# Advice needed on LN #4-1/2 fault finding



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (21 May 2006)

For the past week I have had a LN #4-1/2 on loan to use in a review. I am having much difficulty getting a reliable shaving from this plane. The owner of the LN lives on the other side of Oz, so I'd like to diagnose the fault, if any, before I contact him. 

I should be setting up this bench plane with my eyes closed. I've done this more times than I can remember. What is happening is that much of the time shavings are only emerging from the sides of the mouth, indicating that the blade is only cutting in these sections. Here is a picture: 







Now I have checked and re-checked my waterstones. They are flat, flat, flat. I lap them on 220 grit dry wall mesh between every honing when I compare planes in a review. Every blade is honed in a LV Honing Guide Mk II. I am not experiencing any difficulty with the other planes I am using. And just for good measure, I honed and tested my Stanley #4-1/2, and this was fine. 

I checked the sole of the LN by covering it in a blue sharpie (Texta or felt tip to us Aussies), and lapped in on 180 and 360 grit W&D. It was absolutely flat (and even flatter now!). I have checked the frog with a straight edge - flat. The cap iron was new (a recent replacement for the old style cap iron), never used, so I filed it flat (as requested by the owner, who may not actually have used this plane before - the blade looked as though it had its factory grind). 

I was not impressed with the blade. The back was far from flat. See here: 






Rather than spend hours flattening it, I made sure that the first 1/2" was flat, then used David Charlesworth's tip for a micro-backbevel. A straightedge on the bevel edge post honing (using the camber accessory for the LV honing guide) looked like a decent shape for a smoother, with cambers at the corners. Still, when the blade is set up in the plane and the mouth is closed up, I can feel that the blade sides projected further than the middle section. 

In spite of all this, I have been able to obtain full width shavings at times, enough times to completely plane a couple of small boards. The end result was good, but not as great as I expected. 

Ideas? 

Confused in Perth 

Derek


----------



## Nick W (21 May 2006)

Is the bed the blade is sitting on flat? If there were for instance a ding in the centre of the mouth that might be enough to distort the blade when it is clamped into position.


----------



## Woody Alan (21 May 2006)

Derek

First off I am no expert and bow to yours and many others experience here. Looking at your micro bevel in your picture something isn't true because the micro bevel isn't consistent across the blade, so either the blade is not flat or your stone isn't flat or your main bevel isn't straight before you apply the micro bevel. Second guess have you tried the blade in a known good body because it's possible the blade is distorting when fitted, thick though it may be. The thing I don't quite get about my first suggestion is if the blade is being honed more at the edges you would think it would cut less at edges. Final stab are you sure it's sharp in the middle of the blade it really doesn't look like it got the micro bevel in the centre so if there is still a tiny burr it won't cut. I still think your stone isn't flat and you're having problems as it's the first time you've tried micro bevel.

Cheers Alan of course I am often wrong but it's fun guessing


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (21 May 2006)

Hi Alan

Just to clarify, the picture of the blade was taken shortly after I began flattening it. It is an early picture, not one at the end.

I do suspect the blade as the main culprit, but ... There is something wierd going on. I did try and use it in my Stanley #4 1/2, but it is not a good fit (although my 4 1/2 uses a Clifton blade of the same thickness). I tried the Clifton in the LN, however it then did the same as the LN blade ...

The other planes used are bevel ups. They planed magnificently - not a hint of a problem anywhere. It cannot be my waterstones or honing in this case.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Midnight (21 May 2006)

Derek.. I'm just speculating here.. but it sounds to me that the blade's slightly hollow... I'd forget the ruler trick for now, clart some marker media on the back and polish the back a little on a known flat stone to see what you're dealing with here.. 

can you explain what you meant with "The cap iron was new (a recent replacement for the old style cap iron), never used, so I filed it flat (as requested by the owner"...

I've fitted improved breakers to all of my bench planes... 6 of em... never came across anything that'd involve using a file...

gut reaction is to have the blade replaced.. that factory grind should be way better than it looks..


----------



## Woody Alan (21 May 2006)

Hi Derek

Haven't you answered your own question though? If you put a different blade in that's OK in another plane, it's either getting distorted or the sole isn't as flat as you think perhaps.... Hang on a minute though, what about the top of the blade how flat is that? mind you you did say the clifton blade did the same thing in that body. Is the cap iron as true as you think after filing? this would surely cause some distortion if not true, perhaps a hone on your flat stone may help. 

Alan


----------



## MikeW (21 May 2006)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> ...I do suspect the blade as the main culprit, but ...
> ...I tried the Clifton in the LN, however it then did the same as the LN blade ...


If the Clifton blade doesn't do it in its plane but does in the LN--how could it be the LN blade?

Sounds like the sole is twisted, despite the flattening, the frog is askew or warped or something.

Why not shoot TLN himself an email?

Take care, Mike


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (21 May 2006)

> can you explain what you meant with "The cap iron was new (a recent replacement for the old style cap iron), never used, so I filed it flat (as requested by the owner"...



Mike

The plane sounds to be an old model. I seriously doubt that the owner has actually used it! Still, he recently bought the improved cap iron to replace the old version (which was similar to the Stanley one). He sent it along. As part of preliminary tuning, I run the underside over a very fine diamond stone. 

I agree about the blade - I could not believe that this was an LN. It was hollow like a Japanese blade. But I was able to hone the edge flat, so DC's tip seemed a reasonable strategy at this point.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Ian Dalziel (21 May 2006)

Derek,
seems a strange one....youve had a few good theorys to try. 
I first thought the blade....seems like a friday afternoon blade on the grinder but if it works fine in the clifton then blade seems ok.

I suspect the frog has a slight machine mark or bump in it....can you balance the tightness of the lever cap till its hardly clamping but still is and try it.
or to measure it sit on a granite plate and use an adjustable arm dial clock with base and run the width of the frog this is quite hard to do but is acheivable ...to see if its out...also check inside the plane body where the frog mounts is even. 

DC might come along and answer this one as its more his forte....i'm still an apprentice.

Ian


----------



## David C (21 May 2006)

Derek,

Interesting problem.

If the blade was significantly hollow, could there be a pronounced bump in the width of the opposite side? The one that seats on the frog. Try checking just behind the heel of the bevel. When pressed down by the lever cap, this might cause the corners to stick out.

I have had trouble with opposite faces, {of other blades}, in the past, as the blanks are held down by a powerful magnetic chuck which can temporarily flatten a twisted blank, when they are surface ground.

The blade seems suspect and I know Tom will replace it, or the whole plane if necessary.

Is the frog surface flat in its width, where the heel of the bevel sits. Is it still flat when the frog is fixed down.

I suggest you email or phone Tom tomorrow and he will put you in touch with his Australian agent if time is short.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## deirdre (22 May 2006)

In my experience diagnosing mystifying problems:

There's multiple causes, thus making diagnosis more difficult than it should be.

1) I suspect the LN blade has some issues.
2) I think the frog is also possibly an issue.
3) There may be a third as well.

Assume no piece is known good (except for the sole you flattened).

I'm guessing you flattened it under tension, but have you looked at the sole without tension just to see if that would tell you anything?


----------



## JesseM (22 May 2006)

From what you describe and the way the shavings look it looks like the sole has a problem. Because the LN blades are so thick I wouldn't think they would deflect very easily which makes me think it is the sole.

