My 100 year old jointer plane has served me well for the small amount of furniture I’ve made. It has two major downfalls. First, the throat is too large and somewhat dinged. Second, there is no screw to adjust depth of cut which can be most frustrating at times. I don’t know the brand, only that is was great gramps and it is 22″ long. Oh, a third drawback, the iron requires frequent attention.
I need to put a true edge on enough lumber for a floor, so I feel it is time to upgrade. No, I don’t want a jointer with a tail.
Is the length of a #8 worth the extra cost? My experiance is that 22″ is fine. I don’t typically work with stock wide enough to need the wider blades.
Would a low angle jointer like LVs or LNs have any advantages? They are cheaper, but I’ve never used one. The wood for this project is Cherry with little complicated grain.
I’ve never used an edge guide for squareness, but wouldn’t mind trying this if it came with the plane.
The sole of my current jointer plane is corrugated, but this doesn’t seem important.
Let’s call the budget $300 for now. Less is better. More makes me jittery.
Replies
Tuolomne,
You really have a number of choices here. What you need depends on what you're going to be working with.
How long a jointer plane? Well...the general rule of thumb for jointing edges is "longer is better." For boards less than about 3 feet, a #6 sized plane works quite well. If your boards are longer than that, then you'll probably want a #7 or #8 sized jointer. There is also the option of wooden jointers from 24" up to about 36" long.
What to buy? Here are some of the choices available:
Lie-Nielsen:
LN #6 -- $350
LN #7 -- $400
LN #8 -- $475
Vintage Planes:
Pre-WW II Stanley #6 -- $75 @ one of the net tool dealers; expect to pay about $40 to $80 on eBay;
Pre-WW II Stanley #7 -- $155 @ one of the net tool dealers; expect to pay about $50 to $125+ on eBay;
Pre-WW II Stanley #8 -- $165 -- $265 @ one of the net tool dealers; expect to pay about $60 to $125+ on eBay;
Same sized planes by other quality manufacturers of the same era (Millers Falls, Sargent, etc) are approximately the same cost, but often tend toward the lower end of the range, since they are not quite as popular with collectors as the Stanley planes are. Pre-WW II Stanleys, etc, are generally considered to be the best quality and most desireable of the vintage planes. After about 1950 or so, the quality began a steep decline.
Clifton:
#6 -- $300
#7 -- $350
Veritas:
#6 -- $240
Clark & Williams wood planes:
Fore plane (20") -- $365
Trying plane (22") -- $385
Jointer plane (28" -- 30") $425
ECE wooden Primus Trying plane (24") $229
HNT Gordon Wooden 60° Trying Plane (18") $200
Mujingfang Ebony Trying Plane (18") $145
Knight Toolworks Wooden Jointer Plane (24") $165 -- $200+
_____
As you can see from the above sampling, there are lots of choices.
To answer a couple of your questions:
The LA jointers from LN and LV are, IMO, specialised planes -- i.e., large block planes. They could be used for what you want to use them for, but I think there are better choices (i.e., a standard angle jointer). I find that they make exceptional shooting board planes. They are great planes, and you can alter the bevel angle to make them into "standard" or high angle planes; nonetheless, I'm not much of a fan of the "LA plane for everything" school of thought; other will disagree, based on their experience.
An edge guide is undoubtedly a useful accessory, but keeping your plane square to the edge is not that difficult nor does it take that long to learn how to do it. Once you have the hang of it, it's like riding a bicycle: you never forget and it's almost automatic.... My recommendation would be to spend the relatively small amount of time necessary to learn to keep the plane square to the edge. If you're not familiar with the technique of getting a true edge on a long(ish) board, David Charlesworth's DVD, Hand Tool Techniques Part 2: Hand Planing, (available at http://www.lie-nielsen.com) is very useful and has lots of detailed "how-to" information.
Corrugated vs non-corrugated: probably more a matter of personal preference than anything else. The only "big" advantage is that when it comes to flattening the sole on a (vintage) plane, a corrugated sole has somewhat less metal to remove to get the sole flat.
_____
I wouldn't waste my money or time on a newly-manufactured Stanley, Groz, Anant, or hardware store house brand plane. I've tuned all three, and it takes more time and effort than the end result justifies. If you buy a Groz or Anant, you'll almost certainly have to replace the iron (and probably also the chip breaker), so you'll need to factor that cost into the total cost of the plane (for a #6 or #7, it's around $45 +/- for the iron and another $45 +/- for the chip breaker).
