Lie Nielsen or Clifton 5 1/2?

[Tony Zaffuto]

The QC issues (so called) were around 2002 or 3. Made for a lot of noise on the internet. That was when I bought my Clifton #3 and it is as good a plane as any. Got it cheap when a mail order company closed them out. Issues? Yep, the tote was loose and five minutes fixed that.

In my opinion, the noise was from those inexperienced in hand tools, not aware of the bits they may need to do.

To the OP, I would prefer a Record 5-1/2 with stayset chipbreaker or a Millers Falls #15 with the 2 piece (articulated) lever cap.

 

[Mikey RR]

I don't have a Clifton 5 1/2 but I have a Lie Nielsen. I did buy a Clifton n7 as I couldn't find a Lie Nielsen in stock and a few months later bought the Lie Nielsen. I want to like Clifton but I don't get along with it, it is too heavy and I never seem to be able to get really thin shavings even if I want to.
I would go with Lie Nielsen but I do like A2 steel so that is less of a problem for me

Edited: It may also be because I had the Lie Nielsen first and it just feels more familiar but I doubt

That's actually quite similar to my experience. My Stanley no 7 was surface ground by Ray Iles, and it's in slightly better tune than the Cliffie 5 1/2.

 

[G S Haydon]

David Weaver (DW) posted his issue with an LN No 8 he purchased. Concave in the length but within tolerance. But not good enough for his work.

This aligns with Tony's comments. You have to learn how to use tools. Even the "best" can sometimes require us to refine them.

This is why it's wise to only have 3 or 4 planes and get good with them. Refine them if they need it.

Clifton, Lie-Nielsen, Stanley, Record. After a while it's semantics. You'll work out what suits you best. The good thing with hand planes is you can sell them for the same, if not more than you paid for them.

 

[vaj]

The fundamental with any hand plane (a matter of basic geometry) is that if you want to controllably and consistently remove very thin shavings of 0.001in or perhaps even less to produce a more or less flat surface (in say a smoothing type scenario) then there is no escaping the fact that the sole has to be flat to well within this tolerance.

Also the sides (which must also be accurately square) if you plan to do much fine shooting.

The various iron alignments likewise need to be held to this sort of precision. The working adjustments meanwhile need to produce consistent results.

There are categories of manufacturing error which can be worked around in use (if the for example the frog is not well fitted and loses location when the mouth is adjusted) - but these add significant inconvenience.

The matter under discussion here is the incidence (or not) of machining errors in planes which render a tool fundamentally incapable of fine work as above. Some of these given the right skills and equipment can be resolved (usually if they can be fixed by removing metal), but some cannot.

Whatever the case it's utterly unacceptable that any premium plane sold new for well over €400 should require this sort of rectification work - anything more than the usual minor flattening and sharpening of the iron etc is 'send it back' territory.

Many for want of know how struggle to get even a good plane working properly, others are not seeking precision - but these are very different scenarios to the above.

 

[Mikey RR]

The fundamental with any hand plane (a matter of basic geometry) is that if you want to controllably and consistently remove very thin shavings of 0.001in or perhaps even less to produce a more or less flat surface (in say a smoothing type scenario) then there is no escaping the fact that the sole has to be flat to well within this tolerance.

Also the sides (which must also be accurately square) if you plan to do much fine shooting.

The various iron alignments likewise need to be held to this sort of precision. The working adjustments meanwhile need to produce consistent results.

There are categories of manufacturing error which can be worked around in use (if the for example the frog is not well fitted and loses location when the mouth is adjusted) - but these add significant inconvenience.

The matter under discussion here is the incidence (or not) of machining errors in planes which render a tool fundamentally incapable of fine work as above. Some of these given the right skills and equipment can be resolved (usually if they can be fixed by removing metal), but some cannot.

Whatever the case it's utterly unacceptable that any premium plane sold new for well over €400 should require this sort of rectification work - anything more than the usual minor flattening and sharpening of the iron etc is 'send it back' territory.

Many for want of know how struggle to get even a good plane working properly, others are not seeking precision - but these are very different scenarios to the above.

I'd add to that, some people buy that one good plane, to get an idea of how good a metal plane can actually be, then use this as a reference when tuning their less expensive planes.

 

[Trafalgar]

Is Lie-Nielsen back from the brink and actually able to fill orders immediately? That would be my first concern.

You might have quite a long wait if they're still working down a list of backorders.

 

[ali27]

Hello everbody. One thing I have noticed in the Clifton 5 1/2 plane is that the sole has a X pattern added on top of the sole to make it more stiff and dimensionally stable I guess. This IMHO is definitely an advantage.