I have the #4 1/2 and a couple of other LNs and haven't had any problems. In fact I think its kinda scary how tuned and ready to go mine have come.


----------



## Alf (22 May 2006)

Elementary deduction* would seem to point the finger of suspicion at the frog, assuming you _didn't_ use the LN cap iron with the Clifton iron. If you did, then the cap iron is a suspect too of course. Tsk, these bevel down planes with all their extra bits and pieces, eh? :roll: :wink: 

Cheers, Alf

* Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's birthday today, so that's appropriate.


----------



## bugbear (22 May 2006)

Since the 2 blades exhibit the same problem, I'm guessing it ain't the blade.

So it sounds like the blades are getting bent in use. The clamping forces are easily strong enough to do that, despite the thickness of the Clifton and/or LN blades.

And say you've checked the frog.

What about the part of the SOLE that contacts the blade?

Or the bed the frog rests on?

Something is distorting the blade. Possibly indirectly.

BugBear


----------



## Paul Chapman (22 May 2006)

Or the frog adjusting screws/pins or the holes in which they fit?

Paul


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (22 May 2006)

OK, I've had another look at the whole plane following all the excellent suggestions here and on WC. 

As an aside, it is quite an interesting adventure when something like this occurs - it makes one so much more aware of the balance between components in getting everything to work together, and to do so well.

The major culprit has been the blade. This is largely a fault of manufacture, but partly (I believe) a consequence of the honing technique I used with this blade. 

Firstly, I went through the plane with a fine tooth comb, again. The sole is flat. The mouth is flat and square. The frog is flat, and sits flat on the body. The cap iron is flat and spreads the load properly. I used just enough tension via the screw and lever cap to hold the blade firmly and so avoid undue distortion of the blade. By now I was a paid up member of the Flat Earth Society. 

So back to the blade. Now, the picture I posted earlier has been misunderstood by many as representing how it looked when I used it. Not so. Not nearly so. I took the picture to document the state of the blade when I got it, and shortly after I began trying to flatten the back. Some suggested that I had overdone the micro-backbevel. 

I decided to regrind the blade on my belt sander set up and then re-hone on the LV Mk II, in other words, go from scratch. Here is the bevel after my belt sander (120 grit). All this did was tidy up the bevel. You can still see the microbevel. 






The problem - I believe - lay with the camber jig I used or, rather, with the way I used the camber jig. I suspect that I applied too much central pressure, which caused the bevel to become slightly hollowed. A straight edge revealed that this was so (too difficult to photograph). So I put away the camber roller and used the straight roller instead. Again honed a final microbevel on 8000 grit and finished with Veritas green rouge.

The result was much, much better. On Rock Maple (with some soft pockets that tore out easily), _with_ the grain, the #4 1/2 planed pretty well. The shavings were somewhat erratic, that is, the thickness was not stable, and gradually the centre section began to labour. Very prematurely, the plane stopped cutting. Clearly, the blade did not hold an edge and was softer in the centre than at the sides.






I re-honed and exchanged the Clifton blade for the LN, keeping the LN chip breaker and settings. The Clifton is the same thickness as the LN. Now we were cooking!! Finally the #4 1/2 was working as I expected it to. Behind the #4 1/2 you can see the shavings made by three planes during the review planing.

The shavings from the #4 1/2 here were made _against_ the grain (45 degree frog).






While the review was principally about the Marcou smoother, I shall be compiling another mini review of the LV BUS and LN 4-1/2 head-to-head.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## hockeydad (22 May 2006)

Derek,

Sorry I don't have an answer but I'm very interested because I have the same problem. My 4 1/2 has a york pitch and is a couple of years old. I have had the problem from the time that I received it. I have 2 Stanley type 11's, one with a hock replacement blade and the other with an original. I also tried switching blades to no avail. Both Stanley's consistently outperform the LN to the point that I quit using it. In a pm to you a few weeks ago, in which I requested your opinion on purchasing the LV Jack or the BU smoother, I briefly mentioned that I was contemplating getting rid of the LN because I couldn't get it "right". This was the problem...

As an aside, I did, on your recommendation, purchase the Jack and I culdn't be more pleased. There is no question that as soon as school tuitions are paid this spring a new BU will be in the mail to replace the "ornery" LN.


----------



## Alf (22 May 2006)

Well that doesn't make any sense, if the Clifton was doing the same thing as you said it was. I'm perplexed. :? 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (22 May 2006)

Alf

I must have honed a slight hollow on the Clifton before using it on the LN first time around. This was _very_ slight however, but _just_ enough to produce the same effects (only much, much milder) as the LN blade. So I stopped using it as soon as it appeared.

The hollow on the LN was more pronounced. Plus the steel appears to be softer, which is why the hollow was more pronounced to begin with, and then stopped cutting (a dozen or so strokes was all I got). 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Alf (22 May 2006)

So... how come you weren't getting the same effect on the other blades? :-k 

Not to get at you, Derek, I'm just genuinely interested. 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Paul Chapman (22 May 2006)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Clearly, the blade did not hold an edge and was softer in the centre than at the sides.



Derek,

This would suggest that there was a problem at the manufacturing stage of the blade and somehow the hardening and tempering of the blade is variable across its width. Is this likely or possible? I'm not sure given that I don't know how they go about this process when they manufacture the blades? Like Alf, I'm just genuinely interested and puzzled :?

Paul


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (22 May 2006)

> So... how come you weren't getting the same effect on the other blades?



I am also trying to understand and learn from this, so the following is my interpretation, not necessarily the only explanation.

The "other" blades are A2 LV (both the BUS and the Marcou use the same blade). The LN, I have now been told, was purchased in 2000 (and, yes, was unused), is likely to be HCS. 

As you know, it is much harder to hone A2 than HCS, plus it is also harder to create a meaningful camber (or hollow) on a bevel up blade (that is, a BU blade requires greater camber than a BD blade to take effect).

Does this add anything?



> This would suggest that there was a problem at the manufacturing stage of the blade and somehow the hardening and tempering of the blade is variable across its width.



Paul, indeed, that is how it appears. Although the edges were doing more cutting (since they had more contact with the wood than the centre section of the blade), they remained sharper longer. That is, they were still cutting when the centre was clearly blunt. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## David C (22 May 2006)

Derek,

Glad you got that sorted out.

The A2 Cryo blades will work for 3 or 4 times longer than a carbon steel blade, if you can sharpen them effectively.
This explains why I am not a fan of the Clifton (Victor) blades, or the old L-N carbon steel blades. I can remember all too clearly how often they needed sharpening when working difficult, dense abrasive woods.

Perhaps this thread sould be re named

TROUBLE SHOOTING SHARPENING TECHNIQUES????!


David Charlesworth


----------



## Midnight (23 May 2006)

> As an aside, I did, on your recommendation, purchase the Jack and I culdn't be more pleased. There is no question that as soon as school tuitions are paid this spring a new BU will be in the mail to replace the "ornery" LN.



George.. when you bought the L-N, you gained a lifetime warranty for the plane... If for any reason you're unsatisfied with it, I'd strongly recommend you get in touch with them. From personal experience I can assre you that they'll do whatever's necessary to either return the plane to you in "fit for purpose" condition or see that you're refunded... L-N are one of a few companies that pride themselves on 100% customer satisfaction..


