Replies

1. 
   UncleDunc | Dec 16, 2003 08:05pm | #1

   It's to allow for small adjustment in case the cutting edge of the place iron isn't perfectly perpendicular to the sides. Some very high end planes are made with no space for lateral adjustment, and the irons on those planes must perfectly square.

   Skewing the whole plane is a useful technique. It lowers the effective cutting angle and the effort required to push the plane. The skew angle you can get from the lateral adjustment space isn't enough to make a noticeable difference. You probably get more variation than that from one stroke to the next in normal planing.

1. 
   MitchRoberson | Dec 16, 2003 11:53pm | #2

   Thanks for your response.  That answers my question!

   Regards,

   Mitch

1. 
   RANGERP75R | Dec 17, 2003 06:25am | #3

   Mitch

      On the Veritas planes, there is a set-screw on each side. Once you get the iron parallel, you just screw in one set screw till it makes contact with the iron. Then you screw in the other side to contact. This allows no lateral movement after you have the iron adjusted correctly.

   Regards...

   sarge..jtProud member of the :  "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>) 

1. 
   lwilliams | Dec 17, 2003 05:21pm | #5

   Yeah Sarge, it's part of their patent on their planes. Yet the first place I heard of it was in Cecil Pierce's book Fifty Years a Planemaker and User.  The book predates their patent by at least 10 years. Also part of their patent is back bevels which have been around since at least Holtzapffel and I'm sure earlier. Holtzapffel detailed back bevels, used in planes, in his ca. 1875 books but they've been standard sharpening technique on carving tools for at least 300 years. Even their "unique" frog with integral tote was used on a British plane in the 1950's. I've never used one of their planes but hear good things about them. Their planes seem to be okay even if their patent is unenforceable in court.

1. 
   RANGERP75R | Dec 17, 2003 07:46pm | #7

   Larry

      I'm fully confident what you say is correct with all the history and hands-on knowledge you have of planes. And I'm not surprised. They have a patent on their twin-screw vise I bought also. The first one I saw was in California in a pro's shop about 25 years ago. You could make one and I started too, but my BIL was strapped at the Delta machine shop here at their HQ. and wouldn't get the machining done for several months. I decided to just get the bench up-and-running.

     I really like the two set screws. They lock that iron in after you have the proper adjustment. The frog and bed mechanism that allows you too close the mouth is good too. When the frog goes forward or backward, so does the entire bed it sits on. Good support for the iron. I put a machinist square to the soles and sides and they are very tight. I did lap the sole a wee bit more as I felt it was important to be close to ground zero.

     I purchased the #4 1/2 even after all the great things I heard about the LN # 4 1/2. I have not used the LN, but if it's better than the LV in this case it's fantastic. I think only a true side by side comparison would be fair. Too many get hooked on one thing (in the case of LN, that's not a bad thing) and don't give something else a chance. I'm somewhat of a gambler and in this case I felt like I was a rewarded for taking the risk.

      I do like the LV. The scraping plane I bought for them is wider, longer and has bigger handles than the #112. If you follow the instructions for set-up, it won't preform. I was frustrated, but sat down with a cup of coffee and stared at all the parts individually. Then I looked at them all as a component. Just as if you were playing chess. Got up and made the necessary changes and it cuts like glass. Did it on 7 varieties of wood and recorded the best angle for each in a shop note-book. Long after-noon with tinkering , but it paid off in a scrape plane I can go to with confidence instead of frustration. Well spent..

      I bought one of those cheap Anant #4 smoothers. With about 3 hours work and a Hock iron replacement, it preforms well. I think the biggest draw-back to the cheaper planes after machining them to specs is you will still get ocassinal movement laterally with the iron in heavy work. The two set screws would go a long way to making them a working contender with little invested. Stop that lateral movement and they will deliver decent results with some tuning effort. Not great results, but acceptable. I'm sure others would dis-agree and might not have the patience to get one to that point. I just like to tinker to see what will happen instead of assume. 

      Thanks for the in-sight on the patents. Again you have been a big source of information and that is appreciated. I'm still digging with these things and have a long way to go. I would rate myself doing OK so far for a plane newbie. Definitely a lot to learn with something that's actually simple. I think. ha.. ha...

   Regards...

   sarge..jtProud member of the :  "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>) 

2. 
   lwilliams | Dec 17, 2003 06:49pm | #6

   Sarge,

   Here's a link that shows two very similar British planes from the past that have many of the features of the new Veritas planes:

   http://www.jhorobin.freeserve.co.uk/unusualplanes.htm

2. 
   DennisS | Dec 17, 2003 08:35am | #4

   I went through this this evening, Mitch. I re-built the iron on an old Miller Falls plane I bought a while back and found that in sharpening the iron I managed to get the edge ever so slightly out of square with itself. Thus when mounted in the plane, it has to be adjusted laterally to get a consistent depth of cut across the sole.

   ...........

   Dennis in Bellevue WA

   [email protected]