Replies

1. 
   RMillard | Oct 05, 2007 03:30am | #1

   Doug,

   I currently have the Lee Valley and it the only scraper plane I've used that really worked. I had a LN 85 ( the rabbet scraper version); I found the thick iron problematic, and sold it on Ebay for only $8 less than I bought it new. I also had a Kuntz (spelling?) it was actually better than the LN, but it was a little loose and would chatter ( all scraper planes are prone to this, but this one was particularly susceptible)

   The Lee Valley scraper, has a thin blade and a thumb screw that allows it to be flexed. Those features combined with the ability to vary the pitch makes for a nice tool. The price ain't bad either.

   Rob Millard

   http://www.americanfederalperiod.com

1. 
   mvflaim | Oct 06, 2007 01:51am | #5

   Rob,

   Have you ever used a Stanley 112? If so, how does it compare to the Lee Valley one?

   I have a 112 with a Hock blade in it and it works okay but I'm not sure if it's the tool or the sharpness of the scraper blade. Can't make it perform the way I'd like.

   Mike 

1. 
   RMillard | Oct 06, 2007 04:18am | #6

   Mike,

   I'm sorry, I have not used a Stanley 112. I'm not familiar enough with them to offer much advise. I think I read several years ago in Fine Woodworking about how they lack the thumb screw to flex the blade. I think the writer of that article glued shims on the frog and cap to induce a flex to the blade.

   Is the Hock blade thin like a hand/card scraper, or is it thick like the blades in the LN scrapers? If it is thick, or can't be flexed, I found that it is necessary to treat it like a smooth plane and hone the edge to slight curve ( since it can't be flexed like a thinner blade can).

   I've also found that I have a tendency to push down too hard while using the scraper plane. Unlike a bench plane, a scraper plane takes a light touch. I so rarely use a scraper plane that I invariably get considerable chatter with the first pass, because I don't pay attention to what I'm doing.

   Rob Millard

   http://www.americanfederalperiod.com

1. 
   mvflaim | Oct 07, 2007 02:54am | #8

   The Hock is .1" thick so it's considerably thicker than a hand scraper. Honestly, I haven't used the No 112 much but I have never been able to get great results out of it, hence the reason I bought the Hock replacement blade. I've even read a couple of articles on tuning up scraper planes and I've sharpened the blade properly. I'd love to use a Lee Valley's version of it and do a side by side comparison of the two. 

1. 
   mvflaim | Oct 07, 2007 06:56pm | #9

   Here's the shaving I get out of my No 112. I scraped a piece of flat sawn wlanut since I didn't have any figured wood lying around. They save if you get sawdust your scraper isn't sharp. Mine come out as thin shavings so I guess the plane blade is sharp enough. I don't know, maybe I expect too much out of this plane. It may be perfectly tuned.

     

   
2. 
   saschafer | Oct 07, 2007 07:16pm | #10

   Here's a piece of curly soft maple, my freshly sharpened Veritas cabinet scraper, and some of the resulting shavings. (The wood has since been shellacked.)

   -Steve

    

   
3. 
   WillGeorge | Oct 07, 2007 07:25pm | #11

   They save if you get sawdust your scraper isn't sharp..Well, I do NOT disagree with the statement. BUT.. I like to work with really hard woods for some reason. I'm nuts? OK I am!Impossible to get shavings (at least to my experience) on 'sticks' such as Purpleheart and Jatoba and the like... I get dust! It works out OK for me. I can turn around and use the scraper (as is) on another wood like Hickory or Ash and I get shavings so I would 'think to self' the blade is at least sort of sharp.By the way, a plane will just 'glide' across the surface or 'tear' it out. OK... the planes I have anyway!Dang two edits to get my spellins correct...Edited 10/7/2007 12:26 pm by WillGeorge

   Edited 10/7/2007 12:27 pm by WillGeorge

2. 
   grpphoto | Oct 05, 2007 06:03am | #2

   I have the large Kuntz scraper plane, which does a nice job of things. I also have the small LN scraper, which also works well. If I were to replace one, it would be the Kuntz, and I would go with the Lee Valley. The reason for replacement would be that the Kuntz is ugly. The choice of LV would be that it's a carefully thought out, modern design, while LN is a reproduction of an old design, albeit with improvements in materials.

   George Patterson
3. 
   WillGeorge | Oct 05, 2007 09:06pm | #3

   which would you get and why?..

   I have often wanted one but then I think of why. My hands get tired?. I'm to old to do this much work? Then I remember why I wanted one. The blade got to hot and burnt my fingers. (Yes I have one of those wooden holders that allow you to flex the blade) However, when using a scraper I change the 'bend' a lot while working for the current grain of the wood.

   I finally realized a pair of gloves solved my issue with HOT!

1. 
   KiddervilleAcres | Oct 05, 2007 09:56pm | #4

   Will,

   Damn, and all this time I been spitting on it!

   Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres

    

   A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!

4. 
   kesac | Oct 07, 2007 02:46am | #7

   I have a Stanley, with a LN blade in it and it works great.  If you go that route, tell Lie-Nielson that you want the blade for the 112, because it is .012" thinner than their usual blade for their scraper.