----------



## Alf (23 May 2006)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> I am also trying to understand and learn from this, so the following is my interpretation, not necessarily the only explanation.
> 
> The "other" blades are A2 LV (both the BUS and the Marcou use the same blade). The LN, I have now been told, was purchased in 2000 (and, yes, was unused), is likely to be HCS.
> 
> ...


Mmm, I'm gonna have to think about this one a bit. :-k

George, welcome to the forum. Mike is bang on the money; get in touch with LN and I'm sure it'll be sorted out one way or the other to your satisfaction.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## philip marcou (23 May 2006)

Phew, I'm glad that's out of the way, I was quite convinced the L.N had developed an inferiority complex, being in the august company of those, er, other planes.(apologies to Bro. Michael Midnight of Aberdeen). Also , the growing list of suspected ailments had reached epidemic proportions , making it difficult for me to submit a diagnosis.
HOWEVER, it brings to mind a couple of questions that I have asked of people, and never got a 100% satisfactory reply- a) do folk actually look at what they have done when they hone or sharpen and b) do they test for sharpness and how is this done?
Sound like daft questions......


----------



## Alf (23 May 2006)

philip marcou":3lb9gri7 said:


> a) do folk actually look at what they have done when they hone or sharpen


Yep. Often in order to say "cripes, what a mess..."  Seriously though, yes, I do. Not under extreme magnification or anything, but I can't sharpen without I look at the result. I don't get enough workshop time to do anything without testing the result to some extent.



philip marcou":3lb9gri7 said:


> b) do they test for sharpness and how is this done?


I run the back of the blade up my thumbnail - if it takes a shaving it's usually okay for wood too.



philip marcou":3lb9gri7 said:


> Sound like daft questions......


Not in the least; no such thing here.  

Cheers, Alf


----------



## philip marcou (23 May 2006)

U C now , I am starting to get answers that are not 100% correct..... :wink:


----------



## bugbear (23 May 2006)

philip marcou":wnb5cz0x said:


> HOWEVER, it brings to mind a couple of questions that I have asked of people, and never got a 100% satisfactory reply- a) do folk actually look at what they have done when they hone or sharpen and b) do they test for sharpness and how is this done?
> Sound like daft questions......



Neither. For Bailey pattern 2" plane blades, I remove the round blunt edge with a abrasive chosen by experience, judgement or guesswork to to work as quickly as possible without removing excess (precious!) steel. This is normally 180 grit or 240 AlZi. Once this has generated a burr on the back side of the blade, the bevel gets around 5-7 strokes on each grit up to 2000.

That's it; back in the plane.

On blades I'm not familiar with I check progress (of the abrasion marks) with a 10x magnifyer. Blade size, bevel width and steel resistance to abrasion can all vary the rate of metal removal.

But I still don't check "sharpness". If the bevel has been made by proper use of abrasives up to (around) 2000 grit, with each stage removing the scratches of the former, the blade *IS* sharp. It's a consequence of the process. I check the process, not the sharpness.

BugBear


----------



## Paul Chapman (23 May 2006)

philip marcou":3q6yusae said:


> a) do folk actually look at what they have done when they hone or sharpen and b) do they test for sharpness and how is this done?



Yes, and I keep a piece of wood in one of my vices to test the plane before using it on the piece on which I am working. This not only tests for sharpness but also whether the cap iron, blade alignment, etc is set properly and that I am generally happy with the way the plane is cutting.

Don't bother with magnifying glasses and the like - don't want to get any more paranoid than I already am 8-[ 8-[ 8-[ 

At the end of the day the real test is whether the plane is cutting the way I want it to. 

Paul


----------



## hockeydad (23 May 2006)

> George.. when you bought the L-N, you gained a lifetime warranty for the plane... If for any reason you're unsatisfied with it, I'd strongly recommend you get in touch with them. From personal experience I can assre you that they'll do whatever's necessary to either return the plane to you in "fit for purpose" condition or see that you're refunded... L-N are one of a few companies that pride themselves on 100% customer satisfaction..



First, let me apologize for the font size of this reply, (what happened) and to all for my lack of contribution to this post. I didn't realize the level of discussion which would ensue and I feel as though I jumped on someone elses bandwagon. Having said that:

Mike/Alf,,

Thanks for the welcome and the advice. I didn't realize that The LN carried a lifetime guarantee. However, given Derek's apparent solution (at least conclusion) to the problem, I think I owe it to myself and the company to take another crack at making it work. My previous attempts at sharpening had been using an old eclipse on 220, 400, 800, 1000, 1500, 2000 grit papers. I recently purchased the MK ll so I'll see if it makes a difference. I'm still amazed at the LV Jack's performance out of the box, (standard and 38* bevels) and I somehow see four 4 1/2's lined up on my shelf, assuming that I can get reasonable performance out of the LN. 

Alf,

If I could have figured out how to get two quotes on the same reply I would have attributed your post.

George S

Modedit: It's ok now.


----------



## Alf (23 May 2006)

George, feel free to jump aboard any discussion; some of the most interesting stuff crops up at a tangent to the "main event". Personally I wouldn't have it any other way 'cos it's more like real conversation.

If you feel more comfortable giving the LN another go before crying help it's quite understandable. I'm always reluctant to contact manufacturers until I'm absolutely sure it's not me wot's the problem   But let us know either way, won't you? Chances are someone at LN has picked this up already and is chomping at the bit to help.

FWIW, quoting from two different posts requires faffing around with cut and paste - I don't recommend it. :roll: :lol:

Cheers, Alf


----------



## MikeW (23 May 2006)

hockeydad":1vuu8inp said:


> ...My previous attempts at sharpening had been using an old eclipse on 220, 400, 800, 1000, 1500, 2000 grit papers. I recently purchased the MK ll so I'll see if it makes a difference.
> 
> ...George S


Hi George--Welcome!

Just a point of reference. If the sandpaper you are using is FEPA graded paper and not CAMI, then the 2000 grit paper being used is only 10 micron paper. This is basically the equivilent to a 1000 grit waterstone.

This is a bit coarse of paper to stop at. While the bevel may appear shiney, it is not as sharp as it could be.

If on the otherhand it is CAMI, you're good to go as an 8000 grit waterstone is roughly equal.

Many manufacturers in the US have begun switching to FEPA.

Take care, Mike


----------



## hockeydad (23 May 2006)

Mike W.,

I'm using 3M Imperial wet/dry. I'm pretty sure it must be CAMI beause a blade finished at 2000 grit is much more polished than one coming off of my King 6000 water stone, ( I gave up on stones because of the mess and constant need for flattening). Incidently, my final step in honing is 4 or 5 light strokes on the back of a CLEAN sheet of 2000 grit. I find that I don't get the 'dub over" effect that I get from leather and polish. 

Thank you all for the kind welcome..

George S.


----------



## Midnight (24 May 2006)

> Phew, I'm glad that's out of the way, I was quite convinced the L.N had developed an inferiority complex, being in the august company of those, er, other planes.(apologies to Bro. Michael Midnight of Aberdeen).



<drummin fingers..

an what time di ye call this t be draggin yer sorry carcus into a discussion c/w yer Mk1 stealth gloat..??? We do have some standards here.... someplace... surely....???

