John Lloyd's latest blog on jack planes

[Silly_Billy]

In case anyone's interested I spotted that John Lloyd's latest blog challenges his own favouritism of the 5 ½ jack plane:

"So their main strengths seem to be that they look like a proper plane and if they’re tuned up, with a decent, sharp blade fitted, they’re pretty efficient at planing wood that’s not too challenging.

Any good at dealing with end grain? No!

Any good at dealing with difficult, highly figured, timber that has a tendency to tear when a plane gets anywhere near it? No!

Easy to set up? No, not really!

So not a very versatile plane at all really!"

He also ends with: "And while we’re on the subject of planes, is a No.4 ‘Smoothing Plane’ actually any good at ‘Smoothing’…………………………..?" (hammer)

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Every comment he makes indicates that he has no concept of using a chipbreaker, and therefore his views on the #5 1/2 are limited and lack insight.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Racers]

+1 I thought that before seeing your reply.

Pete

 

[Bod]

Reads like an advert for certain makes of plane, manufactured in the (ex)colony the other side of the pond.

Bod

 

[Tasky]

I don't get it......

The 5 has been the JOAT plane for however long, countless people using it as such including this guy, supposedly because it works as specified... and yet he now rubbishes it entirely?

Or is he just saying he's always used a LV/V BU plane and he's awesome-amazeballz because of it, so yah-boo-sucks to y'all who use Record/Stanley?

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I don't get it......

BU planes are excellent users, and he is explaining that that have great range - one plane and a few blades with different bevel angles ... yada yada. And all the poor #5 1/2 has is a 45 degree frog. One cutting angle. Not good.

This is all pre-2013 forum stuff. He has no idea how to tune and adjust a plane with a chipbreaker. Which is surprising in these times.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Silly_Billy]

I don't get it......

The 5 has been the JOAT plane for however long, countless people using it as such including this guy, supposedly because it works as specified... and yet he now rubbishes it entirely?

I think the blog’s partly about John Lloyd challenging his own habits.

I’ve met John and happen to know that he uses a 5½ jack plane by preference, not a low angle jack. However, I inferred from the blog that he’s questioning his own ways of doing things.

 

[ED65]

I think the blog’s partly about John Lloyd challenging his own habits.

I’ve met John and happen to know that he uses a 5½ jack plane by preference, not a low angle jack. However, I inferred from the blog that he’s questioning his own ways of doing things.

I still don't get it though, and I think it's likely just to confuse learners who are already bombarded with conflicting info from all sides.

 

[Tasky]

However, I inferred from the blog that he’s questioning his own ways of doing things.

Sounds more like jumping on the newfangled bandwagon, to me...

 

[MrDavidRoberts]

Didn't really read much in that site, but I agree.. a NEW Good BU Plane is Miles and miles better than a standard old-school plane, you need to have a real expertise to setup a regular old battered vintage plane to shave as smooth as the BU will do almost right out of the box..

I would rather use the hours needed to turn an old plane in to good plane in actually making something... + Again..People new to woodworking will have a rubbish experience with one of the old planes as they don't really know what they are doing + it's hard to actually learn without knowing what you should be getting.

A good 62 plane starts from 100-140pounds , a decent shape 5 1/2 will run you 40 ,sure you can tune up both to give same results but for me it took like half a year and number of days to actually ''learn'' how to do it properly and get the results I want & I still don't think I'm expert in it In actual billable hours It probably took me like 70-80 hours in research/trying out various things/learning the ways to sharpen it/shape it / etc... so even at minimum wage that's like 500pound investment just to get it working.. There's no way I'm getting that back..



I wish I had bought a new 62 plane right away...
All the old farts who have never actually tried a modern good 62 plane, please just don't comment nonsense...

 

[ED65]

All the old farts who have never actually tried a modern good 62 plane, please just don't comment nonsense...

This comment has no place here. You're just chagrined because of all the flak you get, and as OTT as some of it has been the basic thrust of it is well deserved because we see the pattern you're criticised for time and again, where you come in ask for advice and then ignore all of it.

The previous comments are about another "old fart's" apparently contradictory, and certainly confusing, comments about a standard bit of kit with a proven track record to say the least.

 

[D_W]

Never heard of the guy. He has a "school", thinks that the planes can't handle end grain (i've never had a problem despite starting with a bias that stanley planes couldn't do it and learning otherwise out of laziness), and he thinks they can't handle "difficult grain".

Maybe he should stick to sanding blocks and power tools. He couldn't plane with a 2-month apprentice from 150 years ago, and he with his array would be buried by a competent plane user using a single plane.

 

[D_W]

DavidR - you're backwards, but if you do this long enough, you'll figure that out.

i started from your stance. The time it took me to get anything done with a bunch of single iron planes was excruciating, but I eventually figured out how to use double iron planes.

It took me 45 minutes to learn to sharpen (from David Charlesworth's DVD) and I've never had a bad edge, not even the first. It might take you longer to get to understanding planes as well as I do, or using them as well. And there's nothing exceptional about my use.

I had two bevel up planes, but no longer do. I think they're good starter planes if someone is having trouble, but it ends there. They'll cost you too many "billable hours" down the road.

 

[ED65]

a NEW Good BU Plane is Miles and miles better than a standard old-school plane...

ORLY? Come back to us when you've tried to plane the reversing grain from ****, and likely failed in the attempt.

Planing really difficult grain is something a Bailey-pattern plane can do all day every day without having to swap an iron or really do anything other than adjust a few bits, set it and start pushing!

