I am relatively new to using hand tools,woodworking, and Knots. I have some hand planes which have been passed down. I very much enjoy using them. However, I would now like to purchase my first new smoother: Either a 4 or 4 1/2 by either LN or LV. Any thoughts regarding size and maker would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, in advance.
Jim
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast -
Our favorite articles and videos -
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
I think that either manufacturer will get the job done. I personally love Lie Nielsen tools. I've had both in my hand, and prefer the LN over the LV. The LV is cheaper, so you need to let your budget be your guide.
I have had the #4 bronze for about 6 years, and the 4 1/2 York pitch since early last year. It is easily the first smoother I pick up. It's nice to have both, but you've got to start somewhere.
Get the LN 4 1/2, york pitch frog. You'll never regret it.
Jeff
Jim
Both LN and LV make fine smoothers, and you would be happy with either. In my opinion, however, the very best #4 1/2 sized smoother you could buy from either is the LV Bevel Up Smoother. This is an easy-to-use plane that permits you to alter cutting angles by changing to blades with different bevel angles.
See my review at
http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/dCohen/LVbevelUpSmoother/index.asp
For a #4 size smoother, consider the LV Low Angle Smoother, another extremely versatile plane. This one is also superb on a shooting board. My review is at
http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/dCohen/LVLAS/index.asp
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek,Tucked subtly into some of your reviews is your statement that you receive free tools for those reviews. Does this establish a relationship with Lee Valley? Don't you think you should disclose this in your posts?Fine Woodworking has pretty strict policies concerning free tools for reviews when it comes to their writers. Is it ethical to ignore those when using the Fine Woodworking forums? Do the sites hosting your "reviews" know about your relationship with Lee Valley?I recently had the unpleasant experience of having a freelance writer ask for a free plane to review. He became upset and a little angry when I informed him we don't get involved in payola. It led to a rather hostile exchange of e-mail for a brief time but ended with him apologizing and questioning his own ethics for accepting free tools for his articles. We (Clark & Williams) loaned him a plane for the review and he returned it when he was finished.I guess I'll just sit back and wait for the personal attacks that always follow anyone questioning the unbiased nature of payola posse reviews.
Edited 4/4/2006 10:54 am by lwilliams
Gee Larry, this topic has been done to death for a few years now. You must be the sole remaining individual in the universe who still has issues here.
I have never made a secret of the fact that LV have sent me planes for feedback. This is clearly stated in every article I have written. They do not request a review, nor do they have any input or right to vet what I choose to write. I write these simply because I enjoy doing so (since these average about 50 hours plus of my time, no one could afford to pay for this at the rates I charge in my day job!).
What you are saying is that my opinion is biased. Actually, from my professional background I am very highly qualified to be aware of the possible influence of bias. If you read my reviews, you will be aware that I take as many precautions as I can to reduce bias. Shall we talk about your own bias in this area?
I own a large number of planes, and the LV and LN planes rank about equal in number on my shelves. Both companies produce excellent products. When it comes to bevel down planes, LN rules. On the other hand, with bevel up planes, there is no doubt that LV rules. Now, when someone asks about a recommendation for a #4 or #4 1/2 size plane, I happen to believe (because I have tested this to death) that bevel up planes have a lot more to offer than bevel down planes, especially for the new user. And, before you suggest it, I am not anti-bevel down plane since I own and enjoy using many (in fact I am posting to this forum on an infill I am restoring).
Regards from Perth
Derek
Quite honestly, Derek, I find your reviews very informative and thorough, but I am a little surprised to learn that the LV planes supplied to you were, in fact gifts, and not loaners. Since you you have said that you have LN planes in your collection; and you compare planes in your reviews; why did you choose vintage Stanley planes instead of readily available Lie-Nielsens as subjects for comparison? Vintage planes are really unique items. I wouldn't know where to buy one. If I did, how would I know that it was better or worse than your vintage Stanley?
In retrospect, it appears you are an advocate of LV products, and rightly so. But any of us would likely think more highly of a good product that we received free. It would be fairer to your audience if you declared your relationship with LV in clear terms. The service that you provide to the reader would not be diminished. Thank you for your valuable information.
If you decide that you want an old Stanley plane, go to almost any antique store or flea market. If you want good info on them, there's http://www.supertools.com with a section called "Blood and Guts" with every model they made. There'a also ebay, and I have bought some pretty nice ones there. Just watch the prices to get a feel for them. On occasion, there's a smokin' deal, like the #5C Sweet Heart that went for $34 and I missed it by about 3 seconds. It was mint. There are quite a few threads here about Stanleys and if you do a search, I'm sure you'll find just about anything you could want to know. I'm not done with fettling all of mine but my #4 does a great job with hard maple and while it's not perfect with highly figured maple, it still does a very good job on that, too. Once I finish my #6C and both #7 planes-(one is a low knob- pre 1910 and is almost unused), I should be pretty well set. You won't always find complete planes, but once you find the info and know what you're looking for, you can create some hot deals. There are usually some spare parts around, so if you get something that needs a chipbreaker, frog, iron, lever cap or screws, it won't cost too much.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Handrubbed
You must understand that I am heartily tired at returning to defend an attack on my integrity (since this is not an issue on other forums where I am better known), but I will take the time to say a few more words.