:wink: 

btw no need to appologise on my account... my L-N's are earnin their keep quite nicely thankyou.. ;P


----------



## engineer one (24 May 2006)

couple of thoughts, from the engineering perspective, sorry alf, 
but just occassionally we have some uses :lol: 

any steel needs to go through two basic processes, hardening, and then annealing or tempering, to make them useable.

hardening gives one an edge, whilst annealing or tempering, 
"takes the edge off", others call it stress releiving.
by reducing the hardness so that the metal will not splinter.


i do not think it is possible for the blade to be "soft" in the middle, and 
hard on the edges, but it is possible that the annealing may have been 
over enthusiastic, but surely LN would know by now and have sent out a message.

as for the sharpening, being a tormek man i guess my idea is slightly 
warped from that of others like DC, none the less, i think the initial 
concept of sharpness must be does it cut wood??

i wonder whether some people have problems because they do not
back off the "wire edge" often enough.

as a lowly starter in the high tech world of scary sharpening, i have not yet decided to use magnifying glasses to check my edges, just good old fashioned wood, which is why i sharpen in the first place.

i wonder whether there is a fundamental flaw in the earlier LN 41/2 
since there seem to be more than one with this basic problem.

what about the side to side adjuster.
:? 
paul :wink:


----------



## Anonymous (24 May 2006)

Paul Chapman":2f9mtzha said:


> philip marcou":2f9mtzha said:
> 
> 
> > a) do folk actually look at what they have done when they hone or sharpen and b) do they test for sharpness and how is this done?
> ...



Same here


----------



## bugbear (24 May 2006)

hockeydad":1wal5ebi said:


> My previous attempts at sharpening had been using an old eclipse on 220, 400, 800, 1000, 1500, 2000 grit papers.



Watch out for (unintended) camber; I use 3" wide SiC, and it wears more in the middle, leading to cambered blades (around 3 thou of camber).

I'm happy with this, but if you're not expecting it, it might confuse use.

If you use full sheet SiC, or replace it regulary, the cambering effect is greatly lessened

BugBear


----------



## hockeydad (24 May 2006)

Bugbear,

I use 1/2 sheet which is approx. 5 1/2" X 9". I work from the middle of the sheet to each corner then to each edge (side) in an attempt to prevent dubbing and unintended cambering. On the eclipse it's pretty simple to get a cambered profile and that's what I've been using until my new, "doodad", gets here from LV.

Alf,

I just got a chance to pull the the blade on the LN 4 1/2 and as son as I can make a judgement I'll post my results.

George S


----------



## Paul Kierstead (24 May 2006)

engineer one":14m1m23b said:


> i do not think it is possible for the blade to be "soft" in the middle, and
> hard on the edges, ...


 
See http://yarchive.net/metal/case_hardening.html for one description of case hardening, which is that effect. There it is done on purpose, but AFAIK, it can occur accidently as well.


----------



## bugbear (24 May 2006)

hockeydad":3t1icdn1 said:


> Bugbear,
> 
> I use 1/2 sheet which is approx. 5 1/2" X 9". I work from the middle of the sheet to each corner then to each edge (side) in an attempt to prevent dubbing and unintended cambering. On the eclipse it's pretty simple to get a cambered profile and that's what I've been using until my new, "doodad", gets here from LV.



Cool - I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the (potential) problem.

BugBear


----------



## engineer one (25 May 2006)

thought i better redeem my knowledge base.

you would not case harden a cutting tool since the case hardening would be removed with the sharpening process. in principle, you case harden things like shafts which need to run in bearings, but need to retain the 
basic flexibility of the steel.

for tool steel for use in a blade i would expect that it is hardened, maybe in oil, or a cyrogenic chamber, then the temper drawn, or stress relieved
to basically align the molecules so that they are rather like the grain of wood that way they keep and take an edge.

my history lessons tell me that one of the reasons that the japanese used two metals was that the "tool" steel was less easily available than the mild steel. it was only later that they sought to justify the practice by claiming that it made it easier to sharpen the actual edge. 

one of the skills we lost in the west was the making of "damascene" blades where layers of steel were hammered together and then bent over, and hammered again until they seemed all to become one. the feeling was 
that iron and steel developed after the industrial revolution was adequate without the costly process of mixing them. however what many people do not know is that steel was available for a long time before, but not in large
quantities. it was the ability to produce large quantities that was the great leap forward.

but all this does not answer the original question why odd shavings?

the only real answer can be some problem with the frog seating if the body is flat and at right angles to the mouth.

its nice to know that just occassionally LN can make a mistake :shock: :shock: 

paul :wink:


----------



## Wiley Horne (25 May 2006)

The Clifton blade worked fine in the LN 4.5 body--pictures were shown to document. Conclusion: LN body is good.

LN blade is claimed to be soft in the middle, but not on the edges.

Differential heat treatment is a near-impossibility.

Blade temper drawn by machine grinding in Australia remains a possibility. 

The facts presented so far have brought us very close to the need for the Lie Nielsen company, and Thomas Lie Nielsen, to be given an apology. 

Wiley


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (25 May 2006)

Wiley

I think that you are over-reacting.

Consider the following:

I was loaned a plane that had not been used and came with the original factory grind, as I have been informed by the owner. It was purchased from the factory in 2000, which indicates that the iron was the softer HCS, not A2.

I went to a lot of trouble to determine that the plane, itself, was in perfect condition and an excellent state of tune. It did not require anything from me to get it to this state.

When it became apparent that the iron was hollowed, I accepted part of the blame owing to my poor technique (when honing a straight bevel with a cambered wheel). The bevel was re-honed and checked for straightness, but it was evident that the iron was faulty since the edge only lasted a dozen strokes. On inspection, a slight hollow had returned, indicating greater wear in this area, plus the side edges of the iron remained sharp while the centre section was blunt.

Now, unless the owner comes forward to state that he had used a high speed grinder to shape the bevel, thereby over-heating it and destroying the temper, I must conclude that it came this way from the factory. 

I did not come to these conclusions impulsively. The reason I posted here was that I was confused and needing an infusion of ideas to sort the plane out. In the end I shared my conclusion, which may be wrong, but so far no one has stated why or how my deductions are faulty. All I hear is "it is impossible". That is not a good enough argument. 

Last point: I have a large number of LN irons, since I have a large number of LN planes. Never for one moment would I consider a 2000 iron to be representative of LN quality. I cannot imagine that any one else would do so either. Not for one moment have I intended to imply any criticism of LN.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Shady (25 May 2006)

Correct Derek - this is a forum where people very rarely get 'over-excited', and opinions and discussion are almost always aimed at helping one another understand issues, not point fingers - unless it is thoroughly deserved!

Let us know if you identify the cause - it's an interesting puzzle, not an L-N trashing exercise...


----------



## Alf (25 May 2006)

Wiley Horne":3i80kob4 said:


> Differential heat treatment is a near-impossibility.


But then again "stuff happens". As another toolmaker well known to this august group has remarked in the past; if there's going to be one that slips through it'll inevitably end up being the one the reviewer gets, usually the overseas one at that. And by gum, Murphy's done some fancy footwork to set this one up 6 years in advance! #-o

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (25 May 2006)

A further thought:

Are irons prepared by grinding the bevel, then heat treating? Or, heat treating then grinding (alternatively, grinding, heat-treating, then grinding once again)? 

If the former, then I can understand why some reject the notion of "differential heat treatment". However, if the latter, then I would have thought it possible to have different hardnesses in one strip of steel if grinding is applied less than juditiously. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## hockeydad (25 May 2006)

Alf as promised, I pulled the blade on the LN 4 1/2, reground the base bevel, touched up the back and rehoned it using the MK 2, (SS 220 thru 2000) to make sure it was square. I then touched up the the Stanleys, 1000 - 2000, took the LV Jack out unretouched, pulled out a piece of curly maple, curly cherry and white oak and went at it. Sorry Derek, I didn't have any "real wood" from down under to make it a real test. However, I copied your procedure and planed with and against the grains. The results... The LV Jack was the hands down winner in all ways, with the grain, against the grain and even across the grain. The LN performed better than it had earlier but only slightly better than the Stanleys. It was significantly better going against the grain of the "curlys" than the 2 Stanleys leaving a finish that would require a minimum of scraping. The Stanleys each had a minor tearout on the maple and cherry boards. Let me emphasize, there was nothing scientific about this procedure!! I was simply testing my own feeling that the LN was not performing to a level that I expected and I was trying to determine if it was it my own poor preparation or the fault of some component of the plane.

So what do I conclude? I don't know if there was/is a problem the LN 4 1/2. After regrinding and honing, it performed better. If I did not have the LV Jack to compare it against I might have been happy, maybe tickled pink with the results. Therefore, I do not feel justified in sending it back and asking for either another plane or a refund. I'm begining to think that my expectation level was out of whack. (Not unlike my early experiences with the opposite sex.....maybe even my curr...nah...don't go there George) I am sure though that a LV BUS is in my future, even if I have to sell off some of my purchases of the '80's.

My last comments...In answer to a question posed earlier in this thread, I examine the results of my sharpening visually with no aids other than my reading glasses. I reduce the number of hairs on my arm and that I hit a couple of licks on a board of my choice, unless I'm involved in a project and then that becomes my board of choice.

Sorry to be so longwinded. I really feel as though I had nothing to say...

George S


----------



## Midnight (26 May 2006)

George... I honestly can't tell what the prob might be with your L-N without either a bunch more info or a looksee in person.. bit I do know that there's more potential "under the hood" than you're seeing at the moment. 

When properly tuned it should be able to leave a finer finish working against the grain than a Stanley (s/w stock blade) will when working with the grain... Tear out simply doesn't happen unless the throat's too open, chip breaker's too far back, cut's too aggressive and the blade's tired..

If a re-tune doesn't produce a marked difference, I'd give L-N a call to arrange for them to check it out... Straight outa the box it should be working far better than it sounds like it is...


----------



## hockeydad (26 May 2006)

Mike,

I hate to keep boring people with this thread but a couple of things...I'd love to have you look at it in person. TLOML and I were in Ireland ( the home of her fathers ancestors) last fall and hoped to do Scotland (home of her mothers tree) this year. But..can't get my youngest off the ice, lacrosse fields, etc., so looks like we won't make it. But if I do, I'll make sure I carry the, "ornery one", with me...the LN not TLOML.

The other point, one of the Stanleys has a Hock replacement blade and the other a like new type "V" blade. I don't believe it had ever been sharpened before I got it, if that means anything. Gloat..picked them up in the mid eighties (before ebay and www) for $2 dollars each. At any rate, I'm coming to the conclusion that it's operator error and let it go at that.

Thanks to everyone for their help. There are a great group of people in this forum..the moderators should be proud. Some day I'll report on the very earliest of the forums, (before www) and how Patrick Leach without knowing it or me, slid me down the slope...

Regards,

George


----------



## engineer one (26 May 2006)

ok so i checked my books and a fount of knowledge.

it is not really possible with the kind of hardening and tempering that
LN claims to do for there to be "soft" bits within the blade. cryogenic and 
other terms mean that the steel is able to be hardened and tempered
on a more scientific basis. 

this is not to say however that the steel may occassionally be of such a quality that it does not take and keep an edge properly. it is not something
we expect from LN, but are used to with marples etc.

but i still feel that had this been a widespread problem we would have
heard about it before, unless of course all the early buyers were 
collectors :lol: :lol: :lol: 

i still think that the plane needs to be returned to LN for them to investigate and then maybe respond to us and let us know what happened.

paul :wink:


----------



## Alf (26 May 2006)

Paul, I'm not sure that the older, O1 irons were cryogenicaly treated.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Midnight (26 May 2006)

> The other point, one of the Stanleys has a Hock replacement blade and the other a like new type "V" blade. I don't believe it had ever been sharpened before I got it, if that means anything.



I went the L-N way with mine.. gave both my Stanleys an L-N upgrade blade and improved chip breaker.. made a hellova difference to the pair of em, but they're still outclassed in performance by the proper L-N's..


----------



## engineer one (27 May 2006)

alf. sure you are right, i was only basing my comment on my most
recent purchases, l think my first LN was bought in 2001/2, so maybe things have improved in the steel process. i am sure that tom had to 
experiment, but i am still confused that it should only be one type
of blade, not the whole range.

has anyone else within the forum had problems with any other 
LN blades, has anyone change blades between different bodies
to see whether it is the blades or the particular blade.

i do however agree that s**t happens even with the best laid
plans of mice and men.

derek i think you need to send the blade or plane to tom.

paul


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (27 May 2006)

Let me start by saying that this thread has gone to areas far beyond my anticipation (sometimes I am very naive, I know). My concern is that there is a _general _criticism, implied or direct, of LN rather than just an examination of this one blade as a source of curiosity (because we all know that LN produce simply wonderful stuff, and their support service is second to none - OK, on a par with LV). Interestingly, the thread seems to have died on WC, which is always a potentially critical forum, where no one questioned my conclusion regarding the possible differential softness of the iron.

To try and obtain some balance here, I have some information that I will share. I have received copies of the communication between the owner of the plane and Tom Lie-Nielson. This is the gist:

Firstly, it appears that the owner, while on holiday from Oz in 2000, went to the LN factory in Maine to pick out and purchase a #4 1/2. Once there he discovered that they were sold out. LN graciously (no doubt) helped out by putting one together from available parts. 

The owner used it exactly once, out of the box (i.e. he had done no grinding or honing of the iron), found the performance disappointing, and set it aside (as he has other planes he prefers to use anyway, such as a LN #62 and a LN #5). The plane only came out of the box for my review.

The tool steel predates A2. The cap iron was updated recently when a local store cleared its stock. 

Tom L-N promptly offered to replace the iron, sight unseen, which the owner has accepted. I really would like the original iron to be returned to LN since this is not only fair to them but I do want to know what the problem is. I have written to both Tom and the plane's owner. My wish is that I get the replacement iron to complete the review, and that LN send back their review of the iron in question. Then we have closure.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## engineer one (27 May 2006)

derek thanks for sharing,

i wonder whether the owner would have found it disappointing had he
not had other LN products???

i do agree that LN have a good reputation for after sales service, like
LV, and we should be thankful that today it is possible to deal at
"reasonable" prices with companies that have that consideration.   

i think that in and on principal, you have been very fair to LN, and in bringing this to our attention, you have given us all a chance to check and verify the quality of a product we had maybe taken for granted.

it will be interesting to see whether tom is prepared to release the information about the returned blade, it would certainly increase
my respect for him. i do feel having talked with him face to face
once i found him very keen to respond to all kinds of customer 
concerns, including that for information.

lets hope the next blade works, but maybe you should get the client
to return the whole plane, not just the blade.

all the best
paul :wink:


----------



## David C (27 May 2006)

Derek,

The concept of trying a plane, out of the box, without honing the blade or checking the front edge of the capiron/chipbreaker is quite frankly LUDICROUS.

