Juuma Vs Lie Nielsen Rebate (Rabbet) Block Planes?

[Orraloon]

The 78 either 1 or 2 arm versions is a very handy plane to have but hold off unless its got all its parts. There are a lot out there with bits missing. Some of the old wooden bodied rebates are also good and worth keeping a lookout for a good one. I converted an old skew woodie rebate by making a fence for it. It actually cuts a cleaner rebate than the 78 does.
Regards
John

 

[Jacob]

The 78 either 1 or 2 arm versions is a very handy plane to have but hold off unless its got all its parts. There are a lot out there with bits missing. Some of the old wooden bodied rebates are also good and worth keeping a lookout for a good one. I converted an old skew woodie rebate by making a fence for it. It actually cuts a cleaner rebate than the 78 does.
Regards
John

The 78 work fine without fences and add ons, but if you are buying one it might as well have all its bits.
Old woodies are very common and were used without add-ons perfectly well, better in fact IMHO. There's a bit of a technique whereby you work to gauge lines but take a last pass or two from the side of the rebate with the plane on its side. This is easy with a woody as they are light and the body is comfortable to hold, but less so with the steel plane.
The "shoulder" plane was introduced as a metal plane in the 19C. Presumably the rebate plane, and/or paring chisels etc, were used previously. Or were they were handier with the tenon saw and didn't have to correct shoulders? Is the shoulder plane not for forming shoulders but only for correcting mistakes?
Where there's a lot to do e.g. window frames, then the woody would make much lighter work of it, literally, compared to a steel plane.

 

[Orraloon]

I have had a try at that but my technique was a bit lacking. Rebate was a wee bit rough. Guess I still need the training wheels. I had been looking for a good wooden moving fillister for ages but they either cost a fortune or are just about knackered. Was a half hour job to stick a fence on a half decent rebate plane I had.
Regards
John

 

[vaj]

I'm in no hurry on the 78 J and will proceed accordingly.

It strikes me that most older 78s were probably used in a more knockabout joinery environment - fitting doors etc which probably explains why there are so many around.

I've been digging around while trying to gain a feeling for the range of rebating tasks which can come up and what the various plane types get used for.

There's quite a few videos on YouTube regarding buying and use of the 78 family, and of use of filllister and standard rebate wooden planes and so on - everything from cutting simple shiplap rebates to panel raising.

There's even a purpose made panel raising wooden plane shown in use on one - quite a monster..

ECE Emmerich judging by the Fine Tools website do some nice rebate and fence equipped wooden planes.

 

[Just4Fun]

Might the Record 778 have a better fence?

I have one I was given new about 5 years ago. Generally it is OK, but the fence is not square to the sole. I added a piece of wood, longer than the metal fence. I had to chamfer the wood to make sure it was 90 degrees to the sole.

 

[vaj]

Thanks for that J4F

 

[Trafalgar]

You took the words out of my mouth Derek. I couldn't agree more.

The Chinese could easily cast and finish to an equal if not better standard than L-N was getting from whoever was doing them in the U.S. It's all up to L-N's specifications. Better that, than fold up the tent and go out of business. It was aggressive subcontracting that put L-N in jeopardy in the first place -- subbing out to small U.S. and Canadian businesses that were hanging by a thread even before the pandemic.

 

[Jacob]

I'm in no hurry on the 78 J and will proceed accordingly.

It strikes me that most older 78s were probably used in a more knockabout joinery environment - fitting doors etc which probably explains why there are so many around.

There's so many around because they were very useful and hence popular.
Conversely, back catalogue rarities like the "block rebate" probably were neither.

 

[thikone]

I have this JUUMA Rabbet Block Plane since 2015. In fact, it was my first plane.

Cannot compare it to Lie-Nielsen as I have never seen one. Juuma does work alright though, one of my often used planes.
For what I use it I never needed that nicker (I guess it is like a shoulder plane for me).
There is a similar one with adjustable front, presumably from the same factory (Dick plane), but I never needed to adjust that either.

