Veritas® Small Plow Plane review

[Paul Kierstead]

I later read Alf's review and, because someone commented about her finding that the blades tended to bind, I thought that I would take a second look. So I went back and checked my own. They worked flawlessly (I took photos to record the performance of the 1/4"), so I can only assume that Alf received a rogue set (or I received a good set). No one else has experienced any such difficulties.

I also found that they were more likely to bind, so Alf is not entirely alone. I also had the same difficulty that Alf did holding it upright, finding the Record easier to control. I also have a high opinion of LV products in general and this product specifically. That doesn't mean all users (including me) will find it flawless.

 

[Paul Chapman]

not unexpectedly, Jake decided to "find" evidence that the Veritas was rubbish - he has his motives. Let us leave it at that.

I think that's very unfair and unkind comment, Derek. Jake has done more than anyone else I know to analyse, demonstrate and share how to get the best out of plough, combination and multi planes. Pity that his efforts and generosity are not always appreciated........

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Paul

Read the thread on Ubeaut, then comment. I dislike saying these things in public ,but when his critique is a thinly disguised attempt to push his own design (tapered irons), then I must speak up. Those who have followed past discussions here will recognise what I am referring to.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Paul Chapman]

Paul

Read the thread on Ubeaut, then comment.

I read it when it was originally posted.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Philly]

Pauls (BB and PK)
Price - it is a awkward one. To manufacture such a complicated casting is obviously pretty involved and therefore expensive. So no, on its own I would not criticize the price. And if antique plough planes cost £400 and upwards for the basic models then I would be shouting from the rooftops about the Veritas.
But they are not - I bought my "RECORD" #44 in the box as new for £34. My #43 was even less and the #50 only a few pounds more. Makes for a difficult market place to enter on price terms.
Hope this explains my perspective - we sure are lucky in the UK when it comes to plough planes :wink:
Cheers
Philly

 

[Paul Kierstead]

... we sure are lucky in the UK when it comes to plough planes :wink:

You are indeed. I bought mine from the UK and had it shipped to Canada (more then the cost of the plane) and it was still cheaper then buying one in NA (unless one gets awfully lucky). I hear the 043 calling to me now.....

 

[bugbear]

Pauls (BB and PK)
Price - it is a awkward one. To manufacture such a complicated casting is obviously pretty involved and therefore expensive. So no, on its own I would not criticize the price. And if antique plough planes cost £400 and upwards for the basic models then I would be shouting from the rooftops about the Veritas.
But they are not - I bought my "RECORD" #44 in the box as new for £34. My #43 was even less and the #50 only a few pounds more. Makes for a difficult market place to enter on price terms.
Hope this explains my perspective - we sure are lucky in the UK when it comes to plough planes :wink:
Cheers
Philly

Indeed. Both statements are true; here in the UK, second hand ploughs of good quality are very cheap (but don't forgot what the new prices of a #043,#044,#050,#405 were when they were last available).

The Lee Valley tool is very cheap, considering its quality of manufacture.

Of course, some second hand tools are rare and collectible, leading to filthy second hand prices; I suspect the Lee Valley skew rebate plane will be more universally welcomed... (*)

BugBear

Try getting a #289 cheap in the UK!

 

[Pete W]

The Lee Valley tool is very cheap, considering its quality of manufacture.

And if you compare other Veritas planes to their old Stanley and Record equivalents, I'm not sure there's a huge difference in the difference (if you see what I mean :?).

If I had no ploughing solutions I'd probably go for one, but as the happy owner of Record 043 and 050 planes, I think I'll be investing my Lee Valley tool fund in something else (the LA Jack is currently top of my Christmas list ).

Pete

 

[bugbear]

I feel it of passing relevance that Lie Nielsen started off reproducing tools that were super precious in the s/h market; e.g. the #212 was one of their earlier products.

BugBear

 

[Rob Lee]

Hi All -

Will toss in a few comments here... short though, 'cause it's crazy season...

This plane shows some of the foundation work for similar styles of planes (multi-cutter, fenced) going forward. It startetd out to handle the same functions that the Record 043 did - though it ended up looking more like a version of the 044. Nonetheless - we intended to have a small "grooving" plane that would be welll suited for carcase/panel work.