I would rather use the hours needed to turn an old plane in to good plane in actually making something... + Again..People new to woodworking will have a rubbish experience with one of the old planes as they don't really know what they are doing + it's hard to actually learn without knowing what you should be getting.

Took me less than an hour to go from the box to making shavings with the first BD plane I bought (from a brand you won't consider). I was using the cap iron from day one and it took me less than a handful of hours of hands-on work with it to start dialling in on adjustments that would help get me out of trouble, less than six months until tearout became almost no concern (largely due to improvements in my honing which lagged behind, not plane setting).

Obviously this wasn't me working in a vacuum, I read every scrap of information on planes and planing I could get my hands on before and during, which obviously was a major investment in time. But I don't consider a single minute of it wasted.

As for the "hours" needed to get an old plane into the condition it could do the same as the new plane I reference above, this plane, which many would consider a basket case and wouldn't touch with a barge pole – and TBH nobody should if planes in better shape are easier to come by at very modest prices – could have been made usable by anyone in 30 minutes or slightly less. It's only the cosmetic stuff that took longer (still not hours), and all that is completely optional.

 

[Tasky]

I wish I had bought a new 62 plane right away...
All the old farts who have never actually tried a modern good 62 plane, please just don't comment nonsense...

More of a young burp here than an old fart... of the loud and proud kind that usually follows a damn good meal... but either way, still a newbie without that sort of money for a LV/V BU plane.

And yet just this Monday past, I had a quick go at fiddling with my Record #5 cap iron. Took me about eleven minutes to start getting decent shavings, resulting in a workpiece surface that felt (to my obviously clueless perspective) very much like this "smooth-as-silk" finish that all the YouTube Gurus seem to purr about, as they stroke their hand lasciviously across the bit they've just planed...

So I can only imagine how smooth this BU plane must be out the box, right?
But how easy is it to maintain that? I've known plenty of other tools over the decades that are awesome-amazeballz out the box.... but two weeks down the line they require sharpening, realigning or whatever (depending on which tool it is), at which point they're a right pain in the pineapples if you don't have the decades of experience in maintaining their older versions... So how easy and newbie-friendly is this really?
Does it not still require a decent understanding of how planing works?

 

[D_W]

Hopefully, they're just feeling to make sure they didn't leave any tracks!!

Anything more than that is just playing.

 

[Tasky]

Hopefully, they're just feeling to make sure they didn't leave any tracks!! Anything more than that is just playing.

I dunno, but it always seems just a touch pervy to watch a (usually) older fella stroking his wood and going, "Ohhhh yes.... silkyyy smooooooooth" like that... :shock:

*shudder*

:lol: :lol:

 

[Silly_Billy]

Never heard of the guy.

He's written for various woodwork magazines, e.g. Furniture & Cabinetmaking.

His website gives this biog: "John Lloyd trained in Furniture Making and Antique Furniture Restoration & Conservation with Bruce Luckhurst at the Little Surrenden Workshops in Kent, where he graduated with distinction. He also taught antique furniture restoration at West Dean College, Chichester.

"John was awarded the City & Guilds of London Institute Silver Medal of Excellence, the highest possible award, as First Prize for Advanced Studies in Furniture for Furniture Making and Antique Restoration.

"With the experience of a 25 year career as a successful furniture designer/maker and restorer behind him, John now teaches intensive courses from his delightful workshops in rural Sussex. He also regularly contributes articles to the leading furniture making magazines."

He's also mentioned briefly at least once in one of David C's books.

 

[David C]

I don't think I have the energy to respond to all the nonsense in John Lloyd's article as it is the end of a successful week. Tom was tuning up planes and mastering my sharpening and planing techniques.

The mouth of my 5 1/2 jack gets adjusted about every 20 years.

Common pitch is fine for end grain if it is sharp. Also good for shooting.

Tiny back bevels of 15 or 25 degrees will leave a flawless surface on the most recalcitrent timbers.

Fit of frog is often poor, sometimes as little as 10% contact. This is sorted out when setting up the plane and we often get 90 % contact.

Over the years students built about 60 benches here. The endgrain of the top was planed. About 16" x 3".

Finally I don't think an A2 blade sharpened at 25 degrees is going to last long.

The 5 1/2 is truly a jack of all trades, which is why John has been happily using his, for the last 20 or 30 years?

David Charlesworth

 

[D_W]

He's also mentioned briefly at least once in one of David C's books.

I figured if he has a school, he must have a portfolio and have done some past work. The two often go hand in hand (but usually, it's more important for the portfolio to serve to draw students).

I haven't written articles for the most part (I'm an amateur, why should anyone take advice from me in a magazine article?). However, I have been asked by magazines to write articles on tools and tool related topics. First, it's not really worth the trouble (what would I be promoting by writing an article), and second, why should anyone take advice from me? Third, I have a real objection to putting anything I know behind a paywall, which is essentially what a magazine does. I think writing for magazines is a wonderful tool for someone who has something they want to sell (it's a bullet point of credibility, though not an indicator full credibility on its own).

Despite the fact that the blogger in this case could build furniture better than I can (I'm sure of that), he doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm quite confident that I've mastered making very good planes (at least certain types - I don't make stanley planes or metal shoulder planes!), and understanding how they work.

In short, there are a lot of people who build wonderful furniture (you can do it entirely without planes, no problem) who shouldn't be espousing their opinions about how to use planes without first caveating that they don't use them for much. If this blogger has used planes a lot in situ and still has the opinions that he has, he must have a serious lack of curiosity.