Firstly, if you read through any of my recommendations - here or on any other forum - I always qualify myself. In other words, I say why a particular plane should be considered, what the strengths are, where it is different and useful. Take a look at some of the other responses you get here - do they qualify their recommendation, or is it just a "get XYZ because it is the best...or, because I use one ..."?
Secondly, the only reason I suggested a bevel up LV plane in the first place was because it had not been done by others, and the target was a newby who did not understand the choices available. Further, I did not dismiss LN - quite the reverse.
Thirdly, what is the difference between someone who has insider's (and expert) knowledge into a particular brand and draws this to the attention of the forum, and someone who adamently recommends a particular brand because that is what they choose to buy (perhaps because it is fashionable, collectable, whatever). There are plenty of the latter on the forums and these individuals are not considered to be biased, yet they are considerably so. "Get the LN 4 1/2". Without any explanation, this is a biased statement.
So why do I include vintage Stanley planes in my reviews? In the first part, these are very common planes that most can identify with, can afford, can tune up the same way as I and, most importantly, actually do use. In the second part, these are the planes I own and know, and I am in a better position when using them to understand the differences in the performance of the review plane. Most readers want to know these differences too. Lastly, my reviews are not intended to be a "shootout" of tools. Rather, I use other tools to highlight the attributes and characteristics special to the plane under the spotlight.
I could say more, but I think this is enough. I welcome your considered reponses.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Hi Derek
Sorry for all the attacks.
I own quite a few Stanley, Record, LN, LV, and others.
Some are for work, some for collecting.
No person can give a 100% unbiased report on anything, it's beyond human nature.
I know I sure couldn't do it.
But then, that's what makes reading reports and reviews interesting.
I always read with interest and hopes of learning something new.
I know I can often makes comparisons between similar tools in my shop, taking into account that I might not have gone to the trouble of preparing each for such a comparison.
So, I see nothing wrong with your reviews.
Don't let the comments get to you.
See you on the other boards.
Jeff
"Firstly, if you read through any of my recommendations - here or on any other forum - I always qualify myself."
Yes, you usually offer one alternative with a heavy dose of damnation by faint praise.
"Secondly, the only reason I suggested a bevel up LV plane in the first place was because it had not been done by others,..."
Huh? You were the second poster here but are often the first as in this post on WoodCentral.
"Thirdly, what is the difference between someone who has insider's (and expert) knowledge into a particular brand and draws this to the attention of the forum, and someone who adamently recommends a particular brand because that is what they choose to buy (perhaps because it is fashionable, collectable, whatever)."
That difference could be that if the insider receives payment, even in the form of tools, the effort to promote the product becomes a commercial post. An advertisement, if you will. That's one of the things that puzzles me about the various woodworking sites that host infomercial reviews. I'd want payment for hosting an advertisement on a site I was paying for.
I have a lot more respect for a skilled player in a guerilla marketing campaign than an unwitting pawn who's had their ego hijacked. I'm left wondering rather I have a square or round peg I'm trying to fit in this hole.
You know Larry, call me paranoid, but I feel that you have a mission to trash anything I say. There is more going on here than meets the eye. Need an example? What about your very recent contribution .. uh attack? ... on the Oldtools forum:
http://denali.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu:8080/~cswingle/archive/get.phtml?message_id=158947&submit_thread=1#message
Read through the above until you get to your question and quotation. An example of citing a reference of mine to "prove" a point you really desired to make. Unfortunately, you got this one out of context as my rebuttal made clear. Still, I'm sure that you will comb your way through every word I have written on the web and seek out some contradiction I have made.
Incidentally, do you consider Alf, Lyn and any others who have reviewed LV planes in a similar vein? It is standard procedure to donate the plane to the reviewer. You may not agree with this, but it is so. Ask Alf and Lyn. Do you also question their integrity? I consider them honest individuals, and believe they express their opinions in an objective, fair manner. So does Rob Lee. He would not seek our opinion if he did not respect it. I like to keep in mind what he said to me about criticism. Rob said, "It always scrolls off at the end of the page". He and Lee Valley have a wonderful attitude in this regard. In particular, I (and others) are free to say what we want, and I have not felt duty bound to praise the LV planes. There have been things I didn't like, and I have said so in my reviews. LV act on the feedback and change things. There have been a few changes that I believe I was instrumental in facilitating. Now, of couse you will say that this is turning into an infomercial for LV! Methinks that your chip is showing. Perhaps you may enlighten us from whence it springs.
Derek
I appreciate your response and have read your additional posts with interest. I do have one comment inregards to your comments about the Stanley planes. In the body of a different post you said that you owned some quantity of Lie-Nielsen planes, yet you did not use them as a reference for comparison. That is why I questioned the vintage planes, which are relatively unattainable (scarce). Are modern planes available that are superior to circa 1930 planes? Yes, we have determined that. So we go forward from there to compare what is available to a wide spectrum of woodworking devotees.
I neither know nor care what the other gentleman's issue with you is. I gather he is in the tool sales business and thus has a an interest to protect there. I still laud you for your thoroughness and consider your opinion to be valuable in the context of many others who also contribute to these forums.
<<That is why I questioned the vintage planes, which are relatively unattainable (scarce). >>
Not really that scarce or pricey....most of the common Stanley (Sargent, Millers Falls, etc) planes are readily available at reasonable cost. Stanley, alone, manufactured several million each #4 and #5 planes during the first half of the 20th century.
As examples, on eBay, a Type 11 or Sweetheart #4 in decent user shape can usually be had for around $25 to $40 or so; same-era/same-condition #5s go for about $40 to $75 or so, and same-era/same-condition #7s generally seem to go for about $50 to $90 or so.... If you also look at some of the antique tool dealer sites on the net, you'll find that the most commonly-used planes are easily available in fair numbers and in good user quality, for generally very reasonable prices.
(Obviously, you can also get them for a bit less once in a while, especially at yard or estate sales. Conversely, you can also pay substantially more, if there is a great demand for a particular plane, or if you are looking for a collector-quality plane. And once you start talking about the genuine rarities -- #1, #9, Type 1 of just about any model, etc. -- then the availability picture radically changes....along with the price.....)
<<I gather he is in the tool sales business....>>
Yes, Larry designs, makes, and sells wooden planes.
I certainly don't want to spoil an interesting and lively debate, but I do think we need perhaps a bit of perspective here: the origination of the thread was a gentleman asking advice on what plane to buy. Pretty simple, and certainly plenty of room for any number of considered and thoughtful opinions of what might be the best solution to this gentleman's "problem."
However, from there it rather quickly devolved into a semi-nasty flame war between two rather distinguished gentlemen, both of whom are very knowledgeable about hand planes and hand planing.
My question: Is that really the way we want to introduce a newbie to this forum, particularly since none of the arrows shot either way in this mini-flame-war were really of much help in answering his original question? Think about it.....
Are modern planes available that are superior to circa 1930 planes? Yes, we have determined that. So we go forward from there to compare what is available to a wide spectrum of woodworking devotees.
I'll defer to a more informed answer from Derek on this subject, but I think the main reason these old planes are used as a baseline to compare to is that they're generally accepted as the best that Stanley et al produced... Because so many were made, they're still readily abailable if you know where to look... Properly tuned and fitted with a decent blade / chip breaker they're capable of giving the higher end planes a run for their money too..
Quality from the big manufacturers tended to go downhill from then on as power tools became more popular. Prior to the likes of Clifton, Lie Nielsen and Lee Valley reintroducing quality and close tolerence into hand tool production, these old planes were the best you could hope to get; their modern counterparts simply aren't in the same class apparently... Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Derek -- it seems that you continually fail to respond to the central question, the one larry initially raised, namely: why do you fail to CLEARLY disclose in all your reviews whether you purchased the plane, it is a loner or you are being given the plane. This is the ONLY question that you should, or should feel obliged to, answer. Your reviews are first-rate and for my part i believe that they are unbiased as much as a review can be, but the more folks raise this singular question and the longer you fail to answer it, the worse you look. By the way, I criticised Alf quite squarely for this singular fault in her reviews, and her answer... silence. Your silence leaves a similarly unseemly impression. And by the way, if you simply made a mistake bc you didn't appreciate that doing this is such a big deal -- and let me assure you, it is -- then just admit it and adopt this practice on a going forward basis (eg, that new pretty plane you showed us (and everyone else that ever looked a woodworking site! nothing wrongn with that :) -- are you purchasing it at full price, a discount, was it given to you, or is it a loaner?). there is absolutely nothing wrong with reviewing a plane that is being given to you free of cost, whether you solicited the item or it was sent to you out of the blue, but failing to make that fact clear is where you seem to be tripping yourself up.
I think the best solution for our original poster and all of the assorted contributors herein, would be for Rob Lee to send each of us a low angle smoother free for our evaluation. Now that's what I call a level playing field!
*Shipping address available upon request*
" think the best solution for our original poster and all of the assorted contributors herein, would be for Rob Lee to send each of us a low angle smoother free for our evaluation. Now that's what I call a level playing field!
Shipping address available upon request*
Actually I am a member of a French woodworking forum in Quebec. About 1 1/2 year ago we had a plane workshop, about 12 guys, Rob Lee did send us 3 planes for trying. They were loaners, but still brand new with sharpened blades. One of the guys asked him, I guess, as usual LV delivered in about 1/2 day!
Dear Woodworker417
I have visited my reviews to look for my statements of disclosure and, indeed, I understand why some are concerned about this aspect, since my statements in this regard have not always been clear. I will deal with this in future reviews. The reason seems to be that some of the reviews were written for OnLineToolReviews, who supplied the planes (not LV). In these I did not even make a comment about the ownership of the review tool since this was expected to come from them. On the other hand, when I did receive a tool from LV, and wrote a review for my own website, I did report this. As I said on previous occasions, LV have never requested a review, nor expected one. I have done these on my own initiative (because the process is satisfying on an intellectual and emotional level). I might add - and this is not to be seen as an excuse, just further information - that the cost of the plane(s) is chicken feed compared to the cost of my time. In the time it takes to write one review, if I had instead spent this time in my day job, I could have purchased the tool several times over. In other words, the value of the tool is of an less an issue for me. Still, disclosure could be clearer and I will endeavour to do this in future.
These factors should not detract from the body of the work of the reviews themselves, nor should the reviews be seen to be that I favour LV over other makes (such as LN). If I have a strong bias (which I clearly do), it is that bevel up planes offer so much more potential than bevel down planes, and I do try to bring this option to the attention of handtoolers. This should not be misunderstood to mean that I believe that bevel down planes cannot match the performance of BU planes. But enough of this. I feel I am belaboring a point.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek -- good for you! I think you have now addressed the central question, admitted a measure of oversight and made a commitment to correct it. the rest on your part is gratuitous, you don't need to justify yourself in any way regarding bias, just disclose whether you received any personal benefits for writing the review and leave it to the readers to determine what weight to attach to them. it should be obvious to anyone, in my opinion (including larry), that your reviews are quite "scientific" and unbiased within the limits of the possible. have a great day, best, tony.
> I have done these on my own initiative (because the process is satisfying on an intellectual and emotional level). I might add - and this is not to be seen as an excuse, just further information - that the cost of the plane(s) is chicken feed compared to the cost of my time. In the time it takes to write one review, if I had instead spent this time in my day job, I could have purchased the tool several times over<
Really great of you to promote the philosophy of the bevel-up smoother all over the internet at the expense of all the money that you could be earning from your day job! Do you want some sort of medal for that? Maybe some sort of woodworking merit badge? Personally I have learned more from any two paragraphs of Larry's writing about planecraft and metallurgy than all of your spewing combined.
I recommend the guy purchase a Clark and WIlliams smoother and learn to hone a bevel the old fashioned way, freehand. I feel like if you need to play musical bevel angles you're getting way too fancy for a beginner and you need to be dependent on a honing guide. Overthinking it when you could be learning more basic things about using a plane.
Good luck with your day job.
Note: I can't believe I got involved in this Jonathan Swiftian debate but the whole "money-is-a-scorecard-and-that-makes-my-opinion-even-more-valid" attitude just set me off.
Get a life!
You obviously have a lot of frustrations in your life and you need to come and insult fellow woodworkers to get some relief!
We appreciate your plane suggestions, the rest, well .....
Edited 4/6/2006 2:07 pm ET by Bouboubomber
could not have said it better myself (except perhaps, didn't your mother teach you *any* social skills?)
I suggest we close this discussion, the original poster got the information he wanted. The rest has been mostly people bashing,, there is no need for this.
I stand behind my comments.
There are "reviews" that read like "infomercials" and then there are people that write about planecraft that I can really learn something from.
Larry,
Having been involved in human behavior research, I think you are "dead right" as my granddad would say. (Can't get much more accurate than that.)
Significant failure to not announce the relationship between the reviewer and the free plane in pointing to the review. Feedback to the manufacturer is one thing, but then to put it out as if it were an "official" review, is another.
Derek,
In a quick review of your website your plane reviews are all Lee Valley. If I saw reviews about other planes as the main lead, I wouldn't be as concerned. But, the list I saw was all Lee Valley.
Yes, you should know about bias. And, that means that you should also know that not even you can escape bias. Being aware of it does not mean you are not subject to it. Like gravity.
Including the fact that you got the plane free in your article can be done with sentence structure that downplays or even almost hides it from the casual reader focused on the plane. Yet, gives you what you need to say I told you it was free.