I find it deeply depressing that anyone would even think of doing this.

Blades do not arrive sharp, and I know of no manufacturer whose chipbreaker front edges are properly prepared. {of course there may be exceptions, Bridge City perhaps?}

For any plane to work well, *we must have a sharp blade, a properly prepared chipbreaker edge and a flat enough sole*.

Even these simple requirements are not easy for the beginner, which is why I spend the majority of my summer running short courses to help people perfect these issues.

The revelation of working with a properly prepared tool causes such joyand amazement, that my job continues to be deeply satisfying.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Paul Chapman (27 May 2006)

David C":1a6rgkzs said:


> The concept of trying a plane, out of the box, without honing the blade or checking the front edge of the capiron/chipbreaker is quite frankly LUDICROUS.
> 
> I find it deeply depressing that anyone would even think of doing this.



I couldn't agree more. I have been quite baffled at how many writers in woodworking magazines seem to see this concept of how well a plane works out of the box as some sort of guide as to how good a plane is. Then in subsequent articles they write about how important it is to flatten and polish the back of a blade.

No wonder beginners are sometimes confused.

Paul


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (27 May 2006)

Hi David

You won't get an argument from me on this one.

I recall someone asked why I filed the cap iron if there wasn't anything wrong with it. I knew it was new and therefore I filed it. I am sure Descartes would have said something like that as well  

I wonder, though, whether it is altogether unreasonable - or, rather, at what level it would be reasonable to expect to buy a perfectly set up handplane that works out of the box? Certainly not of a mass produced item, such as either LN or LV. But a high end plane, such as one from Wayne Anderson or Karl Holtey - I certainly would. Philip Marcou's came ready to use. He made a point of doing so, and told me to expect it (to paraphrase Philip), "because that is what Americans expect" (or some such similar words). 

The point is that there seems to be some assumption, a myth perhaps, that planes from LN are "ready to go". I suspect that there is a similar assumption from novices that if its new it must be good. I wonder how many newbies proudly unwrap their new Stanley #4 and, without any further preparation, push it across a board. No wonder so many power users look upon handplanes as the creation of some sado-masochistic lunatic. Do you think that woodworkers should be able to claim tuition on the National Health? Perhaps psychiatry? :lol: 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## David C (27 May 2006)

Dear Derek,

Not looking for an arguement at all, and agree that handplanes are troublesome and frustrating for the beginner.

I believe that Robert Ingham said it was necessary for the student to work alongside the teacher, and am acutely aware how difficult it is for some to learn from the written word or even from DVDs. At least a DVD shows what is possible.

I gave up chasing manufacturers to include meaningfull tuning notes with planes after about 20 years of trying. They apparantly see this as an admission of fault and fear that the information will be used to denigrate the tool quality.

In the very old days of apprenticeship, there would have been skilled men to pass on the essential preparation and tuning skills, which are somehow accepted in our strange trade. I have great sympathy for the average amateur, who has no such resource. Hence my efforts to describe these matters, and yours which I am sure are much appreciated.

best,
David


----------



## mr (27 May 2006)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> The point is that there seems to be some assumption, a myth perhaps, that planes from LN are "ready to go".


 
The new Lie Nielson "UK" site states quite clearly (and I quote) 
"Your Lie-Nielsen Bench Plane is ready to cut wood out of the box." Perhaps this is the cause of some of the confusion. It doesn't appear to be a myth or an assumption rather a bald statement made by the manufacturers themselves. Now you could say that the wording kind of hedges its bets, after all a ragged fingernail might "cut" wood as well - but the point is that LN (at least in this instance) are presented as being ready to go out of the box. David C may find the concept ludicrous but as a total beginner it wasn't untill I managed to read up a bit, particularly some of David's articles that I became aware that paying a premium price didn't neccesarially result in getting a premium tool and that there was a world of improvement to be had with some patient attention. Any beginner who buys an LN believing that the thing will be ready out of the box may be so impressed with the sudden improvement in their ablitities that they may not be aware that there is yet work to be done to get the plane to perform at its best. I don't know though I haven't had the pleasure of trying an LN. This is one of the problems for a learner / beginner, short of being shown what sort of results you should be getting the beginner possibly thinks that "this is as good as it gets". For my own part I fully intend to head for Hartland when finances allow - I'm sure I have a lot to learn and the only way to learn this sort of thing is to be shown. 
Cheers Mike.


----------



## Paul Chapman (27 May 2006)

David C":2crtoz7q said:


> I gave up chasing manufacturers to include meaningfull tuning notes with planes after about 20 years of trying. They apparantly see this as an admission of fault and fear that the information will be used to denigrate the tool quality.



I think hand-tool manufacturers are really missing an opportunity here. I have lots of friends and relations who do DIY and sometimes attempt making basic items of furniture. Most of them have a plane and some chisels languishing in the garage or the bottom of a tool box in a rather sorry state. When I ask if they ever sharpen them they look at me blankly. Most don't know that you are supposed to sharpen them, and those who do haven't a clue how.

Given that schools gave up teaching woodwork years ago, that's not surprising.

I think that if I were a plane manufacturer, I would be looking to produce a DVD which could be included with every plane I sold, explaining how to hone and set up the plane for best results and showing how to use it and the sort of results that can be produced. Once the production costs had been recovered, the cost of each DVD would be very little. I am sure the benefits in increased customer satisfaction would be worth it. They might even sell a few more planes - and honing guides, and sharpening stones......... :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Colin C (27 May 2006)

Paul Chapman":15bv95t2 said:


> [
> 
> I think hand-tool manufacturers are really missing an opportunity here. I have lots of friends and relations who do DIY and sometimes attempt making basic items of furniture. Most of them have a plane and some chisels languishing in the garage or the bottom of a tool box in a rather sorry state. When I ask if they ever sharpen them they look at me blankly. Most don't know that you are supposed to sharpen them, and those who do haven't a clue how.
> 
> ...



There is one small ( :roll: :wink: ) problem with that, is that some of the big tool manufacturers no longer care about they customers ( look at what you now get from Stanley and Marples ), if they did they would put the time in to making sure more of they planes where at lest flat when here go to the shops :?.
I have a friend that has not long become a carpenter and bought some Marples chisels but could not work out why he could not get a good edge on them, I looked at them and saw that the grinding on the back of them was no better than the top of my table of my band saw.
This is not good for a big manufacturer to yhink this is ok but they do, this is why all of my bench planes and chisels are old and the few new ones I have are Sorby's ( chisels ).
It is good to see some manufacturer ( LN, LV & Clifton to name three ) have a standard that they wish to keep high.
If I had the money I would be looking to get a plane from one of these manufacturers but not at the moment :wink:


----------



## Paul Chapman (27 May 2006)

Colin C":2suv5v4u said:


> [some of the big tool manufacturers no longer care about they customers ( look at what you now get from Stanley and Marples ), if they did they would put the time in to making sure more of they planes where at lest flat when here go to the shops :?.