Blades - yes, we're familiar with tapering the blade sides - but it's a bear to do from a production standpoint, where everything is usually set-up to make things square. Then too - we would be making a "fettling choice" for users - as not everyone would want this done. We stayed with square (and lower cost!) I'd certainly relieve the lower corners on the blades for the last 3/4" or so if I had one .... won't hurt at all, and shouldn't affect honing guide use, or blade registration in the plane body.

Adjuster feed play - nature of the beast in this type of adjustment mechanism. There just isn't the cost/benefit to have an adjustment measured in .001" in this type of plane. The narrow blades also limit the styles of adjuster that can be used...

What we're the most happy with in this plane (and the aspect no one has mentioned!) is the quality and stability of the thin casting.... the sole on that thing is less than 1/8" thick, milled both sides, and straight. we weren't 100% sure it could even be done (at least repeatedly)!

Cost - well, the costs are what they are - not much we can do there. More milling, multiple castings, and multiple blades make for a more expensive plane. Blades are a really high proportion of the cost - which is why we supply it with only 1 - that way you can see how much the extra blades cost (and we're *almost* giving them away). The cost of a small blade is not much different than the cost of a large blade - the handleing and processes are about the same - only the material cost is significantly different, and that's such a small component of overall cost. At the retail level - cost/size relationships often have more to do with volume, than with cost of production...

Now - when we come out with the skew rebate planes - you can infer that the costing will be similar to what you see with the plough. There will be a small marketing "tweak" though - the price for the pair (R+L) will be very aggressive - as we have twice the investment in tooling, and would like people to buy both at the same time. We'll see how that all works out next year....

Cheers -

Rob
(who thought this was gonna be short!)

 

[Paul Chapman]

Now - when we come out with the skew rebate planes -

Will look forward to that

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Lord Nibbo]

Now - when we come out with the skew rebate planes -

Will look forward to that

Cheers :wink:

Paul

\/ ccasion5:

 

[matthewwh]

Another thumbs up for the small plough from me

The first thing that struck me was the fact that it is both a plough plane and a beautiful object - all at the same time! When I look at the other plough planes made in the last 70 years they make me think of the word 'contraption' - functional for sure, but very rarely graceful.

As mentioned previously, the engineering is absolutely spot on and despite my well aired feelings about ductile as a material for bench planes, this is a perfect application for it.

Suffice to say that one of them didn't make it as far as the stock room! :twisted:

Hats off to Rob and the guys for a job well done.

 

[bugbear]

Blades - yes, we're familiar with tapering the blade sides - but it's a bear to do from a production standpoint, where everything is usually set-up to make things square. Then too - we would be making a "fettling choice" for users - as not everyone would want this done. We stayed with square (and lower cost!) I'd certainly relieve the lower corners on the blades for the last 3/4" or so if I had one .... won't hurt at all, and shouldn't affect honing guide use, or blade registration in the plane body.

Putting a quick taper on the side of the blade should be easy, at least if you have a bench grinder.

It not as if much precision is required.

BugBear

 

[woodbloke]

Blades - yes, we're familiar with tapering the blade sides - but it's a bear to do from a production standpoint, where everything is usually set-up to make things square. Then too - we would be making a "fettling choice" for users - as not everyone would want this done. We stayed with square (and lower cost!) I'd certainly relieve the lower corners on the blades for the last 3/4" or so if I had one .... won't hurt at all, and shouldn't affect honing guide use, or blade registration in the plane body.

Putting a quick taper on the side of the blade should be easy, at least if you have a bench grinder.

It not as if much precision is required.

BugBear

You could also do the same thing with a coarse DMT stone, might not be quite as fraught as holding a small bit of metal against a high speed grinder...'specially if your finger(s) happen to make contact with the wheel :shock: - Rob

 

[bugbear]

You could also do the same thing with a coarse DMT stone, might not be quite as fraught as holding a small bit of metal against a high speed grinder...'specially if your finger(s) happen to make contact with the wheel :shock: - Rob

Mole grips?

BugBear