Since you are going to be jointing a LOT of edges, it might be worth your while to make a (long) shooting board for your flooring pieces. It will make getting a straight edge much easier and consistent, and will probably speed your work, and save you some waste.
Hope this helps you some. This sounds like a fun project. Keep us up to date on how it's coming along!!
.
.
Tschüß!
Mit freundlichen holzbearbeitungischen Grüßen aus dem Land der Rio Grande!!
James
Semper Paratus!
Pro Patria!
One other possibility: A Stanley Bedrock 607 (or 606 or 608). I got a great early (round side) user for around $70 on eBay within the last several months. It can be done, especially if you care more about quality as a user than stuff collector's care about. I have a regular 7 too (2 actually), and I really do think the bedrock is slightly superior. YMMV
My 2p:If you're looking for a very good jointer, that works superbly right out of the box, get the LN #7.A 607 (Bedrock) is nice, but in good condition, it will cost you about what the LN will, and you will likely have to fettle it, and perhaps replace the iron. Most jointers saw hard use, as opposed to smoothers for example.If you are looking for useability over collectability, I would go with the LN. LV makes nice planes, but I don't think the bevel up design is quite as good for all purpose jointing as the LN/Bedrock.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
A 607 (Bedrock) is nice, but in good condition, it will cost you about what the LN will, and you will likely have to fettle it, and perhaps replace the iron.
My very good and usable 607 cost me around $75. For double I could have had an even cleaner one, though jappaning does little of the actual jointing. Fettling took less than half an hour of effort - mostly some cleaning up of the sole. Oh, and I use the original iron. True story: I bought an LN replacement and tried it out. I like the original better, so the LN sits in my drawer as a spare!
I think your experience is an unusual one. I have found that (used) Bedrocks and (new) LN planes of the same type are fairly close in price. While it is possible to find a Bedrock for a song at a garage sale or a flea market, it is uncommon. Most knowledgeable dealers wouldn't let one pass through their hands for the price of a Bailey.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
I dunno, Glaucon.
Here's one from eBay from a week ago for $119:
http://cgi.ebay.com/old-STANLEY-Bed-Rock-607-Jointer-Plane-Corrigated-Tool_W0QQitemZ250078587943QQihZ015QQcategoryZ13874QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Here's one from yesterday (a little more cleaning required) that went for $72:
http://cgi.ebay.com/STANLEY-BED-ROCK-PLANE-607_W0QQitemZ250077662013QQihZ015QQcategoryZ13874QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
And here's a real nice one that ends tomorrow, t hat I'm betting will go far below the cost of an LN:
http://cgi.ebay.com/EARLY-STANLEY-607-BEDROCK-EXTRA-NICE_W0QQitemZ280077374951QQihZ018QQcategoryZ13874QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
I've looked at them from time to time, but I have not been impressed by their condition, by and large. One of the advantages of going with a reputable dealer is that (usually) the parts match and are genuine. If you like collecting and reconditioning, then buying planes sight unseen may be attractive. On the other hand, the original poster noted that he was replacing a plane that was a bit worn and the worse for it, and wanted to have a working tool for a job involving cherry. Unless you were to find a 607 in good to very good condition, I doubt that his replacement plane would be any better than his present tool. Doesn't seem like a good reason to spend money to me. There is always the possibility of a lucky find, but a 607 in VG condition would be close to a LN in price. A Bailey #7 would be much less expensive, but he mentioned that the mouth of his present plane was a bit large, and I think the Bedrock or LN frog would be easier to adjust for tighter shavings. Since Baileys are fairly plentiful, the chances of finding one in VG condition are a bit higher, but as I said before, most jointers have seen fairly hard use.If anyone has a 607 in VG condition for, say $100... I am all attention...Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Fair enough. I'm apparently struggling with a worn out wreck and don't have the good sense to know it. ;-)
Good night.
Hey Sam, have I got it wrong: I thought all Bedrocks had flat topped sides-like mine in the picture? All those you show have rounded sides-did they make both styles?Philip Marcou
The flat top variety was the later variant. Early Bedrocks all had the round sides. The key distinquishers are in the frog, both early and late. There is actually a type study by dealer Bob Kaune that allows dating them, similarly to the dating of Bailey planes.
http://www.antique-used-tools.com/brtypes.htm
According to that study the flat sides come in about 1911, which is termed a class 5 model. The first Bed Rocks appeared in 1898.
Kaune's stock is excellent, though I have always thought rather pricey.
Philip, the early round tops did not have the frog adjustment screw ("borrowed" from MF ) it started with the flat tops and then subsequently with the next Baileys.Paddy
T, I have a Stanley #7 and a #608 as well as a new Clifton #7. The old ones have Hock carbons and cb's and I used a Millers Falls side gauge about a dozen times an (as James said) one day I didn't and I didn't miss it. Now I would use it for angles. I prefer the Clifton for it's weight and if you poke around on the internet ya could get a deal. If you meet up with an old Stanley type use a LN,LV, or Hock A-2 HSS iron and a new cb for the milage that you plan on doing, carbon means many more sharpening sessions. That shooting frame has great merit PITA as it may be, but consider the milage. All the best Pat
Tuolumne,
I always clamp the two joining pieces together and joint with a #7..the seams pretty much disappear. However, is that what you want? There was a discussion in here a week or two ago about the need to T&G flooring and relieve the backside.
My stable consists of a Type 11 Stanley #7 with Japanese Smoothcut laminated iron and Clifton stayset, a LV BU Jointer, and a HNT Gordon Trying Plane. I also once owned a Stanley #8.
When jointing small lengths, I reach for the Gordon. With longer lengths I use the BUJ.
The #7 is a terrific plane and, but for the BUJ, would be an autimatic choice. I did not feel that the extra length (3"), width (1/4") and heft of the #8 over the #7 was significant, so sold the #8. Still, some swear by a #8.
The LV BUS is an amazing plane. On cranky grain, for avoiding tearout, for feel when planing - it is second to none. There is an adjustable mouth with a repeatable stop, a wide range of cutting angles (from LA to HA), and a registration that is the same as a #8 in a total length of a #7.
As with the BUS, the Gordon is a low-centre-of-gravity plane. It has a high cutting angle (60 degrees) and will plane the wildest grain. It is slippery smooth over wooden surfaces.
For a detailed comparison of the BUS and #7, plus discussion of jointer fences, read my review at http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/dCohen/LVBevelUpJointer/index.asp
My review of the HNT Gordon Trying plane is at http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/dCohen/hntGordon-S/hntGordon-st1.asp
Regards from Perth
Derek
Wow, lots of opinions. I am leaning towards new, not ebay, although I have found a number of old woodworking tools there with success. It just seems that an old jointer that has seen a lot of use would not be a big improvement over my current version. I bought a new stanley bailey #5 a few years back and I am not impressed. That is why I am looking at the more reputable brands. Maintaining 90 degrees comes pretty natural at this point. When edge joining two boards I run them side by side as suggested. Here I am simply getting one straight edge to work from. The surface rendered is of lesser importance for the flooring project because the edge will be tongue and grooved afterword anyway. I did a few boards last night, using an older #4 to take off the obvious high spots and then did the whole edge with my #7. Then the board goes through the table saw to get the other side clean and parallel.
The two biggest concerns are the ragged mouth that collects shavings behind the blade and the quality of the iron.
Since any old plane will likely work for this project, I'm looking out towards the future as well. These boards are up to 16' long and show a lot of grain reversal. After the flooring, the rest of this cherry will be turned into file cabinets, bookshelves, desks etc. If I were making exposed edges and could not have tearout would a low angle plane handle this better?
Where is the best place to buy a LN? Does the poster who has his in a drawer a spare want to trade?
It just seems that an old jointer that has seen a lot of use would not be a big improvement over my current version.
You should, of course, do whatever suits you. I have to ask about the above statement however, as you and Glaucon, seem fixed upon it. I believe you said your present plane is a no name, with a wide and battered mouth, and no depth adjustment screw. Oh yes, and the blade also requires frequent honing. FWIW, none of my vintage Bailey 7's nor my 607 share any of these characteristics. To that extent, a vintage plane, might well be a significant improvement. Indeed, absent abuse or negliect, there is little to wear out on there planes. Irons may grow short with 100 years of sharpening, but other than that, the mouth and adjustment screws, etc. should all be fine.
As for my spare LN, it is simply the 2 3/8th" replacement blade I was referring to. I'm going to keep it, as it will fit in my 4 1/2 etc. They are available on LN's website, as are LN's planes, which is where I would go, if I wanted to buy one. They are terrific to deal with.
Woodworking for me is a hobby and fine furniture for my family is just a bonus. Satisfaction is important. My #5 bailey gives no satisfaction because it feels cheap to the hand...not that it does not perform well when well tuned. When I want to be sentimental I'll grab great gramps jointer which also does a good job with lots of attention. However, I long ago decided that me next plane would be new, and that I would regret only the price and not the performance. I like LN because american-made means something to me. The #7 at $370 (ftj) is certainly stretching the budget. The low angle jointer at $295 is in the budget, I just wonder if it will do the job to my expectations. A LV low angle jointer at $245 gives business to another country, but would also seem to be a good option if these planes make good jointers.
Yes, yes, the LN is definitiely the best choice for you. You will never regret having it. You will quickly forget the extra $70. Your grandchildren will inherit an heirloom. You will experience orgasmic delight each time you gaze upon much less touch and use it on wood. ;-)
Seriously, get one. You won't be disappointed. All of their products are marvelous and beautiful tools. You can't go wrong.
I misunderstood your query as I didn't realize new was a requisite. Given that, you're correct that the choices are LN or LV. For me personally, LN is the obvious choice of these two.
"Your grandchildren will inherit an heirloom."
...Provided they don't use the LN to work over a cinder block like they did with an ebay block plane!
Is $320 for a Clifton incl. shipping worth considering. How does this stack up against the Lie-nielsen?
T, that's a great price these days, realize that it comes with a great split (two piece) chip breaker and a monster forged iron. The stay put cb was if I recall a Record patent also used by Miller's Falls. I have them on most of my old planes, they are sold by themselves by Highland. Who gave that good price? Paddy
http://www.hartvilletool.com/product/11559
Is this what you were describing?
T, that is the one . Despite the round top old style sides it also has a frog advancement adjustment screw like the later flat top style BR's. That feature was "borrowed" from Miller's Falls. As a nice touch the top edge of the sides are rounded over and nicely polished. You will never go wrong with this one. All the best Paddy
I think YOU are reading in your own context. You say that you got a 607 on a good deal and that you like it. That's nice for you. It works very well... no surprise there.The question posed by the original poster (which you seem to studiously avoid in lieu of your own experience) was what would be the best plane to replace a worn old jointer? I don't think a #8 on ebay for $9.99 that looks like it has been through the Crimean campaign will suffice. I don't think buying a plane sight unseen on ebay for immediate use is a good plan. You might get lucky... or you might not. The frog might be wrong, the throat might be cracked etc. It may not be just a matter of ordering a new iron and leveling the sole.I am lucky in that there is a major dealer located about 40 miles from me who has a barn full of hundreds (if not thousands) of planes of all stripes. I can pick them up, slap a try square on them, take them apart, etc and then decide if a tool is worth my time and money. In my experience buying there and in New England, there are 10 Baileys for every Bedrock. My present jack is a Bailey #5, ~1888 that I use regularly and paid I think $35 for. A 605 (~1918) that I looked at the same time was in similar condition, and was priced at $190. This price difference has been commented upon in Patrick's B&G:"However, there is a premium paid to acquire any of the [Bedrock] planes when buying from dealers. This, in the author's opinion, is due to the hype found within some books and articles. If you want a better plane, and one that's less costly, go with the Type 2 Bailey's. These are the best planes what Stanley ever did make."So, as I said before, I think the poster has several options:1. Buy a preWWII Stanley- a Bailey #7 or a Bedrock 607. Examine and disarticulate the plane and determine if it is in good enough condition to warrant the time and $$.2. Buy a LN #7, which is a Bedrock design, with additional refinements that can be used right out of the box with minimal tuning (perhaps honing a camber on the iron).3. Consider a LV jointer which has a low angle design. I am a little leary of this for general purpose, but Derek I believe has used and reviewed the plane and likes it (I haven't). LV has a pretty ironclad customer satisfaction rating, so they would probably accept it back if it did not suit (I would check first, however).4. You could send your 607 to the poster.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Wow, G, you seem miffed. I think if you read my posts in this thread you will see there is no cause for it. We disagree on only one small matter: whether a vintage plane bought from eBay is a good bet to provide good quality jointing performance. I have faith, based on experience that it is a fine option. You have doubts, based upon you experience and intuition, that it is too risky. Fine.
Ridiculous hyperbole like this: "I don't think a #8 on ebay for $9.99 that looks like it has been through the Crimean campaign will suffice" doesn't help your argument. Though I guess it's amusing.
Peace.
New Stanley is not nearly the same as old Stanley. Quality went downhill dramatically after WWII. So the old Stanley is quite a "reputable" brand. The LN designs are direct copies of Bed Rocks, though the workman ship is a bit better, so that most Bed Rocks would have to be tuned up a bit to be equal. Lee Valley planes are a bit more innovative, which some like and others don't. Only abuse creates performance problems with older planes that tuning, and a new blade, can't correct. For example, a little work with a file can clean up a mildly ragged mouth, especially when it is behind the blade.
In terms of performance, a LN and a well fettled Bed Rock will be hard to tell apart. For that matter, a well tuned Bailey from the late 20s or the 30's, will work just as well as the LN or Bedrock in about 90% of the applications. It's that 10% that may well justify the difference. It's figured wood, or otherwise hard to plane wood, where the difference is.
As far as the quality of blade, blades are consumable items and may be replaced easily. LN makes irons to fit Stanley planes, with other good blades coming from Hock and Lee Nielsen. The original (Sweet Heart) laminated blade on my Bedrock 607 is very nice, though not as heavy as some of the replacement blades.
Very few planes, including LN and Lee Valley, handle grain reversals well. The best for that in my experience is the Clark and Williams wooden planes which can be had with VERY fine mouths that handle irregular grain--at the expense of not being able to use the same plane for hogging. (I haven't used the filled Norris or Spiers planes for comparisons.)
T,
The two places I know of with the best prices on LN are:
Fine Tool Journal http://www.finetoolj.com/LN/home.html
The Best Things http://www.thebestthings.com/newtools/planes.htm
$320 for a new Clifton #7 (especially incl P&P) is probably as good a deal as you're going to get.
.
.<!----><!----><!---->
Tschüß!<!----><!---->
Mit freundlichen holzbearbeitungischen Grüßen aus <!----><!---->dem<!----> <!---->Land<!----> der <!----><!---->Rio Grande<!----><!---->!!<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
James<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
Semper Paratus!<!----><!---->
Pro Patria!
I have a Millersfall #22 with a corrugated bottom. Its the virtually the same as a Stanley #7. It worked very well with the original blade but I added a "Samurai" brand laminated blade and a Hock chip breaker and it works really well. As much as I like Lie-Nielsen planes I don't think you will notice a big difference for a jointer plane. Cost wise I have seen very clean Millersfall #22s for less than 100.00 on e-bay.
Hope that helps
Troy
Almost forgot also look for "keenKutter" #K7 not KK7 these were made by Stanley for Simmons Hardware co. and were the same as the first round top bedrocks and are very nice planes and usually less expensive than Stanley Bedrocks. Anyway if you want to save some change this would be another way to go.
Troy
I am sure you owe a debt of gratitude to that 100 year old plane- send it here and I will have that dinged throat attended to-see the pictures. (;)
I also have an old jack plane that looks similar to the ones in your photos. The dinged plane is cast iron. I don't know who made it or how old it really is. Maybe I'll get some photos and let the experts debate.
Philip,
That plane is dead, despatched, is-no-more and has deceased. I know this because your pussycat is standing over the victim, wowling at it. This is exactly what our Korky does, once his mouses are deed.
If the ladywife was there she would give the perpetrator a mock telling-off before burying the victim with full ceremony in the compost heap.
Lataxe
I think what you want I would call a try plane, not a jointer. I'm a big fan of long planes and I'm dissappointed a more in depth look at the subject hasn't been done.
So first, you should use a cambered blade in your long plane to get the edge square. This is easier to do and will result in a tighter fit in the finished floor.
Next, you want the absolute longest plane you can get. 22" is really a joke. When guys did what you are doing for a living, they had 36" long planes. You can pick up 28" long wooden jointers on ebay cheap. This plane will outperform any 24" metal plane for the task you have at hand*. It makes stock straighter faster. If you want a sprung joint (I don't recommend it for this application) the longer plane will do that more controllably.
These planes are also typically wider (2-5/8" - 2- 7/8") allowing you to match plane thicker stock. (I realize you're not doing that now, but its a nice feature to have). A S#8 is 2-5/8"- really pushing it for 6/4 rough stock.
But if your heart is set on new metal planes, look again at the LV. What they did was move the mouth back to make the plane functionally equivalent to longer bailey pattern planes. Neat idea. Rob Lee wrote once how long its effective length was- not sure if its on their website.
One more thing- be careful when you rip the other side. The advantage of doing this job by hand is that you can restrain out any twist a board has by clamping it to the front face of your bench. This gets you a squarer edge in its "as-restrained" in the floor condition. This is also true of power jointers. They square stock in a "free state" so the accuracy with which they can square is sometimes lessened.
If you want what you want, that's fine. I'm in that boat and there's nothing wrong with that. If the question is what will do this job best, then I think the answer is pretty clear (given my understanding of the task).
Adam
* caveats to this claim:
1) woodworkers and manufacturers are very interested in performance on difficult woods. This may or may not be a issue for flooring. An old woody may not do as well in figured woods, so temper what I wrote based on your material, expectations.
2) To determine how straight a plane can make a board, calculate the diameter of a circle which contacts a plane's toe, blade and heel. You could try different values for blade protrusion. What you will find is that the circle's diameter is very sensitive to the length of the plane.
3) Lest this makes one suspicious, this is fairly easy to see in practice, and especially in match planing. Historically we see a much greater difference in plane lengths than we see in Stanley planes. I think this is the reason for that. Smooth planes function better when they don't seek to flatten. Long planes flatten better when they are long. I also think Stanley may have been limited in the length of casting they could produce or the weight of a 28" metal plane. I believe they made transitionals in this length.
This is all very intriguing. Could you explain the reasoning behind the cambered blade. I am picturing the center proud of the edges creating a slight cup in the edge. Is that right? I don't know if that would help with a tight fit in my case since I had planned to chamfer the top edge. Leaving the whole edge slightly undercut from top to bottom seems like it could be profitable. That would be deciding which side is the top ahead of the roughing operation and sticking with it.
You have the right idea about the blade shape. It produces a shaving thick in the middle tapering to nothing at the edges. When the plane is centered over the stock, the edge will be hollow in the center. When two such boards are pushed together, you get good contact at both faces. If you don't, you can push harder and crush the high spots a little until you do. Regardless of whether you T&G or chamfer, this will be helpful. I don't recommend driving all the pressure to the top surface only.
In squaring an edge, you hold the plane flat against the edge whatever its shape and move the plane side to side to remove more from one edge than the other. It’s a good trick, as old as the hills. If this isn't clear, start reading everything you can, written by David Charlesworth- a fantastic woodworker, teacher, and a participant here on Knots!
When chosing a plane, beautiful machining is to be universally admired. But when it comes to straightening stock by hand, size matters more.
I'm not sure I followed that part about moving the plane side to side. Do you mean during the same pass or on successive passes? I've never had a problem jointing an edge 90 degrees by hand even with my old relic. Maybe I do this naturally?? I've never thought much about my technique.
So you would be a fan of something like the Primus 701?
I've often wondered what it would be like to use a Japanese style jointer. I saw a description once that sounded like a reverse triple jump for jointing long stock. To an engineer, the Japanese approach to pulling while we westerners push makes an awful lot of sense. Unfortunately, some traditionalist instinct causes my other senses to abhor the look of Japanese tools!
I'm not sure I can explain it quickly. I do it during the same pass. I have to know in advance how the edge is twisting- its usually the result of my poor sawing.No don't like the german planes with their totes so far back. I like english tools and for no good reason other than I like english tools.Take a look at this completed auction: http://cgi.ebay.com/28-Sandusky-Woodworking-Jack-Plane_W0QQitemZ260079219096QQihZ016QQcategoryZ13874QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItemIf you can't see it, its a 28" try plane that sold for $18 + &15 shipping. You can get "taken" several times and still not spend half of what that Primus costs. And as to getting taken, these things are made of wood and we are woodworkers. I've only seen a few planes- rotten and worm eaten, that I absolutely could not fix in an hour.Japanese tools have no inherent advantages- especially on western benches or in western shops. I argue that they have disadvantages in these circumstannces. My next article is on stock prep and watch my blog page (http://www.artsandmysteries.com) for analysis and real world stock prep in the coming weeks. You'll see discussion of the English method and if you're like me, a bunch of things lights will go off in your head about using western planes.good luckAdam
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled