# Review: The Veritas Jack Rabbet Plane



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (27 Nov 2012)

Here is a link to a review on my website: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasJackRabbetPlane.html

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Mike.S (27 Nov 2012)

Good review, thank you.


----------



## AndyT (27 Nov 2012)

Thanks for another well-illustrated and interesting review. You cleverly started out by asking the same question as I would - why do I need one, when I seldom need to plane large rebates and don't do timber framing? - and answered it!

One question - for use as a rebate plane, the iron will need to be honed straight with sharp corners. To use as a smoothing plane the iron will either need a slight camber or else need the corners to be rounded off. (I'm trying to summarise another debate here without getting distracted.) 

If you leave the corners square so you can use it for rebates, don't you get tramlines when using it as a smoother?


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (27 Nov 2012)

> If you leave the corners square so you can use it for rebates, don't you get tramlines when using it as a smoother?



Hi Andy

The solution is to have a few blades: 25 degree straight (40 degree included angle) for shooting board, rebates and cross grain raised panel work; 45 degree cambered (creates half pitch, 60 degrees) for jointing and smoothing; and perhaps a 25 degree cambered for cross grain flattening of panels. Or which ever angles you prefer. This is not much different to the set up for a LA Jack. But one plane and three blades .. and just look what you can do with it!

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## AndyT (27 Nov 2012)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks Derek.


----------



## Dangermouse (27 Nov 2012)

I'll stick with my trusty old no10. It all very well if you have a big pot of money to have all these new fangled planes. But in the end its the finished project that counts and I can get as good a job done with my vintage planes as could be done with all these new upstarts. After all think of all the FANTASTIC furniture produced in the 17th century and what did they have, very basic, but well made wooden planes.  :wink: :ho2


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (27 Nov 2012)

Hi Dangermouse

I agree that fantastic furniture has been produced over the centuries with very basic tools. No argument on that score. 

I do have some doubts that there was much produced in the 17th century with a #10 Stanley, however.  

Although the Veritas Jack Rabbet can trace its roots to the #10 ..... actually think of it as the offspring of the #10 and the #62 .... it has as much in common with the #10 as Jacob has with hollow grinding  

This is a thoroughly modern plane. In fact it would be science fantasy to a furniture maker in the 17th century. Is it expensive? Just think of the number of planes it can replace ...

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## AndyT (27 Nov 2012)

Derek, I think you might be making some of us a bit nervous with this word 'replace' - it suggests that we have planes which we don't need and could benefit by getting rid of!

But I agree with your point that for someone starting out who would rather have one top quality versatile tool than four or five mediocre specialised ones, it looks a good bet.


----------



## Kalimna (27 Nov 2012)

Ok, two questions - when is it available in the UK? And secondly, how do I avoid shiny-new-tool-itis?
A third, more sensible, question also occurs - how does this compare to the relatively recent offering from Lie Nielsen? Ok, so there is an adjustable fence which I dont think is present with the LN, but in other respects is it not quite similar in scope?

Cheers,
Adam


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (27 Nov 2012)

Hi Adam

The LN is a different beast. I have only handled it at LN Shows, and not attempted to compare it with the LV. Firstly, the LN is a smaller plane, about 12" in length. It does not have the provision for a fence, is slightly narrower, and has a fixed handle. The addition of a fence on the Veritas is a big plus as it makes it possible to plane rebates and raised panels.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## iNewbie (27 Nov 2012)

Hi Derek, sorry to highjack this thread for a mo, but, when will you be making a review of the PMV chisels - I've read the 01 review and have been awaiting your opinion on the new metal. Thanks.


----------



## Kalimna (27 Nov 2012)

Hi Derek,
Thanks for that - backs up my assumptions nicely. I think the fence is what makes it much more attractive to me also, as I don't much fancy spending time making my own panel-raiser.
Cheers,
Adam


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (27 Nov 2012)

iNewbie":vrkpgemv said:


> Hi Derek, sorry to highjack this thread for a mo, but, when will you be making a review of the PMV chisels - I've read the 01 review and have been awaiting your opinion on the new metal. Thanks.



Quick Review:

I think that there are enough reviews on the PM-V11 chisels to inform, so ... 

In the hand they are no different to the O1 versions. See my review in this regard. http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... eview.html

The ferrule/socket is better finished, and the steel is all that it is reputed to be - not only does it hold an edge longer than A2, the fine grain of the steel manages to get sharper than my O1 versions. 

I love the handles, but these are a personal area, and with all chisels you should try before you buy.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## iNewbie (27 Nov 2012)

Thanks.


----------



## CStanford (28 Nov 2012)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Hi Dangermouse
> 
> Is it expensive? Just think of the number of planes it can replace ...
> 
> ...



I'm sure the plane is perfectly adequate. That said, I'm curious about which planes you'll actually (not theoretically) unload now that you have this one.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (28 Nov 2012)

CStanford":3e2cf2n4 said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Dangermouse
> ...



Hi Charles!

So nice to see you here!

Did you actually read the review all the way?

Just n case you missed it, this was the last paragraph in the summing up ..

_So, will the Jack Rabbet replace half my plane collection? No, this is unlikely. It could do so, but I prefer having and using dedicated planes. It will excel for raising panels and bread board ends. Alternately, for a furniture maker who does prefer a smaller toolkit using multipurpose planes, then the Jack Rabbet is ideal._

Too nice and useful a plane to discard. It will be reserved mostly for raised panels and for large rebates/breadboard ends.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (28 Nov 2012)

I did read that. I know quite well you wouldn't replace "half your plane collection." I just wondered if there was any single plane, or two, that you might really, actually let go - perhaps some other rebating plane you already own, etc., etc.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (28 Nov 2012)

Hi Charles

I don't plan to let any planes go. There are planes such as the LV Skew Rabbet that was previously used for raised panels. I'd rather use the Jack Rabbet for these now - the mouth can be closed down for greater precision and a higher cutting angle is available for interlocked grain. The Skew Rabbet was being co-opted for that task, so it just returns to its orignal purpose - to be used for rebates. 

Replace the LN #51 shooting plane?  

So should I let the LA Jack go - after all it is the competition for the Jack Rabbet? No, I prefer the LA Jack I am more familiar with its feel, and that the sides are enclosed (making it a little safer). 

If I was starting out afresh and looking for a minimalist toolkit, then it would be a different matter. There will always be room for improvement in most toolkits, and for many amateurs (such as myself) there is no need to rationalise tool choices. It s possible to enjoy using the tools as much as achieve satisfaction in what you and they team up to create.  

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (28 Nov 2012)

Thanks.


----------



## anaminal (10 Mar 2013)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> If I was starting out afresh and looking for a minimalist toolkit, then it would be a different matter.



Thanks very much for this review Derek - I'd like to present myself to the community as a test-case!

I am the new to woodworking (been hobbying in the cellar for the last 6 months) and am intending to buy a plane. I plan to visit Axminster next weekend while Deneb Puchalski from Lie-Nielsen is there, I had decided on a LN Jack (either 5 or 5 1/2)... but now this review has confused the issue!

I do not own ANY planes, and intend to buy a high quality tool that I can use for many years to come (I'm 27 so hopefully will have a long life of woodworking ahead of me!) So the question is - would you buy the LV Jack Rebate as a first plane, or go for something more traditional... as I am uneducated in woodworking, whichever way I go I'll be learning from scratch. 

I've made a couple of basic pieces so far, but having read several of Krenov's books I am very keen to try my hand at cabinet making, so that is the objective. Thoughts?

Thanks,
Chris


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (10 Mar 2013)

Hi Chris

While the Veritas Jack Rabbet Plane _can_ do it all, it is a technical plane and not for someone starting out. It is for someone who understands planes, and knows how to get the best from them. I would go with your original plan, that is, to get a LA Jack. The question is, do you get the LN or LV version? They are different planes - size, heft, range. Of the two I think that the LV is the more advanced design - easier to set up and adjust, more features. However they are different sized planes and, as a result, you will prefer one over the other. I have the LV but I also have the Stanley #62, upon which the LN is based, and use each in different situations. You really need t try them both and read some reviews to understand the features each others.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## iNewbie (10 Mar 2013)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> I have the LV but I also have the Stanley #62, upon which the LN is based, and use each in different situations.



Hi Derek. Could you give some examples of where you might use one over-the-other. Thanks.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (10 Mar 2013)

> Hi Derek. Could you give some examples of where you might use one over-the-other. Thanks.



Just a few points ..

Both BU planes excel at the extreme cutting angles - either low for end grain or high for interlocked grain, which is an area where common angle planes are less comfortable.

The LV LAJ is like a BU #5 1/2, while the LN LAJ is like a BU #5. The LV is slightly wider and has more mass. It gains where momentum is needed, such as planing hard end grain on a shooting board (where it has more lateral support - a wider body than the LN) as well, and where one is planing harder, especially interlocked face grain. 

The LN, being smaller, is the more nimble of the two, and the one that would be a more comfortable and less fatiguing if used for long periods planing face grain. 

The LN is definitely the prettier of the two, but the LV has the wider range and is the choice for the user. The LV has features that are lacking in the LN (which is based on the Stanley). The LV has a depth stop for the mouth, which enables one to open the mouth and then return it to a fine setting. It has side set screws, which enable the blade to be returned the same setting before it was removed for sharpening. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Vann (11 Mar 2013)

anaminal":hjfu30tu said:


> I plan to visit Axminster next weekend while Deneb Puchalski from Lie-Nielsen is there, I had decided on a LN Jack (either *5* or *5 1/2*)...





Derek Cohen":hjfu30tu said:


> ...I would go with your original plan, that is, to get a LA Jack. The question is, do you get the LN or LV version?...


I think Derek misread your posting. Derek's talking about _bevel-up _planes, whereas your original plan was for a _bevel down_ jack "No.5 or No.5½".

Those L-N planes look really nice, but don't forget to consider Clifton's No.5 & No.5½ too (hand forged irons & British).

Again IMHO, if you're going for a jack plane, a LN 5 or 5½ seems (IMHO) to be a lot of money for what is a rough duty plane. You'd be better off with a brand-new smoother and a second-hand jack. However, if you decide to go with the _bevel-down _option Derek's advice is good. My own preference is the Veritas (LV) LAJ with the 2¼" irons (not that I've used the L-N version).

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## GazPal (11 Mar 2013)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Although the Veritas Jack Rabbet can trace its roots to the #10 ..... actually think of it as the offspring of the #10 and the #62 .... it has as much in common with the #10 as Jacob has with hollow grinding
> 
> This is a thoroughly modern plane. In fact it would be science fantasy to a furniture maker in the 17th century. Is it expensive? *Just think of the number of planes it can replace ...*
> 
> ...



I don't wish to detract from such a good review, or hand plane, but would however like to air a word or three of caution regarding the reply to Anaminal's query.

Stanley said something very similar to Derek's "Just think of the number of planes it can replace ..." when they introduced their #55 Universal Combination Plane as 55 planes in 1. Although a great plane in it's own right, *a multi-tasker will seldom out perform the job specific planes it's intended to replace*. This was the case with the #55 and can be the case with #10 derivatives if you expect them to be capable of outrunning plane types you hope it can emulate. Good enough to use occasionally on work outside their normal range, but nowhere near as good as job specific planes. 

The last point needs to be recognised and highlighted before making recommendations regarding any tool and especially so if they're targetted toward newcomers.

One downside to buying a #10 derivative (*ESPECIALLY if intended as a first and only plane*) is the fact it *isn't especially suited for use with the shooting board, or for cross-grain facing work on raised panels.* A second & third blade/iron would also prove necessary if one wishes to use this plane as a crossover between jack and smoothing plane. If working with a single blade on hand and retaining this plane type for it's intended use in rebate work - *the single iron will need to be honed square and true without round-over on it's corners.* Hence the need for additional blades/irons. 

Yet another downside to working with a single plane is the fact you *continually find yourself needing to re-set/adjust the iron to suit the cut needed during use if working various aspects on a project.* Not a good trait if you wish to quickly rough a surface into true using a #5 jack setting, then quickly plane some end grain, before smoothing your work piece using a #4 smoother setting. You won't be able to set the plane up and retain a constant setting, so will naturally tend to become disenchanted by repeatedly needing to set and re-set your plane.

In the case of a learner, this breaks concentration and has him/her awkwardly attempting to gain the best performance from the same plane using multiple settings, instead of one. I'd much rather to teach a learner how to use a single plane - using a single setting - extremely well, rather than have the same learner endure unnecessary frustration in trying to coax the performance of a #04, #05, #9.5/60.5, #713, et al, from a plane intended for use on rebate work.

------------

Having said all of that, I sincerely enjoyed test-driving both Lie-Nielsen & Veritas various takes on the #10 and found both maker's examples very easy to work with. However, I would not recommend either as a first hand plane, but instead would chose a #4 and #5 as a pair of planes (Bevel down or bevel up) to initially invest in. Then a #9.5/#60.5 block plane and perhaps a #078/#778 rebate/fillister plane and basic plough/combination plane (A second hand #044 or #050) if you find yourself pursuing a route where you'll need them.

In other words, I'd buy a straight forward #5 jack plane AND a #4 smoothing plane as part of a starter kit.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (11 Mar 2013)

Hi Gary

I agree with all you wrote: it is preferable to have several dedicated planes rather than one do-it-all that requires setting up for each occasion. The Jack Rabbet certainly was not intended by Veritas as a wide range plane, and nor was it designed for the shooting board. These were my inventions for the purpose of the review - not something to take too literally (which is why I cautioned Chris against it in his case). Nevertheless it _can_ do everything I wrote about! So if you are that special person who wants one plane to do it all - and is capable of enduring the changes - then the Veritas Jack Rabbet is a real option.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Nick Gibbs (11 Mar 2013)

We tested the Veritas Jack Rebate Plane in the most recent issue. It costs more than £300 with the new iron. It is fabulous, but I just don't see what sort of woodworker could justify the cost. As someone mentioned, it is too complicated, and in my opinion too light, to replace a Jack like a Clifton 5 1/2 (which is my favourite) as a first plane for a beginner building a toolkit. You'd have to be doing a lot of rebating and panel raising to justify the cost. That said, it is gorgeous!

Nick


----------



## GazPal (11 Mar 2013)

Hi Derek, 

I can carry out the same work with the same plane too, but I'd not be too content planing squarely across the grain when panel raising with it. I much prefer skew ironed planes for this exercise.

----------

Hi Nick,

I couldn't agree more in terms of the lack of heft and utility of a #10 in comparison with #5's and #5.1/2's.


----------



## anaminal (12 Mar 2013)

Hi all, thanks for your responses to my query. First off – Derek, appologies for hijacking your thread here but it has been of great use to me (and probably saved me from buying the wrong tool this weekend!).



Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> While the Veritas Jack Rabbet Plane _can_ do it all, it is a technical plane and not for someone starting out. It is for someone who understands planes, and knows how to get the best from them.


I must admit that when I read this I took it as a bit of a challenge, my mind said “I can handle a technical plane!” (or can eventually learn to).


Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> it is preferable to have several dedicated planes rather than one do-it-all that requires setting up for each occasion.


As you go on to say; trying to get it all out of one tool, even when skill level isn't an issue, presents it's own dificulties, so I accept your advice here 



Vann":8v836im4 said:


> I think Derek misread your posting. Derek's talking about _bevel-up _planes, whereas your original plan was for a _bevel down_ jack "No.5 or No.5½".


Cheers Vann, that's right, I had just been considering a basic LN 5 bevel down Jack, however my mind has been changed...


Vann":8v836im4 said:


> Those L-N planes look really nice, but don't forget to consider Clifton's No.5 & No.5½ too (hand forged irons & British).


I've not read anything about Clifton, however as I was going to visit Axminster who don't stock that brand they're out of the running.



Vann":8v836im4 said:


> Again IMHO, if you're going for a jack plane, a LN 5 or 5½ seems (IMHO) to be a lot of money for what is a rough duty plane. You'd be better off with a brand-new smoother and a second-hand jack. However, if you decide to go with the _bevel-down _option Derek's advice is good. My own preference is the Veritas (LV) LAJ with the 2¼" irons (not that I've used the L-N version).


This is a very good suggestion – I was thinking along similar lines when looking at the Veritas Jack Rabbit: if I'm going to spend money on an expensive plane I may as well put that money into a more technical one... your approach does make more sense for me right now. Also I didn't realise a bevel down no. 5 Jack was considered more of a roughing tool, but now you mention it I think I will go for a bevel up – I like the idea of having control over the angle with a bevel-up (I actually enjoy sharpening my tools).



GazPal":8v836im4 said:


> a multi-tasker will seldom out perform the job specific planes it's intended to replace...Good enough to use occasionally on work outside their normal range, but nowhere near as good as job specific ...
> Yet another downside to working with a single plane is the fact you continually find yourself needing to re-set/adjust the iron to suit the cut needed during use if working various aspects on a project


Yeah this WOULD bug me!



Nick Gibbs":8v836im4 said:


> You'd have to be doing a lot of rebating and panel raising to justify the cost.
> Nick


I wish I knew what I'll be doing over the next 40 years with these... hopefully a bit of everything 


So in summary - again thanks to all! I think I'll go with the suggestion of a New LA Jack (this one: http://www.axminster.co.uk/veritas-veri ... rod724792/) and keep an eye out for a bevel down Jack.

quick question - what is the difference between a Low Angle Jack and LA Smoother? Is it just the length of the sole as both LV and LN produce one of each. 

Regards,
Chris


----------



## Nick Gibbs (12 Mar 2013)

Clifton have been very sadly delisted by Axminster. It is sad as their planes are magnificent but their marketing is rubbish. You can view them at Classic Hand Tools, Turners Retreat and The World of Woodworking. You can support British manufacturing, as featured in our recent article about Terence Conran's toolkit.

Nick


----------



## Harbo (12 Mar 2013)

Workshop Heaven sell Cliftons too:

http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Clifton_Planes.html

I have the BU Jack and the Smoother - they both use 2 1/4" wide blades which are interchangeable. (And the Jointer too).


http://www.leevalley.com/US/Wood/page.a ... at=1,41182


Rod


----------



## iNewbie (12 Mar 2013)

^^ Workshop Heaven. 

Peter Sefton's.


...too.

Harbo beat me. (hammer)


----------



## Vann (12 Mar 2013)

anaminal":ghgyf0wu said:


> quick question - what is the difference between a Low Angle Jack and LA Smoother? Is it just the length of the sole as both LV and LN produce one of each.


Yes, sole length.

But watch out for the Veritas (LV) naming system - it doesn't seem to have any logic. BUS = *Bevel Up *Smoother; LAJ = *Low Angle *Jack; BUJ = *Bevel Up *Jointer. However they're all _*bevel up *_and they're all *low angle *(12°), and they all have interchangeable 2¼" irons.

But then there is the Low Angle Smoother that has a 2" bevel up iron. And the Small Bevel Up Smoother which has a low angle 1¾" iron.... Confused? You should be (hammer) 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Vann (12 Mar 2013)

anaminal":3r751462 said:


> So in summary - again thanks to all! I think I'll go with the suggestion of a New LA Jack (this one: http://www.axminster.co.uk/veritas-veri ... rod724792/) and keep an eye out for a bevel down Jack.


Are you getting the one with the standard thickness iron or the one with the extra thick iron...








That's actually an April Fools LAJ they produced a few years ago. Only a couple more weeks until this year's Lee Valley April Fools tool 8) 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## GazPal (12 Mar 2013)

Vann":wp4vxc2w said:


> anaminal":wp4vxc2w said:
> 
> 
> > So in summary - again thanks to all! I think I'll go with the suggestion of a New LA Jack (this one: http://www.axminster.co.uk/veritas-veri ... rod724792/) and keep an eye out for a bevel down Jack.
> ...



That's definitely one for Jacob's freehand honing. :lol: 

I wonder if they had any bites? Or should I ask, how many actually tried to buy one? :lol:


----------



## anaminal (12 Mar 2013)

I seem to be making my mind up every night and then changing it again the next... I've just watched a review of the LN LA jack (here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKmLRYmI8e8 ). 

The review really liked the versatility of the plane, but again commented at the end (7:13) that if you were to identify one main role for the LA Jack, it would be for roughing and a precision engineered LN is a "overkill" for a rough job. His first plane was a LN LA Jack, but had since bought other planes including a Smoother plane for, erm, smoothing. Would you guys agree with this? what is the actual difference between a Smoother and a LA Jack? If it's just the sole length (the Jack being longer) then isn't that the better plane for the job? 

Basically, why would you own both a LA Jack and a LA Smoother? And do you think I'll regret spending hundreds on a LA Jack in a few years time? I don't mind spending the money, but don't want something that becomes obsolete as I develop my toolkit

Chris


----------



## yetloh (12 Mar 2013)

In some ways I am with Nick on this debate but I come at it from a slightly different angle. I simply can't see any reason to buy an LN over a Clifton if you want a Stanley copy. Plane for plane they do the same job to the same standard as far as I can see and the Clifton is British and cheaper. But the real question should surely be, why would you want a Stanley when you could buy another top quaality plane whose manufacturer has taken the trouble to really analyse the old Stanley planes and design something which has innovative features designed either to make it work better or be easier to use. I refer, of course, to Veritas. If you want proof of this, just spend two minutes with the LN and Veritas skew block planes side by side. The veritas is how the old Stanley,on which the LN is based, should have been in the first place.

Jim


----------



## Harbo (12 Mar 2013)

One smooths, one is a general workhorse and a Jointer, joints.
They all plane wood but are designed for different tasks.
I've had my LV BU planes for about 9yrs and cannot see how they will become obsolete?
They are really great planes and very easy to change the effective angle by altering the secondary bevel are regrinding.
Having all three means I can interchange the blades, that I have already prepared for different tasks, without having to buy spares.

Rod


----------



## Vann (13 Mar 2013)

anaminal":1qkcjt8p said:


> Iwhat is the actual difference between a Smoother and a LA Jack? If it's just the sole length (the Jack being longer) then isn't that the better plane for the job?


No. You use a jack to bring your timber down to size rapidly, then your try/jointer plane to level the piece (this is where you want the length to get it level). Finally you want a short plane as a smoother to do very fine, localised, cleaning up. This may seem counter-intuitive (you're un-leveling in localised areas), but the amount you're removing should be small, and the short length means you can get in to the bits that need work without having to rework large areas.



anaminal":1qkcjt8p said:


> Basically, why would you own both a LA Jack and a LA Smoother? And do you think I'll regret spending hundreds on a LA Jack in a few years time? I don't mind spending the money, but don't want something that becomes obsolete as I develop my toolkit.


The LAJ is no ordinary jack plane. It's a very versatile plane that does a number of tasks well. So no - I doubt you'll regret buying it. It's a good plane to start with. 

Then when you get tired of continually changing it's set-up, you buy other planes to cover the most used set-ups - such as a (new, precision) dedicated smoother, and a (second-hand, coarse) dedicated jack or scrub.

HTH.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## GazPal (13 Mar 2013)

Vann":nets02p5 said:


> The LAJ is no ordinary jack plane. It's a very versatile plane that does a number of tasks well. So no - I doubt you'll regret buying it. It's a good plane to start with.
> 
> Then when you get tired of continually changing it's set-up, you buy other planes to cover the most used set-ups - such as a (new, precision) dedicated smoother, and a (second-hand, coarse) dedicated jack or scrub.
> 
> ...



Vann's reply pretty well sums it up, as you really should invest in the tools best suited to your needs rather than blindly buying tools without knowing whether or not you need them for the work you're involved in. It's not always possible to forecast potential needs, but - most often in the case of novices - this is where drawing up a basic tool list alongside your cutting list can help.


----------



## anaminal (13 Mar 2013)

Cheers Vann,  I guess my question is then… if you had a dedicated:  Scrub (for shaping the board), Jointer (for achieving flatness) and Smoother (for finishing), what would you use the LA Jack for?  Would I be right in thinking it’s for the stage in between the Scrub plane and the Jointer?  Or would the Jack end up being used as a scrub?  If so then, as the video review mentioned £200 is a lot to spend on something that won’t be required to put anything close to the finish on a board… I might as well buy a decent smoother now and spend a bit less on a 2nd hand Jack to be used as scrub.  But if you think that even after getting hold of a Scrub, Jointer and Smoother I’ll still have use for the Jack then I’ll definitely go for it  

Gary, I don’t think it’s fair to say I’m buying tools blindly, I’m here speaking to people with experience as there’s little else you can do to know what you will need in the future - I can’t say how often I will use a particular variety of tool when I don’t yet own anything of it’s type!  Previously I’ve made a bookcase and a few small bits and pieces, next plan is to make a blanket chest… I prefer the idea of using reclaimed timber or even drying my own green wood (where available) so know I’ll eventually need a range of tools required to take something from large stock to usable board


----------



## GazPal (13 Mar 2013)

anaminal":1tn1yn5f said:


> Gary, I don’t think it’s fair to say I’m buying tools blindly, I’m here speaking to people with experience as there’s little else you can do to know what you will need in the future - I can’t say how often I will use a particular variety of tool when I don’t yet own anything of it’s type!  Previously I’ve made a bookcase and a few small bits and pieces, next plan is to make a blanket chest… I prefer the idea of using reclaimed timber or even drying my own green wood (where available) so know I’ll eventually need a range of tools required to take something from large stock to usable board




Firstly, I'm not inferring and have never inferred you were buying blindly in any way, shape, or form. You do, however, need to approach building your kit in a methodical manner and this means you need to understand which tool is recommended for certain tasks.

Secondly, I think you're doing the right thing in asking for advice. :wink: Read and absorb as much information as possible and you'll be well on your way to knowing some of the theory involved in whichever style of woodworking you wish to become involved. My only word of caution is for you not to buy everything at once, but do take time assembling a tool kit that suits your mode of work and needs. Building an initial tool list will help you determine which tools you need to invest in and - if you pair the list with potential projects - you'll then be able to identify whether or not you can justify purchases or discount certain options.


----------



## Vann (13 Mar 2013)

anaminal":16yg52sx said:


> Cheers Vann,  I guess my question is then… if you had a dedicated:  Scrub (for shaping the board), Jointer (for achieving flatness) and Smoother (for finishing), what would you use the LA Jack for?  Would I be right in thinking it’s for the stage in between the Scrub plane and the Jointer?  Or would the Jack end up being used as a scrub?  If so then, as the video review mentioned £200 is a lot to spend on something that won’t be required to put anything close to the finish on a board… I might as well buy a decent smoother now and spend a bit less on a 2nd hand Jack to be used as scrub.  But if you think that even after getting hold of a Scrub, Jointer and Smoother I’ll still have use for the Jack then I’ll definitely go for it


You could have a curved iron to use your LAJ as a jack, for times when your scrub was too coarse; a straight iron for shuting (or shooting, on a shuting board); a slightly curved iron for use as a jointer when working on smaller pieces where your try/jointer was a bit big; not sure what shape iron to use your LAJ as a panel plane; a higher angle iron for gnarly timber with tear-out; etc

But then again, you could do most things with the three planes above and save on the cost of an LAJ (but where's the fun in that (hammer) :mrgreen: )

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (13 Mar 2013)

Hi Chris

It is true that the LAJ appears to have no place to fit when you have a dedicated jack for rough removal (e.g. Stanley #5), a dedicated jointer for levelling and flattening (e.g. a Stanley #7), and a smoother for finishing (e.g. Stanley #3 or 4). You could make a lot of furniture with just these handplanes. 

So where does the LAJ fit in? To some extent most planes are interchangeable with one another. Alan Peters was renowned for using his #7 for all tasks, including smoothing (of course, he prepared all his parts with a jointer and thicknesser first, so the comparison is not strictly accurate). Some, like David Charlesworth, are known for using a "super smoother" - a #5 1/2 for smoothing. The fact is, the LAJ can do it all, and do it better than most of the dedicated planes. However that is not a reason to buy one. Having dedicated planes is still a preferable method of working wood.

What the LAJ can do is offer specialist planing ... while still be able to be used for the basic stuff. 

Specialist planing includes shooting end grain at very low angles (37 degrees, which bench planes with common angles - 45 degrees - cannot do). The LAJ is a superior shooting plane. 

The low cutting angle plus its length makes this an ideal plane for cross grain jointing, such as when you are flattening a cupped board. Equally, this is also useful for cross grain planing on raised panels.

At the other end of the cutting angle range, BU planes can reach the highest angles. This makes the LAJ exceptionally useful when smoothing figured wood and interlocked grain. You will struggle to get equivalent performance with a #4. 

I often pull out the LAJ for use as a small jointer. When you are building boxes, there is no better jointer. The LAJ offers great feedback and is taut. This is a plane that leaves you feeling that you are using a precision instrument. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## anaminal (13 Mar 2013)

brilliant, thanks very much guys. OK I am decided, I'm gonna go play with Low Angle Jacks this weekend. As you mentioned before Derek, the decision now is LN or LV. I'll let you know how I get on 

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Modernist (13 Mar 2013)

FWIW her is my view. If you do not have access to a planer thicknesser you will need a rough Jack or scrub initially. There is no point in spending on the top brands for this part of the application as 2nd hand Stanleys or even some woodys are fine.

For straightening you will need a long plane but again most work will have limited improvement from a top end plane and you can always have a Stanley blade with a back bevel for difficult timbers. A No 6 or 7 is the best choice. If you were finishing long boards regularly that may not apply, but then I'd buy a planer.

Finishing is where the top brands justify their existence. For shooting end grain and cross grain work in general then the BUJ is superb. You will need a good smoother the facility for high angle for difficult timbers. I can't see the point of a bevel down smoother (although I do have some) when you can use the Bevel Up Veritas with a choice of blade. Confusingly Veritas do both the Bevel Up (coffin shaped) and the Low angle (straight sided) versions. The Bevel Up has the distinct advantage that the blade is interchangeable with the LAJ so you can have a range of angles available without re-grinding, and indeed ready ground spare blades for either.

Apart from that a couple of block planes would be nice and then you are into rebate and shoulder planes..............

First off Stanley 5 or 5 1/2 and a 6 or 7 with a Veritas BU smoother with 2 or 3 blades (A2 high angle >=30 deg; A1 low angle)

Second Veritas LAJ, LN or Quangsheng 9 1/2 block

Third Veritas Skew rebate (right handed) and Veritas Skew Block (Left handed) for a right handed user

That covers all the essential bases and none will ever be redundant.


----------



## bobbybirds (13 Mar 2013)

I have the BU smoother, LA Jack and the BU Jointer all from LV. Having these three tools covers a massive amount of work situations, and the nice thing is that they all use the same iron, so you can hone three different angles and just switch them around from tool to tool to get maximum efficiency.

I do find I use the Jack mostly for initial dimensioning, then the Jointer for squaring up and the Smoother to finish up. I will say I have never had a better smoother for tricky grained woods! The LA Jack is also extremely adept at shooting end grain which it gets used for all the time.

All in all, I have no trouble recommending these. That said, I really have my eye on a Clifton No.4. Not because I "need" one, but just because I "NEEEEEEEEEED" one... Ha!


----------



## David C (13 Mar 2013)

Well, I planed and shot, almost everything I needed to , over a 25 year period with a tuned up 5 1/2 ( and a machine planer thicknesser).

Bevel up planes have failed to convince me.

Steep sharpening angles for interlocked exotics are difficult to achieve on a low angle bevel up plane.

Usable camber is more difficult to hone on a low angle blade.

Lower effective pitches are possible for shooting, but I have never had any problem with a sharp 5 1/2. 

Wear bevels on the flat side of a low angle blade are larger than you might think and more difficult to remove.

It could just be habit, but two beautiful low angle jacks languish in my plane cupboard.

I do understand however that the lack of a chipbreaker might appeal to some beginners.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## Jacob (13 Mar 2013)

I agree with that. I can't see much sense in the BU LA planes* as the effective angle is going to much the same as a BD 45º although a slightly lower angle can be squeezed out of a BU LA.
I've been comparing the new Stanley no4 with the LV LA smoother (straight sided one whatever it's called). They perform more or less identically, which shouldn't be a surprise as they are about the same size, have same steel and approx same effective cutting angle. The LV is much "nicer" but so it should be at 3 x the price. Sharpening the Stanley is much quicker and easier to (i.e.getting the blade out and back).
Neither of them are anywhere near as good for adjustment and tilt as the standard Stanley Bailey pattern, which should make the Clifton no4 a better option, but I've never tried one.

*except for the small block planes - the low angle makes them compact and much better for one hand use.


----------



## bobbybirds (13 Mar 2013)

David C":3hoqqtfc said:


> Well, I planed and shot, almost everything I needed to , over a 25 year period with a tuned up 5 1/2 ( and a machine planer thicknesser).
> 
> Bevel up planes have failed to convince me.
> 
> ...



I hear what you are saying, and I would never argue with anyone that the BU is "better" than BD. I am just saying that as a beginner'ish' type user (last 3 years), there is NOTHING that my BU planes haven't been able to tackle, and this includes smoothing some ridiculously crazy hard curly maple that my LN No.3 had trouble with. Now granted, the reason it probably had trouble was because I maybe am not as proficient at setting up the BD planes, but for whatever the reason, that Veritas BU Smoother just does everything I ask of it with ease and comfort, and because of that, why would I not stick with them?

I honestly think a lot of preference will always come down to what one learned with first, and because of that, unless a new tool makes a massive world of difference rather than small subtle differences, they will always be most comfortable with what they first learned on rather than trying to re-train their techniques and thought processes. 

This all said, I still have not given up on BD and I actually want to add to arsenal with a Clifton No 4 or 4.5 one of these days soon, but without a doubt my comfort level still leads me to reach for a BU plane when I am having any form of difficulty, and it always ends up solving whatever trouble I was having. Hopefully one day I can get some one on one time with a BD plane guru who can maybe fine tune my experiences with them...


----------



## Modernist (13 Mar 2013)

David C":kq4cg24k said:


> Steep sharpening angles for interlocked exotics are difficult to achieve on a low angle bevel up plane.
> 
> Usable camber is more difficult to hone on a low angle blade.



The first point is simply not true - where is the problem?

The second is not a practical problem.

It is an easily demonstrable fact that the BU smoother, honed to 45 deg, will operate better than most alternatives with minimum preparation on difficult timbers. In practical terms there is little point in persevering with anything else, the solution is there.