Exactly! In fact not only are the manufacturers missing an opportunity, I think most have lost the plot all together. Thank goodness we have Clifton, LN and LV. I just feel very sorry for Joe Public who go into B&Q and buy a Stanley or Record, which need a lot of work on them, but they don't even know how to sharpen them anyway.

All very sad really  

Paul


----------



## Midnight (27 May 2006)

*David C wrote*


> The concept of trying a plane, out of the box, without honing the blade or checking the front edge of the capiron/chipbreaker is quite frankly LUDICROUS.
> 
> I find it deeply depressing that anyone would even think of doing this.




David.. at the risk of starting an argument, allow me to quote from Trading Standards re what any buyer has the right to expect "straight out of the box"...


Your Statutory Rights 

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) 

says that goods should be: 


Of a Satisfactory Quality, i.e. of a standard that a reasonable person would consider to be satisfactory - generally free from fault or defect, as well as being fit for their usual purpose, of a reasonable appearance and finish, safe and durable 
Fit for the purpose - As well as being fit for the purpose for which they are generally sold, goods should also be fit for any specific or particular purpose made known at the time of the agreement 
As described - Goods should correspond with any description applied to them. This could be verbally, words or pictures on a sign, packaging or an advert.


Like yourself, I earn my living through a proficiency with hand tools... With the exception of planes and chisels, every tool I buy is "fit for purpose" fresh from its packaging; to accept anything less than that is quite frankly absurd. With that in mind and with the might of Trading Standards behind every purchace I make, I can't help but wonder why it is that plane and chisel makers feel they have a right to offload goods on the market that are far from being ready to use? From a professional point of view, I find such a practice unethical; From Trading Standards definitions, such practices are also illegal... So why do they get away with it...?

The point I was trying to illustrate by referring to what L-N's are capable of doing "right outa the box" was that these tools are not built to the generally accepted pitiful standards set by the industry, quite the reverse.. Granted, they need some tuning, but the tuning required can be done in a matter of minutes as opposed to the hours needed to make a lesser tool perform reasonably. 
I agree with you that when properly tuned, the performance of these tools is astonishing!!


----------



## Midnight (28 May 2006)

> I recall someone asked why I filed the cap iron if there wasn't anything wrong with it. I knew it was new and therefore I filed it.



Derek..... the point to my question wasn't to query the why, it was querying your choice of tool... using a file to tune a chip breaker is akin to using a felling axe to finish smooth a board.... wayyyyyy too much tool dude...


----------



## engineer one (28 May 2006)

like many i have studied this thread with some interest.

i to find that it is inconceivable that manufacturers seem to think that
it is legitimate to sell a product as complete when it needs often a great
deal of extra work.

when i trained in my first incarnation as an engineer, and we bought tools
they worked. i mean it is kind of inconceivable that a file would not remove metal, nor a hacksaw cut, and even cold chisels do their job, 
although we each learnt to "fettle" them to our idea of most effective.

it came as a surprise therefore to discover that woodworking tools are
still sold without being truly complete, yet the promotion thereof 
gives the impression that they will work as described. 

but then i think "hell" i have been working with computers since we had big air conditioned, floating floor mainframes, and they still don't work properly out of the box. and we actually still never own the software. 
How did we fall for that con trick :? :? :? :? 

checking the leaflet provided by LN for my Iron Mitre Plane, it does say
"the blade comes ready to use. slight additional honing will increase
performance" can't be clearer can it??? :shock: :lol: 

i have been lucky enough to learn the basics of sharpening, and honing
but i have also read and listened to a whole bunch of info, and i was
actually interested, about sharpening. there is, as we have said before,
too much conflicting information. if you are not really interested
but have bought the tools, then how you learn i really do not know.  

generally i have found that out of the box, LN and LV plane blades work,
but as the leaflet says, work better when honed, and polished on the back.
but how come neither produce sharpening or honing kits for their
products?????? :? 

sadly, so far i have not found one product from any hand tool manufacturer
that has been ready to rock and roll from the get go, why?????

i guess i would not mind if the packaging said "you will need to make this 
product sharper to get the full benefit", but then in an age when some
building sites in scotland do not allow a pointed blade stanley knife on the
job, i guess they will all say it is a health and safety requirement that we do
not provide completely sharpened cutting tools.

but to that i say, i can go into IKEA and even a pound shop, and buy 
a pair of scissors for between 50 and 99p that will cut paper or
my nails from the get go. maybe not for long but!!!!!!!!!

what we all seem to have discovered is that "big brand names" tend to be run by bean counters who trade on their old reputation, whilst the newer guys like LN and LV, Clifton and Holtey actually care about what they 
are producing and selling, so we have to give those guys our support
when they do it right, and when they screw up, tell them in a reasonable
manner, and try to help them improve even more.

i believe that we have responsibly evaluated from a distance the kind
of problems that derek experienced with the 41/2, and now we must
hope that when the blade is returned, tom will honour us with a report
of his findings.

paul :wink:


----------



## Handrubbed (28 May 2006)

A 6-year-old, second-hand plane with a replacement cap iron and an obsolete blade is not the proper subject for a comparative review. It can be judged only on its own merits much the way one would assess any pre-owned tool. Derek, next time you are in the Chicago, Illinois USA vicinity you would be welcome to try my L-N 4-1/2; with either frog, and cocobolo handles. You would not be disappointed.


----------



## Alf (28 May 2006)

Handrubbed":1d7bwlkp said:


> A 6-year-old, second-hand plane with a replacement cap iron and an obsolete blade is not the proper subject for a comparative review.


A thought that also occurred to me, but on the other hand as we don't yet know what Derek's parameters are it's a little early to judge. After all the basic design hasn't changed, has it? But yes, on the face of it, it appears to be a bit ho-hum-_ish_. :-k

There's one big, fat reason why the likes of Stanley, "Irwin" :roll: _et al_ won't provide proper information with their edge tools - they'll miss out 75% of their sales to people who buy another one "because the other one wasn't cutting any more"... :wink:

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Still learning (28 May 2006)

I've been following this tread over the last few days.

I'm the owner of the now infamous LN#4½.

I also own two late 1980 or early 1990 era Sanleys (#3 and #6) and several Lie Nielsens (among them a #5 and #62) all purchased before the #4½.

Firstly, I would like to correct a possible misconception in Derek's reports on this plane. Whilst it is true that the plane was assembled as a one-off on the day I bought it, the phrase “assembled using available parts” is possibly misleading. On the day I visited Warren I also had the privilege of touring the Lie Nielsen factory floor. From what I observed, plane components are made in batches and stockpiled pending final assembly. There is considerable standardization and hence commonality in parts between different planes. For example: the frog, blade, chip breaker, and lever cap are interchangeable between the #4½, #5½, #6 and #7. Many other components are even more interchangeable. This means that if the assembly team are making and packing #6s, to make and pack a #4½ only requires the selection of a #4½ sole and appropriate sized box, all the other parts required will be at hand. 

Secondly, my experience with the LN#5 and #62 I own is that, with little more than the honing of a microbevel, they were ready to go to my satisfaction out-of-the-box. This is especially true in if the LN#5 is compared with the Stanley #3 I own. The #3 really only worked after a day spent at a plane tuning workshop where its sole was flattened, the frog and mouth adjusted, the chipbreaker jointed and its leading edge smoothed. The back of the blade also required considerable work to get it flat enough to apply David Charlesworth’s ruler trick. 

Based on my experience I do not think Lie Nielsen’s advertising is misleading — his planes work out of the box and work even better after a little blade preparation, no other component needs to be adjusted. 

Given that my experience with the LN#5 had been reinforced with the other LN planes that I owned as of 2000, I don't think it was unreasonable that I expected the LN#4½, with only minimal blade preparation, to also work out of the box. 

Derek and I have exchanged emails over the past week and I'm confident that he has isolated the problem to some aspect of the metallurgy of the blade itself. In respect to the other possible problem areas mentioned here and on WoodCentral, Derek is satisfied that, as manufactured, the #4½'s sole is flat, the frog properly seated square and true to the mouth, and that the blade seats properly on the frog. 

For the record, Thomas Lie Nielsen has already dispatched a replacement blade. 

Lastly, as far as I'm aware the only difference between my LN#4½ and one made last week is current production comes with an A2 steel blade.
I'm sure that Derek will address this when he completes the review I lent him the #4½ for.


----------



## David C (28 May 2006)

Mike,

I am similarly perplexed!

However perhaps a plane is a bit like a car, won't go without petrol vs won't go well without sharp blade. And to be fair, chipbreaker faults may not show up till the mouth is closed right down and c/b set very close to edge.

My computer would be of little use to this middle aged latecomer, if it were not for the generous assistance of my web site building, techie friend.

We might not like the price if everything was prepared perfectly in the factory? Karl does the best possible job. T L-N says let's do it right and see what the cost is. Stanley have decided to produce a number five for about £50.

Another pet hate are marking gauges. I lent a tuned up Stanley 506 (as per page 14 & 15 of my first book) to a Sheffield manufacturer, pointing out the advantages of the "locking on the diagonal". About a year later he gave it back saying words to the effect of, "I am too busy selling the traditional (wobbles in one plane) type to even think about this".

best wishes,
David


----------



## MikeW (28 May 2006)

Hi Still Learning--welcome to the forum!

Take care, Mike


----------



## Nick W (28 May 2006)

Damn,

Now I'm going to have to find a new sig.


----------



## David C (28 May 2006)

Ian,

please e mail me direct, if you think I can help! Cannot find you e mail on your private mail to me....

David Charlesworth

[email protected]


----------



## Midnight (28 May 2006)

> My computer would be of little use to this middle aged latecomer, if it were not for the generous assistance of my web site building, techie friend.



My own planes and chisels (marking guages too) would be rather expensive door stops and paperweights were it not for the penmanship of a certain master craftsman in north Devon, and the guides manufactured by a certain Canadian with a warped sense of humour... education happens. 



> Stanley have decided to produce a number five for about £50



Perhaps Stanley would be persuaded to change their tune if they were billed for the 10+ hours it takes to turn their door stops into something resembling a precision cutting tool.. 



> "I am too busy selling the traditional (wobbles in one plane) type to even think about this".



as my dad used to say... ye can take a horse t water but ye canna make it drink!! Still.. at least you tried..


----------



## Midnight (28 May 2006)

> but then in an age when some
> building sites in scotland do not allow a pointed blade stanley knife on the
> job, i guess they will all say it is a health and safety requirement that we do
> not provide completely sharpened cutting tools.



one of the more memorable moments of my carear was taking both my production and safety managers aside to demonstrate that their "all knives are Bad" policy was not only insane, but detramantal to the job. Highlight was illustrating by example that it was impossible to maintain quality standards while wearing the mickey mouse kevlar gloves they insisted I wore while using an open blade... With knives, as in life, good training is worth a hellova lot more than a ton of BS safety regs....

net result was I've been given an exemption from their policies... Common sense is alive n well in some parts of Scotland..


----------



## Paul Kierstead (29 May 2006)

Midnight":3qhf26yy said:


> With knives, as in life, good training is worth a hellova lot more than a ton of BS safety regs....



And, when good training isn't performed? It is easy to say such things, but a lot of employers couldn't be bothered, resulting in staggering levels of worker injuries and deaths over the ages. Maybe you can handle the knife well, but to pass of it all as "BS safety regs" would just put it back to the beginnings of industrial age. Or hell, a lot more recently; my father's knee's and hearing is shot from the workplace (carpenter) that was entirely preventable.


----------



## Midnight (29 May 2006)

> And, when good training isn't performed?



simple answer is that if you don't know how to use a tool properly, don't use it... I've yet to hear of any amount of PPE suddenly imbuing the wearer with a proficiency they didn't already have... it's been my experience that proficiency needs to be raised to a higher level to overcome loss of dexterity / tactile feedback when encumbered by PPE.. 

Better answer is not to use the tool until you're suitably trained to do so...



> It is easy to say such things, but a lot of employers couldn't be bothered, resulting in staggering levels of worker injuries and deaths over the ages.



It's only recently that the laws have changed to impose a duty of care upon an employer... something that shoulda hapened decades ago IMHO... However, that doesn't remove the responsability of the employee's personal safety from the employee... it's always been the case that "if ye dinna look after yersel, naebody else will.!!" Using any tool without suitable training is asking for trouble..


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (10 Jun 2006)

_Executive summary_: Advice was requested owing to the difficulty experienced in obtaining an even shaving with a 6 year old NOS (new old stock) iron in a equally NOS LN #4 1/2 plane. After careful examination, the plane checked out as fitting perfectly in all important aspects pertinent to controling the cut. The conclusion drawn was that there was something wrong with the blade, and the conclusion drawn was that fault(s) lay with either the sharpening technique, the composition of the steel, the construction of the iron, or a combination of the above. Since an alternative iron, from Clifton, was honed on the same waterstones and thereafter worked correctly, the finger appeared to point more at the construction or composition of the iron. 

The iron was returned to LN for examination. Below is the reply I have just received from Thomas L-N:

_Derek,

I was away at a show this week, and when I returned your blade was on my
desk. We tested hardness, which was fine, and then I put a straight
edge on the edge - there is a very small hollow in the blade, but enough
to produce the symptoms you described. We tested the blade in a plane
and found that the center portion did in fact not cut while the edges
were cutting a fine shaving. I hope you have the new blade by now, and
that you are getting great results with the tool. Please let me know!

Thanks for sending the blade back so I could check it out.

Best wishes,

Thomas_

So scratch difficulties with the composition of the iron. The message does not explain why the hollow was there. Whether it was due to construction (and, inspite of a "DC Ruler Trick Backbevel", that the back of the bevel was not flattened sufficiently), or because (and politely not mentioned!) that the user (yours truly) stuffed up the sharpening. While I would be surprised at the latter, I do not exclude it! 

Throughout, LN have been wonderfully supportive and helpful (as usual). I have also received a beautiful new replacement iron. It is flat and looks quite different to the original. It is now Saturday morning and this weekend I shall hone it up and make some shavings and report on it. Until later (as I dash off to do the demands of my dear wife).

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------

