Review: The Veritas Jack Rabbet Plane

[anaminal]

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]

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]

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)]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

 

[Jacob]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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?

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

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]

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]

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

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

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

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.