Stanley 62 Sweetheart LA jack plane and no4 Sweetheart

[MIGNAL]

I think Clifton need to look at the new Stanley 4 for some inspiration!

They could look at the earlier Veritas bench plane - I'm pretty sure Stanley did.

http://www.leevalley.com/US/Wood/page.a ... 41187&ap=1

1/8" A2 blade, moveable toe, continuous frog, steeper than traditional handle, Norris style adjuster...

So familiar...

BugBear

None (perhaps 1) of those are or were 'invented' by Veritas. Veritas themselves have simply looked at other historical planes and taken a bit from here and a bit form there. The Veritas Bench plane does not have the adjustable front sole - a design that goes back long before Veritas existed.

 

[bugbear]

I think Clifton need to look at the new Stanley 4 for some inspiration!

They could look at the earlier Veritas bench plane - I'm pretty sure Stanley did.

http://www.leevalley.com/US/Wood/page.a ... 41187&ap=1

1/8" A2 blade, moveable toe, continuous frog, steeper than traditional handle, Norris style adjuster...

So familiar...

BugBear

None (perhaps 1) of those are or were 'invented' by Veritas. Veritas themselves have simply looked at other historical planes and taken a bit from here and a bit form there. The Veritas Bench plane does not have the adjustable front sole - a design that goes back long before Veritas existed.

You're quite right!

It's the Veritas BU designs that use the sliding toe idea, not the Veritas Bench planes.

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

So the Stanley SW 4 is unique then?

What is the point of low angle planes - no obvious benefit but several compromise due to the cramped layout?
Good for a one-handed small block plane but pointless on say the 62, which Stanley dropped 70 years ago.

 

[Dangermouse]

Seeing all the positive reviews on here, I've taken the plunge and ordered a no4. Will let you all know what I think when it gets here.

 

[Jacob]

They could look at the earlier Veritas bench plane - I'm pretty sure Stanley did.

http://www.leevalley.com/US/Wood/page.a ... 41187&ap=1

1/8" A2 blade, moveable toe, continuous frog, steeper than traditional handle, Norris style adjuster...

So familiar...

BugBear

None (perhaps 1) of those are or were 'invented' by Veritas. Veritas themselves have simply looked at other historical planes and taken a bit from here and a bit form there. The Veritas Bench plane does not have the adjustable front sole - a design that goes back long before Veritas existed.

You're quite right!

It's the Veritas BU designs that use the sliding toe idea, not the Veritas Bench planes.

BugBear

Which in turn was derived from the Stanley 62.
Stanley dropped the 62 about 70 years ago as presumably nobody could see the point of it, it didn't sell well and is now fairly rare.
So what is the point of LA planes? There is a point with small block plane as it makes it one handable but with a bench plane there seems to be no advantage at all. A plane design evolutionary dead-end in fact.
The solid one piece frog/body does make sense but this translates much better to a normal high angle plane as seen with the Stanley SW 4, which seems to be the only radical plane design improvement since Stanley/Bailey first brought out the originals.

 

[Dangermouse]

I consider the BU no 62 ideal for a shooting board, the low angle is great for end grain.

 

[Jacob]

I consider the BU no 62 ideal for a shooting board, the low angle is great for end grain.

I use 5 1/2 for shooting. It's also great for end grain as the cutting angle is much the same as you'd get with a LA of any variety, which is my point really.

There's a 62 on ebay here - be interesting to see what it fetches.

 

[bugbear]

Stanley dropped the 62 about 70 years ago as presumably nobody could see the point of it, it didn't sell well and is now fairly rare.

The cast iron used at the time, combined with the wide, thin frog tended to made the mouth very liable to cracking. The superior materials used in the modern version eliminate this fatal flaw.

There was a comment by somebody called "Jacob" praise the LV BUS quite highly with a high EP blade for use on figured wood. You could look it up.

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

Stanley dropped the 62 about 70 years ago as presumably nobody could see the point of it, it didn't sell well and is now fairly rare.

The cast iron used at the time, combined with the wide, thin frog tended to made the mouth very liable to cracking. The superior materials used in the modern version eliminate this fatal flaw.

There was a comment by somebody called "Jacob" praise the LV BUS quite highly with a high EP blade for use on figured wood. You could look it up.

BugBear

Well yes it works well no doubt about it. But what advantage does the low angle give when the effective cutting angle can be made the same on a high angle plane?
Non that I can see except in the case of block planes which are easier to handle with one hand by virtue of being compact.