----------



## David C (14 Mar 2013)

I was thinking of 60 degrees which is an angle I find useful on dense interlocked exotics


----------



## Jacob (14 Mar 2013)

You can do 60º effective angle on a BU if you need to, wossa prob? Camber is no prob either - it just has to be more exaggerated than on a steeper BD. 
My doubt about LA planes is basically that they are pointless (except for small block planes) and expensive!


----------



## Modernist (14 Mar 2013)

David C":3s0czf51 said:


> I was thinking of 60 degrees which is an angle I find useful on dense interlocked exotics



But if your alternative was a back bevel on a bevel down plane you are left with an unsupported edge which is not desirable for heavily interlocked timber. Certainly it needs care with the honing guide but we are at the extremes of the envelope here.


----------



## Modernist (14 Mar 2013)

Jacob":1p3xpzq3 said:


> You can do 60º effective angle on a BU if you need to, wossa prob? Camber is no prob either - it just has to be more exaggerated than on a steeper BD.
> My doubt about LA planes is basically that they are pointless (except for small block planes) and expensive!



Why do you think they are pointless, given the above?


----------



## Jacob (14 Mar 2013)

Modernist":kv74g90v said:


> Jacob":kv74g90v said:
> 
> 
> > You can do 60º effective angle on a BU if you need to, wossa prob? Camber is no prob either - it just has to be more exaggerated than on a steeper BD.
> ...


Because you can do the same with a BD, with a back bevel. 
I've just ordered a Clifton 4* :shock: to complete my tour of the plane scene. The last one - no more planes! I'll sell off one or two of the others to pay for it! I've done this a few times now, without losing much, sometimes making a little profit.

*special offer from somewhere in Ilkeston


----------



## GazPal (14 Mar 2013)

Jacob":1yzhdnea said:


> Because you can do the same with a BD, with a back bevel.
> 
> I've just ordered a Clifton 4* :shock: to complete my tour of the plane scene. The last one - no more planes! I'll sell off one or two of the others to pay for it! I've done this a few times now, without losing much, sometimes making a little profit.
> 
> *special offer from somewhere in Ilkeston



I think you'll like the Clifton #4, as they're very nicely made indeedy and their #5.1/2 is just as handy.  The pair can pay for themselves in next to no time. :wink:


----------



## Modernist (14 Mar 2013)

Jacob":314qbugu said:


> Modernist":314qbugu said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":314qbugu said:
> ...



Looks a good buy at that price. I hope you enjoy all that bling.

Back to the arguement, sorry debate. I know as a fact from my personal experience that the BU Veritas will easily out perform my LN 4 1/2 when honed to 45 deg for difficult work. Of course the LN is easier to push and is used in more "normal" situations. To take a case in point a chunk of wild sycamore, retrieved from your very own offcuts pile, which was about as wild grained as they come, cleaned up completely without tearout using the BU. I oftern have to use it even on Douglas Fir when the grain is wild. The chances of inducing chatter are very much greater on harder timbers whncih again favours the improved support of the BU design.

To repeart my original point, whilst you can improve the BD design by all sorts of tweaks, why bother when a more elegant solution is available.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 Mar 2013)

Many of the advocates of infill planes reckon they have no equal in finishing difficult timbers. Never having tried one, I can't confirm or deny. However, it's undoubtedly true that a well-set-up infill smoother is a very capable plane for fine finishing. Bevel down, thick iron, close-set capiron, tight mouth.

Many people have reported considerable improvements in performance from standard Bailey-type planes with relatively simple tuning. A stay-set capiron helps (doesn't induce bending in the blade, so it seats better on the frog surface); thicker irons help too. However, even just setting the cap-iron very close to the edge, and setting the frog to give a very tight mouth can help.

I've never tried a BU bench plane, or an infill, so I'm in no position to make worthwhile comment, but it does make me wonder a bit whether the advocates of BU bench-planes really got the best out of their standard BD planes before abandoning them for fashionable (and rather pricey) BU planes. That said, it's probably best to use whatever method works best for you, and if that's BU planes, stick with 'em!


----------



## Jacob (14 Mar 2013)

Modernist":1oxx8nso said:


> Jacob":1oxx8nso said:
> 
> 
> > Modernist":1oxx8nso said:
> ...


Well it was a dull old day and I could do with a bit of bling, or a pie or something!


> Back to the arguement, sorry debate. I know as a fact from my personal experience that the BU Veritas will easily out perform my LN 4 1/2 when honed to 45 deg for difficult work. Of course the LN is easier to push and is used in more "normal" situations. To take a case in point a chunk of wild sycamore, retrieved from your very own offcuts pile, which was about as wild grained as they come, cleaned up completely without tearout using the BU. I oftern have to use it even on Douglas Fir when the grain is wild. The chances of inducing chatter are very much greater on harder timbers whncih again favours the improved support of the BU design.
> 
> To repeart my original point, whilst you can improve the BD design by all sorts of tweaks, why bother when a more elegant solution is available.


The new Stanley seems to do as well as my LV BU without any tweaks - and it's a lot cheaper. Whichever plane it's the same tweak - increase the effective angle by steepening the bevel (or adding one) on the top side.
Everybody seems to rate the Clifton very highly so it'll be interesting to compare.


----------



## GazPal (14 Mar 2013)

Cheshirechappie":2awbnlmh said:


> I've never tried a BU bench plane, or an infill, so I'm in no position to make worthwhile comment, but it does make me wonder a bit whether the advocates of BU bench-planes really got the best out of their standard BD planes before abandoning them for fashionable (and rather pricey) BU planes. That said, it's probably best to use whatever method works best for you, and if that's BU planes, stick with 'em!



I'm not saying you or anyone else should buy one, but ye olde worlde infill planes are definitely a pleasure to work with when well set up. Just as you'd hope for with any other plane type. Just for the record I own and occasionally use an old Spiers smoother and Mathieson panel plane and - although both are in need of a good overhaul - they're gems in their own right. Heft of the plane certainly helps when dealing with contrary timbers.

Much the reason why #05.1/2's prove very capable as jack, panel and smoothing plane when well set up and kitted out with well sharpened and suitably prepared irons. Their heft helps maintain momentum during each plane stroke, whilst fine settings and a spare back bevelled iron on standby help them handle most timber types.

In terms of *bevel down* planes, the only ones I have and use are an old Stanley #62 (My son owns and uses Stanley's newer version of the #62) and a typical selection of block planes ranging through numbers 101 - 130. Working pitch and iron orientation definitely make a difference, but the greatest difference can be had by applying correct honing angles to suit the work in hand. In spite of owning bevel up planes I still prefer bevel down planes, as I find they can handle anything you throw at them, whereas bevel up planes tend to be limited to smoothing operations rather than see use hogging off material in the same manner you'd use a standard #05, #05.1/2, or #06 with heavily cambered iron.

I think personal preference is heavily influenced by technique, but agree the quality of a cutting edge can make or break a plane's performance regardless of whether it's bevel up or down. Much the reason for my maintaining the stance that sharpening is among the most important aspects when handling cutting tools. Sharpening - when kept simple - needn't be an overworked chore, whilst edge retention and alloys become immaterial as you routinely stop work to re-whet/strop an iron during use.

----------
Edited to add that Vann very rightly pointed out my typo which I've highlighted and should read bevel up.


----------



## Vann (14 Mar 2013)

GazPal":1b98i5zo said:


> In terms of *bevel down *planes, the only ones I have and use are an old Stanley #62 ... and a typical selection of block planes ranging through numbers 101 - 130.


Ahem, *bevel up*....?

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## GazPal (14 Mar 2013)

Vann":l778vsmc said:


> GazPal":l778vsmc said:
> 
> 
> > In terms of *bevel down *planes, the only ones I have and use are an old Stanley #62 ... and a typical selection of block planes ranging through numbers 101 - 130.
> ...



My typo and mistake, but I blame my typing.  Not all are bevel up, as a couple - such as the 101 - are set bevel down.


----------



## anaminal (31 Mar 2013)

Hi All, just thought I'd check-in and restate my thanks for the advice the other week on my first plane. 

I went to the Axminster shop in Warrington and tried out both the Veritas and LN LA Jack; I struggled to choose between them as they both felt great but ended up going with the LN as it just seemed a bit more solid and felt like there was less play in the adjustments (mouth opening and the blade depth adjustment in particular). 

I've had a lot of fun with it so far, leaves a beautiful finish on oak - miles better than ultra fine sandpaper I was using before! I was a bit gutted when I found I'd scratched up the sole on a piece of walnut I'd not brushed off before planing but am taking the attitude that "a tool's for using" etc so will continue with it. Great intro to the world of planes 

anyway, Thanks!
Chris


----------



## GazPal (31 Mar 2013)

Nice result Chris :wink: Unless deep, those scratches will soon blend in once you've a bit of mileage on your plane.


----------



## Wood whisperer (27 Sep 2015)

For me I don't think this plane is a versatile as many think. It's well made and for the right price I wouldn't say no but to be honest it would be an indulgence. I don't recall seeing any vintage jack rabbet planes with a fence, from experience I would say that's because to cut a wide rabbet of 2 inches say for a window frame accurately is too much hard work,try doing it in oak or iroko,may be that's why this plane has no depth stop. The blade is square one of the reasons I bought a skew rabbet plane was so the blade angle pulled the plane into the rabbet and I got a clean internal corner, and its ability to deal with end grain. Nice idea to turn this in a shooting planes with a length of timber but wood moves and shrinks. I have a record jack rabbet plane for cleaning up machined rabbets, I hardly use it but it's nice to have. If I didn't have access to a spindle moulder I would use a hand power planer to cut a wide rabbet. I have the low angle Veritas jack plane and I wouldn't swap it for the veritas jack rabbet.


----------



## D_W (28 Sep 2015)

This type of plane fits in a category of not being a big sales success when first made (and the market was professional) and thus probably not very useful to us. I bought one (the lie nielsen version, though), too, and was hesitant to sell it just in case I ever had a need for it. Never did. They are not a great panel raiser because they're not skew, they are poor for narrow rabbets and sinking a wide rebate is a pain because who can take a really thick full width shaving accurately over and over?

Planes I put into this category
* skew block plane (looks nice, have all kinds of ideas for it, but most of them are better done with a chisel - never used it much)
* jack rabbet type plane (never successfully used it anywhere - moving fillister is far superior)
* shoulder planes (personal thing - always trying to use one where I should be using a rabbet, and I work tenon shoulders to the mark with a chisel as most do. finally getting a decent rabbet plane relegated it to gone)
* bevel up jack plane - not a very good jack plane as far as jacks go, but a good shooter, I guess. Still found no need for it (and not surprised that stanley didn't sell tons of them). A 4 is usually lighter on its feet for end grain work to a mark (in the vise). 
* stanley 55 - screaming slow pain to use due to shaving thickness limitation and no support for shaving
* stanley 45 - same as 55, except fewer cutters. Decent plow plane, but not as good as vintage wooden plow


----------



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

Swiss Army Knives are fun to own and actually work. Not as effective as a bunch of separates ... but that is what I wrote three years ago.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## rkboston (29 Sep 2015)

I actually sometimes use it for narrowish (<3/4") rabbets, seems ok, especially if grain runs in a direction that does not work with my veritas right hand filister. I did not want a left hand filister and jack rabbet is more versatile. Also when doing workbench size projects it is handy. Plus it is very pretty piece of tool art.


----------



## knockknock (29 Sep 2015)

I use my Veritas Jack Rabbet all the time, as a small jointer. The under slung fence works well, it lets me balance the plane on the edge of a board (a tick heavy on the non-fence side). I also added a board to the fence to make it larger and got shorter fence rods.


----------

