I'm curious.. when your review clearly states that the testing of the L-N was abandoned through the blade issue, how do you justify that remark...???
Hi Mike
A more detailed answer:
Two of the boards chosen for the test were selected because they were extremely difficult to plane without tearout. The two tuned and sharp Stanleys (my UK #4 and Colins' USA Type 11 #4 1/2) could not deal with the Maple (documented in the Review), and they simply could not cope with the Jarrah (implied when discussing the Jarrah). The control plane of Peter, his Slater infill with a Hock blade, equally was unable to cope with the boards against the grain.
The third board, the Tasmanian Blackwood, was spectactular, and it is the type of wood that is very unpredictable. One does not approach this wood without care - too expensive and too wonderful to destroy. In this case, it planed easily enough with the review planes (not attempted with the Stanleys!), and the surface result was assessed more subjectively. I pointed out that planing with the Marcou left a deeper shine.
All the review planes had no difficulty with the "difficult" boards. This was achieved more easily with the Marcou - again a conclusion that was more subjective (but echoed by all three reviewers). Of the LN and LV, the latter was the easier to use but the difference should not necessarily be due to the LN having a Clifton blade. I have had excellent performance from the Clifton - however, it will not have the durability of the A2 LN and LV blades. I expect that the addition of the LN blade should lift its performance, but not necessarily for short-term planing and rather for the results after the HCS Clifton would be expected to be dulling. So I plan to repeat the testing with a complete LN plane. I am just waiting for the new blade to arrive from LN.
The research design did not require evidence that the Marcou planed to a level where the LV and LN simply were no longer able to keep up. While interesting, this type of result is somewhat artificial and academic for most potential users of this plane. What was the aim was to determine that the Marcou could smooth difficult timber at least as well as the LV and LN, the benchmarks for excellence.
So a top end of the planes was not attempted. It is my intention to address this in my next article, which will (as I have noted) pit the LN BUS and LN #4 1/2 head-to-head in the areas of performance and handling.
Regards from Perth
Derek