The solution is easy. In your sentence pointing the reader to your website, say, LV sent me a free plane and asked for my feedback. You can read my review at .....
At that point someone can still say you are biased, but you stated the conditions up front, not cloaked in the article.
Is Larry Williams biased? You, too, are dead right. He even gives an example of his stance about the problems with reviews and what people do to manufacturers to get free product. No, I don't know him, nor have I have seen any of his planes other than on the internet.
Alan - planesaw
Edited 4/4/2006 12:02 pm ET by Planesaw
WOAH!
You guys are getting excited. I have read Derek's review of the BUS from LV.
I actually bought one. We all know about bias, and should be old and wise enough to use our own judgement. It certainly crossed my mind that he could be biased. But he did an excellent review. Besides, if you have been reading these forums for more than a month you will know that the choices are pretty much LV BUS and LN 4 1/2. And the differences between both planes??? I think both planes can perform superbly, which one a person will prefer will depend on personnal preferences more than on difference between the planes, or factors such as when you buy the LV with the 2 extra blades you basically get 3 planes for a very good price. I have 2 LN a #8 and a # 5 1/2, love them so much that i will probably buy a 4 1/2 anyways. The really know which one is best for you, I think you have 2 try them both. Will you regret buying one instead of the other, NO. Will you want to buy the other one also, YES!
Well, if one was interested in reading bias postings then yes, at least those people know about the issue. But if you are here primarily to learn woodworking, then probably most people didn't read about it. The usual tendency of if its important for me then its important for everyone else.
And, as you said, if you have been reading these forums for more than a month you have surely seen how many times someone asks the same question someone else did two weeks earlier. All you have to do is take a look at the title of this posting. How many times does someone ask for opinions of LV vs LN? Which plane? What size and shape? Multiple postings of almost the same thing.
I am in no way challenging the accuracy of Derek's review of the planes. He may be 100% correct. But, it is so simple to tell a reader up front, hey, they asked me to review the plane, sent it to me free, and you can read my thoughts at http://www......
And, I in no way challenge the quality of Lee Valley. I have done some business with them over the years and find them to be fantastic. Bought a straight edge/ruler from them for a few bucks. 6 months later they wrote me asking if it had certain markings. Turns out the manufacturer sent them the wrong stuff. They didn't have to tell me. But they did and at their expense sent me the correct/up to standards item. Probably less than 1 percent of the business in the US and Canada would do that.
I have both LV and LN planes. Both companies are great.
Alan - planesaw
Well I dont want to continue on and on about this, but i take every review with a grain of salt. I had a Nissan XTerra 2000, it was SUV of the year as per some magazine, well must have been the only new SUV for that year! Anyways, I always wonder, especially now with the net, anyone can write anything, for all we know, Lee Valley could have someone post under 10 different names to praise their tools!
Actually, some book writers were doing that on Amazon!
So read the reviews and use your judgement.
Hi Alan
I am not sure if you read the Handtool forum over at Wood Central. The issue of bias in reviews was done to death there about a year ago. During the course of this I wrote the following:
I need to introduce rules into the reports I write, rules that are fundamental to the scientific pursuit of knowledge. These are the rules I have come up with:
Rule 1: All methods must be capable of being replicated by others. In practical terms, specify the tools used, how and to what level the blades were sharpened, the timber used and, as best as possible, the techniques used.
Rule 2: Record all the results in objective format, that is, in a numerical system or photographic illustrations that make it easy to interpret and gain meaning from the data.
Rule 3: A scientific study requires a comparison of different systems (e.g. handplanes). The control system needs to be something that has known, predictable results (e.g. a commonly used handplane). One cannot draw fair conclusions about the tool under investigation unless a comparison is made with a control. Without the control, one is only able to offer a subjective observation.
The bottom line is that results must be demonstrated clearly that they are measurable or identifiable to the satisfaction of the reader. I believe that it is only then that reviews will be considered objective.
In the articles that followed, I have attempted to maintain these rules, rules that come from my background in scientific research. My success here is easily verified - just read the reviews I write. Decide for yourself.
One further point about the LV reviews I have done. For some years I have written informally about many different planes, Stanley, LN, LV, Clifton, etc. In more recent years I have published formal reviews about LV simply because the opportunity was offered to me to do so. I have never approached LV for a plane to review - in every instance they contacted me to ask if I would like to try out a new plane and provide them with feedback, not to review on their behalf. At other times I was approached by a woodworking website (example one and two) that specialises in reviews to do one on their behalf (totally unconnected to LV). In one instance I reviewed a LV plane I bought myself.
At the end of the day each reader must make up their own mind whether the information I offer is helpful or not. Hopefully we are all adult enough to recognise this option.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Hi. It sounds like you guys know a lot about planes. I do not own one. What would be a good plane to buy for general use?
Hard to answer without knowing your needs, Each plane was designed for a specific use. However, as an all around plane, my recommendation would be a 5 1/2, as in LN 5 1/2. I am sure a lot of people will have other opinions ;o)
I am a beginner woodworker and have built a few different projects such as cabinets, entertainment center, and a few misc. projects. I would like to get into working with more solid wood. I see the need being making minor adjustments to joints and making joints flush after assembly, things of that nature.....general use? I know there are a lot of options out there, but something that can be used for a few different applications until your skills improve and can justify buying a more specialty plane. Thanks.
As b...bomber said, it depends on what you want to do...
Probably the most versatile and useful single plane is an adjustable mouth low angle block plane. I really like LN's; others will recommend the LV or Stanley versions.
For a general purpose plane, I'd have to agree that the LN #5-1/2 would be hard to beat....you can open the mouth and use it as a jack plane, or close the mouth and use it as a panel plane; it excels in both roles.
____________
NOT to hijack this thread, but to answer your question: If you want to work more with solid wood, then you'll probably need more hand tools than just hand planes. Here are some suggestions for tools that you will find very useful for general woodworking:
Hand planes: low angle adjustable-mouth block plane (probably the single most useful and versatile plane of them all); a #4 or a #4-1/2, a #5 or a #5-1/2, and a #7 or a #8 for bench planes; (a scrub plane, if you're going to do your woodworking exclusively with hand tools, otherwise it's more or less optional); a shoulder plane is also very handy. My recommendation would be either old (pre-WWII) Stanleys (be prepared to do some fettling with the older tools) or new Lie-Nielsens (a bit on the expensive side); others will suggest the LV/Veritas planes (moderate $$ to expensive); special-purpose planes can be added, as required. If you prefer wooden planes, ECE, Knight, and Clark & Williams -- to mention just a couple of modern wooden plane makers -- make very nice ones, but they are not inexpensive. Old (antique) wooden planes are not my area of expertise, so I'll have to defer to someone else to advise you on them.
Chisels: a good set of bench chisels (you'll get lots of recommendations from others here; I like the Japanese chisels sold by Woodcraft, but there are many, many other good chisels out there), and a good mallet.
Saws: A good rip and cross cut saw; a good tenon and dovetail saw. Take a look at the Japanese saws, as well as the western-style ones. I use both styles.
Layout tools: a good straight edge; a good marking gauge (I like the TiteMark); a marking knife; a bevel gauge; an accurate try square and a high-quality combination square (you could go with one or the other at the beginning).
Drilling tools: a good "egg-beater" hand drill (get an old Miller's Falls or old Stanley, etc); a good brace (again, get an old Miller's Falls or old Stanley, etc); a standard set of brad-point bits; perhaps a 32/quarters set of auger bits for the brace.
Books: try these sites for books that you may find useful or interesting:
http://www.astragalpress.com/
http://www.cambiumbooks.com/
http://www.woodworkerslibrary.com/
http://www.blackburnbooks.com/
And, of course: amazon.
Misc tools: a sharpening system (oil, water, or diamond stones); a couple of rasps and files (Nicholson #49 or #50, for example); some hand screws and bar/pipe clamps big enough to fit your work (you'll never have enough clamps...); a flat and a round sole spokeshave; a good, solid work bench (buy or make yourself -- there are several threads discussing the virtues and disadvantages of either course of action).
While it's by no means an all-inclusive list, there's not a lot that you can't do with a tool set similar to that listed above, and it's not too terribly expensive to set yourself up with, especially if you buy good quality older tools off that (in)famous auction site or from some of the old tool dealers. And, hand tools (except for the bench) have the advantage of not taking up very much room, either in use or for storage.
One last thing: buy the best quality tools you can afford, so you only have to buy them once......
Hope this is of some use to you.
James
Thanks for the information. I have the day off today, my kid is sick. So I am checking out my favorite woodworking sites. My day job is a banker, but I really enjoy woodworking and hope to get better.
Sorry to hear your kid is sick; mine was a couple of weeks ago -- nasty sinus infection. But glad to hear that you have time to visit your favorite WW sites.
<<My day job is a banker, but I really enjoy woodworking and hope to get better.>>
Well...since the weather is getting nicer, there's no excuse to not get started on your next project. ;-) The more you do, the better you get.
If you don't already have some of the hand tools listed, when you do acquire them, you'll find that they make woodworking easier and more enjoyable -- stuff like getting your joinery to fit exactly, or putting a silky smooth, shiny surface -- ready to put finish on -- on your board with a hand plane, etc.
I do all of my woodworking by hand tool, so I'm a little biased toward hand tools, but even shops with tailed apprentices need a few hand tools to clean up tool marks and do those little bits of trimming and fitting that either are extremely hard to do or simply can't be done with electron munchers (™MW).
Anyway, I wish you the best of luck with your woodworking and hope your kid is feeling better.
James
The L-N #4 1/2 YP is the best value for the money. I have a L-N low angle #5, and it is fine but the smoother is the best. Also an old Stanley #4 with with a L-N blade and chip breaker is a good investment for soft woods.
The LN 4 1/2 smoother with the york pitch frog is the best.
While you can't go wrong with the LN #4-1/2 with a York pitch frog, you might also look at the LN #5-1/2 and add the York pitch frog. This size will give you a little more versatility, as you can use it as both a jack plane -- with the mouth opened up -- or as a panel plane type smoother -- with the mouth closed up tight. Buying the YP frog as an additional purchase gives you two planing angles that you can use for just about any type of wood (and the LN YP #5-1/2 size frog also fits the LN #4-1/2, LN #6, and LN #7; the YP frog for the LN #4 will also fit the LN #5).
My two most-used planes for putting the final surface on projects are the #4-1/2 and the #5-1/2C. Both are old Stanleys. The #4-1/2 is a Type 10 with a LN iron & chip breaker. The #5-1/2C is an early Sweetheart with the original iron & chip breaker. Both are set up for and will take shavings that you can read newsprint through. Final surface prep is all that these two get used for.
I recently acquired a bronze LN #4 and added the YP frog as an additional purchase. While I'm still tweaking the set up to get it where I want it, based on what it has shown me so far, I can whole-heartedly recommend it as a final smoothing plane, as well.
Edited 4/4/2006 12:47 pm by pzgren
Edited 4/6/2006 6:36 pm by pzgren
Ah, you have asked a religion question ...
Once upon a time I was moose hunting. I asked the guide if a 30-06 would do, or should I bring a 7mm magnum. This old guy answered 'I only have a 30-06 so its what I use'. I asked 'Is if the best for moose?' and he answered 'Its better than I am, thats for sure'.
Now, that was a pretty deep thing, if you think about it. One tool may be better than another, and both are so superior to your abilities, what does it matter?
I am new to quality planes, so my experience is probably worthless. I bought a LV bevel up smoother and like it. The only thing I find weird is that the blade was sharpened 'flat' and as I understand it a smoother should have a slight radius. In other words, if properly adjusted a smoother should take a shaving which is, like, 2/3 the width of the blade. This was explained to me by LV's plane guru, assuming I understood correctly.
So I sharpened my blade the way he said and took a piece of maple so smooth it shines. I couldn't see any plane lines. So, I guess the plane is better than I am.
The thing with the bevel up planes is you can change the angle of attack of the plane. The LV comes with 38 degrees, and I'm going to buy a 25 degree and sharpen it to see what happens.
My buddy just got a LN plane. It looks really great. I'm sure they make really good stuff too, but I can walk to a LV store and buy whatever I want (and even get some advice) and I've never been disappointed by anything I've ever bought there.
As for the suggestion that LV people would seed FWW or any other website with positive comments is nonsense. They are not that kind of people, and its not that kind of company. Any employee who was found doing so would probably be fired. They believe in their products, but with good reason.
I did not want to suggest that LV people post here under false names, I was just pointing out that with the anonymity of the web one has to be carefull. I have a lot of respect for LV, and regularly buy from them. Now enough. To come back closer to the subject of the original poster. Just wondering how does the LV plane guru sharpens his blades?? Does he put a slight arc, or just rounds the corner. I have been sharpening with their new guide,recently, but its almost impossible to round the blade by puttin more pressure on one side then the other, because the brass roller is so wide
The way he explained it to me was thus if I remember correcly: I had bought something else at the store which was 'carded' i.e. there was a thick cardboard (maybe 3/32 or so) with the thing I bought entombed in shrinking plastic. He said: take piece of that cardboard and put it under the right side of the guide (I had also bought a Mark II guide) make about 10 strokes and then put it under the left side and keep doing this until you get a edge.
So thats pretty much what I did. It took some getting used to, and I guess what you are really doing is putting a very slight angle from the outside in, but the variability from stroke to stroke moves the intesection of the flat around so instead of there being a sharp angle between the 'normal' flat edge and the slight angle there is a more gradual transition.
Maybe I got lucky, but I did what he said and it worked surprisingly well.
He also suggested I get an 8000 grit (? - the white one) stone and flatten the back of the blade with it, and make sure I finished the overall sharpening with that one. I did the finish with pressure, instead of cardboard. I found it went easier if I basically pushed the blade down and ignored the roller and went at an angle to the direction of push.
The 38 degree blade is, apparently, to help smooth figured wood without tear out. The maple I smoothed is non-figured, so I hope that if I use a 25 degree blade the plane will be easier to push, which should give more control. Worst case I'll just resharpen the blade flat to use as a 'normal' blade.
Thanx for the info. Interesting, because I have been thinking about doing the same with one of those small 6 inches steel rulers to raise one side, just havent been around to trying it. i guess also you have to use shorter strokes so the blade doesnt come in contact with whatever you use. Now i know this method should work, I will definitely try it
If you find that rocking the guide with the wide roller isn't working too well and don't have a problem with spending about $14 more, there is a guide with a narrow roller that is very easy to use. It works for narrow chisels & irons and is available at Rockler, WoodCraft, Lie- Nielsen and Lee Valley. I have one and while it's the only guide I have, I'm pretty sure I'll get the Mark II for the times when I want to make sure it doesn't rock (like honing chisels).
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Yeah the short strokes part is a little odd, because you dont want to make a hollow in your stone. I suspect that once you've got the 'radius' pressure alone will work and then you can go along the lenth of the stone.
Anyway, like I said once you get there it works pretty good. Now if only we could invent a smoother sharpening guide ...
Actually if you never flatten your sharpening stone and always use it in the middle eventually you wil have a smoother sharpening stone.
Good point!
funny, I pulled out my old Norton carbide stone for some reason last weekend (usually manage well with just a very fine diamond plate and an old muddy looking thing that polishes the edge). It has a bit of a holloe from ocaisional use with a turning gouge, and had just the same thought. Perhaps the radius found on old planes was serendipity rather than carefully calulated technique?
I think it could have been both- if you have ever taken a full cut in softwood and seen the two ridges, it probably didn't take much time to figure out that the edges needed to be eased. If your stone is anything like most of the old stones I have seen, there's nothing flat about it. Flattening a stone was probably seen as wasteful, since the stone wouldn't last very long with frequent flattening. Plus, they would need another stone, which wouldn't make them very happy since they may not have wanted the extra expense.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Indeed yes, this could be a religion question or just Ford vs. Chevy. I want to buy a tool that is better than I am so I can grow and become more competent. BTW, since your buddy has the LN may I suggest that you and he give both planes a test drive. I can't walk into a LV store since I am about 300 miles to the south in the scenic Hudson Valley. Please let me know if you and your buddy decide to take a test spin.I really like all the things I have bought through LV and intend on continuing to giving them business. To everyone who has contributed to this thread, thanks for your input. You continue to help "newbies" such as me grow as woodworkers and make smart choices. We depend on using your advice and opinions to continue to grow. Thanks and keep it comin!Jim
Hi Jim...
no doubt you've figgured out already that there's no "stands out above all others" single best smoother on the market... I'm gonna muddy the water some more simply by saying... it depends... Depends largely on you too.. or rather, the type of wood you prefer to work with.
I've used both my L-N #4 1/2 ans L-N #5 1/2 as smoothers, both fitted with york pitch frogs as and when the need arose.. I tend to stick with the #4 1/2 for most of my smoothing; it'll cope admirably with 95% of what I work with... The only times I've seen it struggle was with particularly dense and highly figured grain; it doesn't quite have enough heft to tackle this with authority. That's where the #5 1/2 comes into its own.. The additional heft will tackle even the wild stuff with an ease bordering on contempt..
If I were pressed into making a recommendation, I'd play safe and back the #5 1/2; as has been pointed out already, you can use it as an uber jack most of the time (something it excels at), then when the board's ready to smooth, re-tune it to suit taking a fine cut and it will finish smooth with ease...
It's been my experience that it has a few more tricks up its sleeve that may proove invaluable for a beginner. Most planes will let you know in no uncertain terms when you're trying to work against the grain, most if not all will telegraph a vast increase in resistance when taking a shaving, others may also chatter to some extent while a few will dig in and cause tear-out... I've found that provided the plane is set to take a real thin shaving, the #5 1/2 has sufficient mass to tackle working against the grain. I won't kid you into thinking it's an effortless exercise.. but should you choose to do so (or the nature of the grain demand that you have to in places) the board won't suffer any detriment in either tear-out or chatter...
Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Mike,
Do you just use the HAF or switch frogs as need arises?
Jim
well... let me put it this way...
Over the past few years I've ended up with the entire L-N 2 3/8" range. I've added 2 york pitch frogs to augment the capabilities of the range. I keep one of the hi angles permanently in the #4 1/2 after doing a back to back comparrison with the standard frog (idea was to see if there was any extra effort required working with the hi angle; net result was I felt that if there was, I could handle it easily enough). The 2nd frog is in my #6 most of the time; it moves around between the #5 1/2 and #7 if the board I'm working warrants it... Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled