , bevel down , high angle bed..... 
and 
"If I needed another plane, I would get a Marcou immediately! They appear to be the bargain of the century". Well what more can I say other than to commend you on this astute observation?


----------