 

[vaj]

Hi Andrey - thanks for the info. Fine Tools in Berlin offer the various Juuma branded block planes you mention: Juuma Block Planes, Pocket Planes | FINE TOOLS The rabbet version is also listed but on a different page.

 

[vaj]

The Juuma rebating block plane arrived this morning - I diverted into checking it out and setting it up as it seemed as though it would be a good idea to share some findings while this thread was still live.

Bear in mind that the following pertains to the specific Juuma/Fine Tools example, and that there could (?) be quality differences between the various Quangsheng/Luban and related brands. It from a manufacturing point of view seems in summary to be spot on and very good value for money indeed.

The small size perhaps helps, but the sole and sides when checked with an engineering straight edge and square are nicely ground, flat and square to each other. Backlighting saw no visible light come through under the straight edge resting on the sole - see the pic. of the test taken with the iron installed and the cap tensioned.

The bed for the iron is milled but in practice is smooth enough to not catch a fingernail - and with the rear support (which the adjuster passes through) is very accurately aligned with the sole. It's also very flat - see the pic showing how the film of marking blue on a gauge block transferred all over it.

Both the iron and a spare bought with the plane are nicely ground and finished - the bevel is ground dead on square, the sides are parallel and the back flat. Both measured 44.40mm wide x 3.1 thick - for an overhang of 0.1mm. (0.004in total = 0.002in on each side of the body when centred)

The backs flattened quickly on a 1,000 grit waterstone with no need for ruler tricks etc. - which left them ready for finishing on finer stones. (see pic)

The surface finish on a Veritas iron is in comparison finer. (is lapped?) The task in prepping these ones is to polish out the (fine) texture left by surface grinding - which took longer than did the Veritas irons I've done.

The steel is listed as T10 carbon tool steel - it at first touch on a waterstone feels much like say O1. Time will tell how it does.

The (fixed) mouth as the iron just starts to emerge is around 0.7mm wide - quite tight but probably appropriate on a tool not designed to take heavy cuts. It's nice and square and the cutting edge when the iron is centred ends up parallel to the sole.

Having got the engineer's blue out I thought for the hell of it that I'd test the various surfaces of the body on a surface plate - see the later pics with blue on the various surfaces.

A fine film of blue is wiped on to the plate, and the relevant surface of the plane body is pressed down on to it - so that blue transfers where it contacts the plate. Blue all over means the surface is pretty much dead flat, misses mean an (in this case a very slight) hollow.

Bear in mind that this is an impractical/extreme test in that it'll pick up an out of flatness of a few 1/10ths of a thou (say 0.0004in) - much less than matters in use.

The sides proved to be dead flat. The sole almost so with a tiny hollowing towards the centre which could not be detected with straight edge and 0.0015in ( 1 1/2 thou) feeeler gauge or using a backlight as above.

Tightening the cap iron using the bronze wheel incidentally (but as is to be expected) produced a detectable increase in the hollow. The first pic of the sole with blue on is with no iron fitted, the second with the iron fitted and the lever cap tensioned.

All in all I'm very pleased. Just about the only (very minor) criticism I can make is to say that the polished dome of the bronze lever cap as delivered with a thick lower edge made access to the wheel a little fiddly.

This was easily resolved by setting the wheel lower on its threaded stud (to raise the back of the cap a few mm) and chamfering the relevant lower edges of the dome - see the last pic. A dragging/slight binding of the M6 wheel stud thread in the cap was fixed by running a plug tap in to bottom - perhaps the production tap was a little worn.

The nose of the bronze cap was making good contact all along its leading edge as delivered and would have worked fine, but since I was in the vicinity I used a diamond plate to give it a finer finish.

I couldn't be more pleased with the plane.

It's as before possible with a light mill to fit circular nickers (available as spares for a Veritas wheel gauge) a la LN and also a pair or even four Veritas style iron side to side locating grub screws (as on their shoulder planes) but mindful of the advice regarding use of a knife have no plans to do so unless the need arises in practice...

 

[cowtown_eric]

Being for the most part in the UK, you guys should be watching for a Woden w78 or record ???? 778

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=woden+w78.../T27036-2-1024x1024.jpg&t=newext&atb=v378-3__
2 Fence rods instead of one, and that front knob (which can be easily cobbled up for a 78 does make it it so much easier to guide/control !!!

I must confess I ain't figured out why the blades on most rabbet planes are wider than the bed !!

Eric in the colonies!

 

[vaj]

View this thread

There's so many around because they were very useful and hence popular.
Conversely, back catalogue rarities like the "block rebate" probably were neither.

Being for the most part in the UK, you guys should be watching for a Woden w78 or record ???? 778

I think the difference in part is that a rebating block plane is essentially a light duty trimming tool rather than a serious rebate cutting device - although it can no doubt be presssed to do more.

78/778 planes seem based on what I'm reading following the recommendations here are significantly more heavy duty and seem to have been in very widespread use in mainstream carpentry and joinery tasks like fitting doors etc - hence perhaps the numbers about?

 

[Jacob]

....

I must confess I ain't figured out why the blades on most rabbet planes are wider than the bed !!
.....

So that they can project just a touch into the corner of a rebate and keep tight against the wall.

 

[Jacob]

The Juuma rebating block plane arrived this morning - I diverted into checking it out and setting it up as it seemed as though it would be a good idea to share some findings while this thread was still live.

Bear in mind that the following pertains to the specific Juuma/Fine Tools example, and that there could (?) be quality differences between the various Quangsheng/Luban and related brands. It from a manufacturing point of view seems in summary to be spot on and very good value for money indeed.

The small size perhaps helps, but the sole and sides when checked with an engineering straight edge and square are nicely ground, flat and square to each other. Backlighting saw no visible light come through under the straight edge resting on the sole - see the pic. of the test taken with the iron installed and the cap tensioned.

The bed for the iron is milled but in practice is smooth enough to not catch a fingernail - and with the rear support (which the adjuster passes through) is very accurately aligned with the sole. It's also very flat - see the pic showing how the film of marking blue on a gauge block transferred all over it.

Both the iron and a spare bought with the plane are nicely ground and finished - the bevel is ground dead on square, the sides are parallel and the back flat. Both measured 44.40mm wide x 3.1 thick - for an overhang of 0.1mm. (0.004in total = 0.002in on each side of the body when centred)

The backs flattened in a few minutes on a 1,000 grit waterstone with no need for ruler tricks etc. - which left them ready for finishing on finer stones. (see pic)

The surface finish on a Veritas iron is in comparison a bit finer. (is lapped?) The task in prepping these ones is to polish out the (fine) texture left by surface grinding - which took a shade longer than did the Veritas irons I've done.

The steel is listed as T10 carbon tool steel - it at first touch on a waterstone feels much like say O1. Time will tell how it does.

The (fixed) mouth as the iron just starts to emerge is around 0.7mm wide - quite tight but probably appropriate on a tool not designed to take heavy cuts. It's nice and square and the cutting edge when the iron is centred ends up parallel to the sole.

Having got the engineer's blue out I thought for the hell of it that I'd test the various surfaces of the body on a surface plate - see the later pics with blue on the various surfaces.

A fine film of blue is wiped on to the plate, and the relevant surface of the plane body is pressed down on to it - so that blue transfers where it contacts the plate. Blue all over means the surface is pretty much dead flat, misses mean an (in this case a very slight) hollow.

Bear in mind that this is an impractical/extreme test in that it'll pick up an out of flatness of a few 1/10ths of a thou (say 0.0004in) - much less than matters in use.

The sides proved to be dead flat. The sole almost so with a tiny hollowing towards the centre which could not be detected with straight edge and 0.0015in ( 1 1/2 thou) feeeler gauge or using a backlight as above.

Tightening the cap iron using the bronze wheel incidentally (but as is to be expected) produced a detectable increase in the hollow. The first pic of the sole with blue on is with no iron fitted, the second with the iron fitted and the lever cap tensioned.

All in all I'm very pleased. Just about the only (very minor) criticism I can make is to say that the polished dome of the bronze lever cap as delivered with a thick lower edge made access to the wheel a little fiddly.

This was easily resolved by setting the wheel lower on its threaded stud (to raise the back of the cap a few mm) and chamfering the relevant lower edges of the dome - see the last pic. A dragging/slight binding of the M6 wheel stud thread in the cap was fixed by running a plug tap in to bottom - perhaps the production tap was a little worn.

The nose of the bronze cap was making good contact all along its leading edge as delivered and would have worked fine, but since I was in the vicinity I used a diamond plate to give it a finer finish.

I couldn't be more pleased with the plane.

It's as before possible with a light mill to fit circular nickers (available as spares for a Veritas wheel gauge) a la LN and also a pair or even four Veritas style iron side to side locating grub screws (as on their shoulder planes) but mindful of the advice regarding use of a knife have no plans to do so unless the need arises in practice...

Some overthinking going on here!
It's only a simple woodwork tool and the best test is to actually use it and look at the outcome, not the tool. Most likely it could need a quick hone at 30º, as with any edge tool, but that should be all.

 

[vaj]

Some overthinking going on here!

Perhaps in your book Jacob, but it wasn't clear to me what to expect with this plane. I found out the hard way many years ago that with planes the details matter, and presuming its feasible that if you're going to sort them out you need to know what the problem is in the first place.

Ditto with machines - proper set up day one saves an awful lot of swearing down the road.

It seemed also given the in some respects controverisal nature of the thread that some would be interested in hard information regarding the quality or otherwise of the plane - that's why I went to quite a lot of trouble to document what I did and what I found. (it took a lot longer to photograph and write up than did the work)

There's different ways of working, but my background is engineering. I now know exactly what I have - and that barring some obscure fault the plane will reliably work...

 

[C.R. Miller]

I'm a little confused here? LN have made made a fantastic business by copying the designs of Stanley and Sargent, and making them better by improving the overall build quality and - in the case of the cutters - better metallurgy. How does someone else copying those same designs make it any less valid than LN?

 

[Jacob]

I'm a little confused here? LN have made made a fantastic business by copying the designs of Stanley and Sargent, and making them better by improving the overall build quality and - in the case of the cutters - better metallurgy.

Not so sure about the metallurgy. I have various and tend to prefer the older laminated Records/Stanleys and a Japanese laminated Smoothcut. Have also Hock and have had LN, LV etc but the newer stuff takes longer to sharpen. I prefer a little and often freehand on oilstones, rather than the elaborate procedures of the modern sharpeners.

How does someone else copying those same designs make it any less valid than LN?

Could make it even more valid by making them a lot cheaper IMHO.

 

[Inspector]

I'm a little confused here? LN have made made a fantastic business by copying the designs of Stanley and Sargent, and making them better by improving the overall build quality and - in the case of the cutters - better metallurgy. How does someone else copying those same designs make it any less valid than LN?

LN started making the improved versions of older planes when nobody else was doing it. When they were successful at it the Asians started to do so but they didn't copy the Stanley or any other designs and improve them. No research or working to build their market. They copied the LN planes exactly in every way, cashing in on the market LN built. It might not matter to you but it does rub some of us wrong. You have the freedom to choose what you want to do. How you justify it is up to you and nobody else.

Pete

 

[Jacob]

LN started making the improved versions of older planes when nobody else was doing it.

Improved in what way?
Higher spec and higher prices yes, but no improvements or innovations other than the higher spec and build quality - at a price.
More marketing than anything, to serve an expanding and wealthier hobby market i.e. luxury goods.
No reason why they shouldn't do that of course, good luck to them.
No reason why anybody else shouldn't follow the same line, it's hardly original or innovative, it's simple low tech engineering very little different from similar items from over 100 years ago..
They used to moan about far eastern motorbikes, but they became highly innovative, improved and expanded into the wider automotive field with products far superior to the European and USA originals. Otherwise we'd be bombing about on Vincents and Nortons!
More interesting to consider why we couldn't keep up, rather than simply to condemn it as though they are all cheats!