Scraper planes

[D_W]

talking of scraper planes, I fancy the miniature cabinet scraper plane by veritas, has anyone used this?

The black one? (that's sort of a dumb question, but perhaps there is a different one).

It didn't get very good reviews when it came out. The LN 212 is the one to have if you're looking for something small. If the price with VAT in the UK is a problem, put it on saved search on ebay and eventually one will show up used.

they are pricey, but if you just have to scrape, there's just something about the proportions (the narrow iron and the shorter sole) that make them faster and easier to use and less tiring than the larger planes (that's not a mistype - I've used a vintage 112 and both premium large scraper planes, and you can get work done faster with the 212 because of its aspects).

IIRC (and this is digging deep), shaving ejection was a problem with the early veritas scraping plane, and while that may have been corrected, I haven't heard a peep about them since.

 

[patrickjchase]

talking of scraper planes, I fancy the miniature cabinet scraper plane by veritas, has anyone used this?

The black one? (that's sort of a dumb question, but perhaps there is a different one).

It didn't get very good reviews when it came out. The LN 212 is the one to have if you're looking for something small. If the price with VAT in the UK is a problem, put it on saved search on ebay and eventually one will show up used.

I think he's referring to this: http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.a ... 10&p=73673. I've never used one of those, but it strikes me as more of a conversation piece or knicknack than something I'd use. If I'm going to use a tool that small then I generally will want it to work into tight spaces, and a "miniaturized 80" isn't the answer for that.

LV also makes a small scraping plane, which is their answer to the 212: http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.a ... ,230,41182. I have one. On the plus side its tllting palm-rest and full-width iron make it uniquely suited to working into tight corners. On the minus side it lacks the 212's cutting angle adjustment, the palm-rest is a bit fiddly in use, and as you say the shaving ejection isn't as clean as it could be because of how the iron retention works.

 

[D_W]

talking of scraper planes, I fancy the miniature cabinet scraper plane by veritas, has anyone used this?

The black one? (that's sort of a dumb question, but perhaps there is a different one).

It didn't get very good reviews when it came out. The LN 212 is the one to have if you're looking for something small. If the price with VAT in the UK is a problem, put it on saved search on ebay and eventually one will show up used.

I think he's referring to this: http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.a ... 10&p=73673. I've never used one of those, but it strikes me as more of a conversation piece or knicknack than something I'd use. If I'm going to use a tool that small then I generally will want it to work into tight spaces, and a "miniaturized 80" isn't the answer for that.

LV also makes a small scraping plane, which is their answer to the 212: http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.a ... ,230,41182. I have one. On the plus side its tllting palm-rest and full-width iron make it uniquely suited to working into tight corners. On the minus side it lacks the 212's cutting angle adjustment, the palm-rest is a bit fiddly in use, and as you say the shaving ejection isn't as clean as it could be because of how the iron retention works.

I've never seen the small cabinet scraper, but if I was going to do any significant amount, I'd stick with a normal stanley 80 and the LN 212. I've not tried the LV plane that's there, but the 212 is known good, and the rotating handle is a gimmick, combined with an iron that's just too thin. I'd imagine they addressed the clogged shavings, but who knows.

I have seen the #80 used once to great effect (which is what influenced my purchase of it), and that was in an older video where Kelly Mehler was building a table and using one to smooth the top. I also remember why I bought the 212, but that's not important. I've not seen anyone use the #80 to the same extent that Kelly did since seeing that video.

 

[patrickjchase]

I've never seen the small cabinet scraper, but if I was going to do any significant amount, I'd stick with a normal stanley 80 and the LN 212. I've not tried the LV plane that's there, but the 212 is known good, and the rotating handle is a gimmick, combined with an iron that's just too thin. I'd imagine they addressed the clogged shavings, but who knows.

Wow, you seem to have strongly held opinions about a plane that you've "never seen". But then, one should never let lack of knowledge or hands-on experience get in the way of a loudly voiced opinion.

0.040" is plenty thick for a 2" wide scraper, and on the same order as the thickest card scrapers (the classic Sandvik is 0.032", for example). The plane has a preload/camber screw in the center, which further reduces the required thickness. More to the point the blade for the "proven" 212 (the Stanley one, not the L-N reinterpretation) is the same thickness.

If I were going to critique any plane's iron thickness, it would be that 1/8" bit of deadweight in the middle of the L-N 212. You don't need much steel that for a regular plane, much less a scraper. All it accomplishes is to render sharpening much more difficult than it should be. A2 is also a very curious choice for something that's going to be burnished (those chromium carbides aren't good for the burnisher, nor do they deal well with being "rearranged" in that manner). I've heard that it's a perfectly decent plane once you rip that absurd iron out and replace it with a 0.04" sheet of blue-hard 1095, though.

L-N appears to have done that to cater to the "well-heeled but inexperienced" among their clientele who can't properly burnish an iron. Their manuals/videos make much of the fact that the thick iron can be used with an unhooked edge, though the resulting "shavings" look a bit dusty.

 

[D_W]

Patrick, if you'd have made something of note - anywhere - anything - I'd listen to your criticism. I haven't seen it.

I have a #80 with a blade .042 inches thick. It would be more desirable if it was thicker. It can screech, and it is lacking the same feel that the LN 212 has by miles.

I used the LN 212 with its fantastic iron and noted that it was sharp for a very long time, enough time for me to clean up an entire blanket chest panel that had 80 grit sanding scratches on it to a finished surface, something that 1095 would not accomplish. I'm sure I did that before you started woodworking. I've used the LN 112, the stanley 112 and the LV large scraper planes. The stanley 112 had a blade thicker than .040, but I would use either boutique scraper plane over it (with their thicker blades) in a second. I have never seen a single 1095 scraper blade that could come close to the longevity in scraping that LNs A2 irons have.

You are talking about specs of steel, but have no experience with Lie Nielsen's iron vs. 1095, but don't let that stop you. If you believe that the chromium carbides will hurt a typical burnisher, you're free to also believe that I hold your thoughts and lack of demonstration of anything anywhere in the same regard as I hold my experience.

There was a clear problem with LV's scraper plane when it came out (clogging). If it's been solved, great. If it's not known that it has, then I wouldn't buy it. Plain and simple. If I had a choice for a thicker blade in a plane of this style, I would certainly opt for it - from experience. Not from engineering superstition - from experience. I opted to try the 212 instead of the larger scraper planes when I was scraping the same blanket chest panels (using the plans from fine woodworkings "a blanket chest with legs") because wiley horne suggested that the #212 works better than the large scraper planes. He came to that by experience, not supposition. He was right.

Until you make something of note, I won't respond to any more of your posts. It's clear you have read a lot and completed little. I am by no means a pro who makes three pieces per week, but I certainly won't be coming to you for suggestions on anything.

 

[patrickjchase]

Wow, you seem to have strongly held opinions about a plane that you've "never seen". But then, one should never let lack of knowledge or hands-on experience get in the way of a loudly voiced opinion.

David I owe you an apology for this part. It was a cheap shot born out of frustration. As someone who has used the tool quite a bit I thought that I'd given a fairly balanced perspective, including the gadgetiness of the handle and the shaving ejection issue, and I felt that you ignored that. Even so I should never have gone there.

I do think that you are allowing your emotions in the moment to cloud your better judgment in this instance. In countless other threads on multiple forums you have extolled the virtues of HCS (i.e. 1095) and pointed out the issues that we both know that A2 has. Those issues are magnified in a scraper because of the demands of burnishing. If you think that HCS is preferable in planes, as you have said you do at basically every opportunity, then it can only be more so in this instance. If I felt like it I could assemble a pretty comprehensive reply to your most recent post using only your prior words, but I don't think there's much point to doing so.

w.r.t. sounds coming from thin scraper blades, we're supposed to be talking about woodworking and not acoustics here, right? Was there any problem at the wood surface?