Here goes (apology in advance for any strife), Bevel Up or Bevel Down Smoother......

[Roger Barlow]

I spent some time reading past threads, some reviews on other sites, and what I get is for smoothing planes is .............. bevel up/bevel down.
Really? There has to be some consensus that one is better than the other.

I ask because I would like to expand my skills as a woodworker. I will be purchasing a another smoother in the near future. And I've got a table and chairs job where the cutomer wants a "hand finished look - plane marks". So they want the subtle scallops of a hand plane, but super smooth to the touch w/no tear out (or so they say).

Trouble is I would like an Anderson infill, but can't justify it right now. So, it's between a LN 4 1/2 or LV Bevel up Smoother, which is better on domestic woods and sapelle, ribbon mahogany (primary woods I work with). I've thought about buying both and returning the one I though didn't measure up but, well, I think that'd be wrong.

I primarily use power tools, (sorry guys) but I hand fit most all joints with my "other" tools. I have some LN (block, 2, 4, side rabbit, 112 scraper) and other well rounded Stanley fare, but I'd like to get a smoother that really does the job. And I understand that the edge is critical, I use SpyderCo ceramic stones in conjuction with the scary sharp method, I can make a cutting edge. Tear out is unacceptable for me and my clients, which is why most of my jobs either get card scraped and sanded or just sanded. Rarely can the LN 4 with the standard frog to give a finish ready surface unless it's an easy surface/grain.

So if you've got a smoother that really does the job, tell me about it, or tell me about where yours falls down. I'd like to know.

Here's a pic of some chairs and table I did for a job awile back. Lots of hand fitting done here, not jsut power tools. I know that pics are the proof so here you go.

[Doug Shepard]

I think this will probably be the last smoother I will need
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=93312

The LN #4 (or 4-1/2) is also no slouch.
So I guess my answer is Bevel Down.

[george wilson]

I do not advise trying to plane ribbon figure mahogany by hand,if the job must be perfect.LN makes a smooth plane size scraper that would most likely do better. You could put a very slight convex edge on it.

I never use ribbon mah. any more.I just don't like its looks. It could be a real bear to hand plane,as the tree grows in alternately spiraling layers. Its grain does not hold together as well as figured maple.

I have used a bevel up low angle LN jack plane that would plane figured maple if real sharp,and set very fine.I don't think it would plane the ribbon mah.,though,with no tearout.

You may be much better off using another wood for this order.

[lowell holmes]

I have both planes.

I would hate to part with either plane. I find myself using the LV BU Jack more than the other. The 38 degree iron and the 50 degree iron will handle the difficult grain in figured wood. The 20 degree iron is used when using the shooting board.

[Matt Bickford]

I don't think you'll be able to reach a consensus any better than the previous 1000 attempts at doing this.

I will offer one observation: to achieve the same degree of scallop on a bevel up as you would with a bevel down, a more drastic camber will be necessary. You will need a much tigher radius ground onto the iron of the bevel up, which may or may not be more difficult for you to achieve. A 4 1/2 will do this no better than a 4.

[John Keeton]

Not very experienced with either, but do own 2 BU planes - both LV. I love the BU Jack with interchangeable blades. With the 50* blade, it will leave curly maple shining like a piece of glass.

[Brian Kent]

I asked the question to the Creekers about the best smooth plane. Here's the answer. I hope this helps you finalize your decision.:D

Best Smooth Planes

Shepherd Infill kit
Japanese Planes
Mathieson Infill
Norris A5 style Infill
Light Woodie
Coffin
Norris Infill
Marcou Infill
Steve Knight Padouk Coffin
ECE 711
Wards Master #4
Lie-Nielsen 64 Low Angle Jack
Sauer and Steiner Infill
Lie-Nielsen #4
Stanley with Hock Blade
James Krenov
Lie-Nielsen 4-1/2
Japanese
Coffin
Bridge City CT-12
Marcou S15
the plane you have learned and tuned to it's max
Lee Valley Bevel Up Smoother
Japanese Plane
HNT Gordon
Lee Valley Veritas Low Angle Smooth
Japanese Plane
Norris A5 Infill
Lee Valley Veritas Bevel Up
HNT Gordon
Millers Falls #14
ECE Primus Smoother
Ron Brese
Lee Valley Bevel Up Smoother
Mujingfang
#3 Infill Smoother
Brese Kit
Bedrock 603
St James Bay Infill Kit
Stanley No.4 with Lie-Nielsn .125 blade
#3 Infill Smoother
Bedrock 603
Bridge City CT-12
Clark & Williams York pitch
Coffin
Coffin
ECE 711
ECE Primus Smoother
HNT Gordon
HNT Gordon
James Krenov
Japanese Plane
Japanese Plane
Japanese Plane
Japanese Plane
Lee Valley Bevel Up Smoother
Lee Valley Bevel Up Smoother
Lee Valley Veritas Bevel Up
Lee Valley Veritas Low Angle Smooth
Lie-Nielsen #4
Lie-Nielsen 4-1/2
Lie-Nielsen 64 Low Angle Jack
Light Woodie
Marcou Infill
Marcou S15
Mathieson Infill
Millers Falls #14
Mujingfang
Norris A5 Infill
Norris A5 style Infill
Norris Infill
Ron Brese
Ron Brese Kit
Sauer and Steiner Infill
Shepherd Infill kit
St James Bay Infill Kit
Stanley #4 type 7with Lie-Nielsn .125 blade
Stanley with Hock Blade
Steve Knight Padouk Coffin
Wards Master #4
…and…
"The best plane is one you have learned and tuned to it's max."

[David Gendron]

Hi, To be honest with you, I think I would go with the LV Veritas BU Smoother and the reason is that with one plane you get three... you can buy the 50 degree blade and the 38 and the 20, if you can't do good with one of them, it's probably time to get the card scraper out, the scraping plane or find yourself a great infil smoother!!
My tought and I'm no pro of the question!
David

[Robert Rozaieski]

I'm not going to get involved in the bevel up vs. bevel down discussion because I don't think it matters. The wood doesn't know which way the bevel is facing.

I am going to second what George said about the ribbon mahogany though. There was a question about getting tearout with this wood some months back so you might try doing a search for it. The jist of it is that with ribbon mahogany, the grain reverses so frequently and so unexpectedly that getting some bit of tearout while planing it is basically unavoidable regardless of what smoother you use and how finely set it is. An extremely sharp iron helps to some extent but in the end you'll likely need to scrape the surface with a very sharp scraper if you want a flawless surface without sanding.

I've never worked with sapelle so I can't comment on it. For standard domestic hardwoods, your LN #4 should work just fine. If it doesn't leave a finish ready surface, it likely needs sharpening or tuning. I get a finish ready surface with old woodies on domestic hardwoods so a LN can certainly do it. Just make sure your iron is extremely sharp with a subtle camber to the edge, your plane is set for a fine cut and plane with the grain. No plane will plane against the grain with no tearout no matter how well it's set up and how sharp the iron is (Wayne's infill might get you close but if you plane against the grain you'll still get tearout).

[David Keller NC]

"Really? There has to be some consensus that one is better than the other."

I suppose this is obvious, but there isn't and never will be a consensus on this issue. However, the parameters of the debate are pretty well defined. The most common argument for bevel up planes is that one can grind 2 or 3 different blades to get 2 or 3 different cutting angles, thus saving the cost of purchasing 2 or 3 planes with different frog angles. Moreover, because a BU plane is simpler (with less parts), you can save a small amount of money on the initial purchase price.

Some of us dedicated plane users (me included) think changing out an iron is a major PITA, inefficient, and wouldn't even consider it, because it requires carefully re-establishing the lateral adjustment and blade extension. Many of us own several smoothers so that we can set the plane up once and forget about adjustments until its time to re-hone the iron.

Regarding planing angle, it's possible to get the equivalent planing angle out of a bevel-down smoother by simply putting a back-bevel on the blade, no exchange of frogs for a higher-angle one required.

A less-common argument for BU planes is their lower center of gravity. There's little doubt about this - they feel considerably different in use than the standard Bailey design. Some like that, some don't.

Finally, one further difference between the two designs (Bailey BD/BU) is the ability to adjust blade extension in mid-stroke. While theoretically possible with a BU, it's not a "deliberate" feature like it is with a Bailey BD.

And finally, I agree with the other posters - its unlikely that you're going to find a plane that will both give you a scalloped surface and have a total absence of any tear-out with "ribbon" mahogany, even with a 60 degree planing angle. A scraper plane is a much better bet, and if the "ribbon" mahogany you're refering to is also african mahogany (itself a misnomer), then it's unlikely that even a scraper plane will give you a tear-out free surface.

[Wilbur Pan]

I asked the question to the Creekers about the best smooth plane. Here's the answer. I hope this helps you finalize your decision.:D


Well, the most commonly mentioned plane is a Japanese plane, with 8 entries on your list. The various infills as a group make up 18 entries (maybe 23). Both of these types of planes are bevel down, so the answer is clear. ;)

[Chris Friesen]

"Some of us dedicated plane users (me included) think changing out an iron is a major PITA, inefficient, and wouldn't even consider it, because it requires carefully re-establishing the lateral adjustment and blade extension.

This seems odd...on a BU plane it takes maybe a minute to swap blades, put the old blade away, and adjust the new blade. It's going to take substantially longer than that to smooth-plane most projects (at least for me it will) so the incremental cost of the blade change is minimal.

If you're constantly swapping between different bevel angles, I could see it becoming an issue, but in my limited experience I tend to do a batch of work at a particular bevel angle.

[Matt Wilson]

Sorry to hi-jack this thread a bit. "Ribbon" mahogany is a new term to me.
I don't work with mahogany much (well at all until now), but the top of my last box was made with it. Its hard to see from these pictures, but you look at it from the front the grain run in opposite directions. i.e. right to left then left to right... Again, I don't have a great picture of it, but it really does have layered look.
Is that what "Ribbon" mahogany is, or is that just regular old mahogany?

http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb279/mwilson_24/page3.jpg

[george wilson]

That's ribbon.From a quick read of the posts,that's 3 votes for scraping,though 1 vote is not sure it would work. I'm not 100% sure it would work,either. I just think it's the best option. Actually,my best opton,as said,would beto not use the ribbon figure. BTW,sapele is also an African mahogany,though you are right,David,the African mahoganys are not true mahoganys .

[Matt Wilson]

That's ribbon.

Interesting... If anyone cares, I was able to plane it with my LV BUS with a 50 degree bevel. That plane also handled the curl on the front piece of cherry with no problem. My older Stanley #4 with a premium iron had made a bit of a mess of it.

[Danny Burns]

Whatever you choose, make sure that you can get a very tight mouth setting and then take a very fine chip. If you have a bench plane, then try either high angle frogs, or small back bevels to increase the angle of the blade.

[John Keeton]

Interesting... If anyone cares, I was able to plane it with my LV BUS with a 50 degree bevel.Not to hog this thread with my inexperienced opinions, but as I stated previously, I get similar results with the LV BU Jack with the 50* blade on very curly maple. That is enough to sell me.

That said, David Keller's observations regarding the changing of blades is understandable - and, one of the reasons many of you have multiple planes.

For us "hybrid" woodworkers, the use of handplanes may take on a little different function. For me, changing the blades is just part of the fun. At that point, I am working with stock that has already been through the jointer and planer.

Again, this opinion has little value - but is mine nonetheless.

[David Keller NC]

"This seems odd...on a BU plane it takes maybe a minute to swap blades, put the old blade away, and adjust the new blade. It's going to take substantially longer than that to smooth-plane most projects (at least for me it will) so the incremental cost of the blade change is minimal."

It's true that doing the change itself is relatively quick (though not quite as quick in a LN-designed BU smoother - getting the keeper in the right orientation and the correct distance from the mouth is non-obvious; I wound up scribing the blade), but it is, of course, just as quick with a BD smoother. Getting a correct lateral adjustment and blade extension on a smoother quite a bit slower, and generally requires a test board so you don't accidentally track you project (or take a big chip out of the end).

Naturally, you can do the same thing with a Bevel-Down plane as well - one simply keeps a couple of blades around with a back-bevel to yield the planing angle of your choice. Though of course you still have to carefully re-adjust the blade extension and lateral adjustment.

Point is, other than planing end grain, which is what the original BU designs were intended for, there isn't any advantage (or disadvantage) to a bevel up plane, it's simply a personal preference.

[george wilson]

That's good,matt. I have had good results with the LN on curly maple,but since I don't like ribbon fogure,I haven't tried the BU on it. I used to use ribbon many years ago,and it was a real pill to deal with. Back then,we didn't have the nice planes available today. I think I had an aluminum Craftsman plane when in my late teens!! Had a square blade with 4 edges. Actually,it is still in a drawer.

[Roger Barlow]

Thanks for responding guys. I did read a bunch of posts and reviews before dropping this thread, I know it's like asking "what tablesaw to buy".

For grins, read this
http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/haspc.pdf

It's a comparison of several planes, interesting read, with some results that led me away form my initial BU low angle smoother choice.

I've also read some reviews of BU's that call them fantastic.

Since I don't own or have used a BU plane (other than block plane), I don't have any comparison. And the BU adjustment feature David mentioned might be an irritant for me, I routinely adjust blade depth on the fly depending on what I am doing.

And the ribbon mahogany comments have come up a few time in this thread, so, yes I know it's usually African (Sapele also comes quarter sawn and ribbon strip as well). I also know first hand it's a total pain to try and plane it. I rely on abrasives for this stuff. Sapele is akin to mahogany, darker brown with a harder/more brittle grain structure. It planes well, like walnut but with some grain reversals. But I sand the ribbon Sapele though.

The job in question is in cherry, so most well tuned smoothers should do a good job, but I wanted a wider blade than my LN #4, hence the 4 1/2 question. I was also looking to use the new smoother with a higher angle (50 or 55) - either by grind or frog. I was all set to buy a BU but then second guessed myself with the lack of chip breaker (and that review posted above). I do like the comment about owning several smoothers for dedicated frog and or bevel angles - that's the same principle I used for dedicated machine tools and that argument works for me. Guess I'll get a couple new smoothers :D There goes the profits.

[Brian Kent]

Hey Roger. That's a fine article you mentioned. It's why I tried the High Angle Mujingfang, which remains one of my favorite users. Also, note one thing here:

"6. Lee Valley Low Angle Smooth plane, adjustable mouth, single A2 iron, Norris style adjuster, lateral blade support screws, 12 bed plus 20 degree bevel for 32º overall effective angle, $139"

He was using the LA smoother with the lowest angle - 32°. It does so much better with a higher angle blade. And besides - an LV LA Smoother for $139?:D

[Roger Barlow]

Hey Roger. That's a fine article you mentioned. It's why I tried the High Angle Mujingfang, which remains one of my favorite users. Also, note one thing here:

"6. Lee Valley Low Angle Smooth plane, adjustable mouth, single A2 iron, Norris style adjuster, lateral blade support screws, 12 bed plus 20 degree bevel for 32º overall effective angle, $139"

He was using the LA smoother with the lowest angle - 32°. It does so much better with a higher angle blade. And besides - an LV LA Smoother for $139?:D


Good point about the LV bevel angle - that's what I get for skimming the beginning and reading the results:D I don't think LV even offers a 20 degree grind, I assumed he was using a apples to apples grind.

[David Keller NC]

"The job in question is in cherry, so most well tuned smoothers should do a good job, but I wanted a wider blade than my LN #4, hence the 4 1/2 question. I was also looking to use the new smoother with a higher angle (50 or 55) - either by grind or frog. I was all set to buy a BU but then second guessed myself with the lack of chip breaker (and that review posted above)."

This is just my opinion, and I suspect they're others that have different ones, but I personally don't think a chip breaker does much of anything, except provide a convenient mounting attachment for the blade adjust mechanism in some planes. I'm basing this on woodies - I've ones with and without the chip breaker, all at the same (common) pitch of 45 degrees. Provided that the blade's sharp, I see little difference in performance, whether in straight or highly figured grain.

If you've an active local WW club, you've likely got someone local that has both BU and BD designs that might be willing to let you try them out, that would be the best of all possible worlds to determine what fits your preferences best.

[Robert Rozaieski]

"The job in question is in cherry, so most well tuned smoothers should do a good job, but I wanted a wider blade than my LN #4, hence the 4 1/2 question. I was also looking to use the new smoother with a higher angle (50 or 55) - either by grind or frog. I was all set to buy a BU but then second guessed myself with the lack of chip breaker (and that review posted above)."

This is just my opinion, and I suspect they're others that have different ones, but I personally don't think a chip breaker does much of anything, except provide a convenient mounting attachment for the blade adjust mechanism in some planes. I'm basing this on woodies - I've ones with and without the chip breaker, all at the same (common) pitch of 45 degrees. Provided that the blade's sharp, I see little difference in performance, whether in straight or highly figured grain.

If you've an active local WW club, you've likely got someone local that has both BU and BD designs that might be willing to let you try them out, that would be the best of all possible worlds to determine what fits your preferences best.

I've had similar results. In fact, my home made wooden smoother does best with the chipbreaker pulled way back to prevent clogging of the throat. All is is basically doing is providing extra weight to the plane. I'd remove it completely if it wouldn't require making a whole new wedge.

Chris Schwarz actually referenced a good article by a professor at a university in Japan that proved the chipbreaker does in fact work as claimed (for breaking chips).....when it's placed 0.004" from the cutting edge. Hardly practical in real use. I think more of a marketing gimick to sell folks back in the day that 2 irons were better than 1.

[Joel Goodman]

One explanation for a benefit of a chipbreaker in a BD plane is that it supports the cutting edge near the bevel and if it is thick beefs up the rigidity of the iron. In a BU plane the bed extends almost to the cutting edge so the issue is not there -- and the irons tend to be thick. I assume that's the logic of the LN and Hock chipbreakers. Even a Stanley does add support near the cutting edge. I have no idea if this works out in practice!

[Matt Wilson]

One explanation for a benefit of a chipbreaker in a BD plane is that it supports the cutting edge near the bevel and if it is thick beefs up the rigidity of the iron. In a BU plane the bed extends almost to the cutting edge so the issue is not there -- and the irons tend to be thick. I assume that's the logic of the LN and Hock chipbreakers. Even a Stanley does add support near the cutting edge. I have no idea if this works out in practice!

hmm, you got me thinking about this and that is never a good thing ;).
To me the chip breaker was always more about adding rigidity to the iron. Most of our BD irons are pretty darn thin so the chip breaker help support it.

(this is the part where I just started thinking)
Was it really more cost effective to product a chip breaker,screw, and added assembly rather than just beef up the blade? It seems to me that it might add to the over all production cost. Maybe the rigidity theory doesn't hold as much water as I thought it did? :confused:

[Robert Rozaieski]

One explanation for a benefit of a chipbreaker in a BD plane is that it supports the cutting edge near the bevel and if it is thick beefs up the rigidity of the iron. In a BU plane the bed extends almost to the cutting edge so the issue is not there -- and the irons tend to be thick. I assume that's the logic of the LN and Hock chipbreakers. Even a Stanley does add support near the cutting edge. I have no idea if this works out in practice!

Yeah, I've heard that arguement too but I never really bought into it. Afterall, any planing forces are going to want to bend the iron away from the chip breaker, not into it so the chipbreaker really isn't providing any additional support against planing forces.

[Wilbur Pan]

Yeah, I've heard that argument too but I never really bought into it. After all, any planing forces are going to want to bend the iron away from the chip breaker, not into it so the chipbreaker really isn't providing any additional support against planing forces.

The only thing I can see is that if the iron is going to bend, the chipbreaker "prebends" the iron, so that the act of planing will be less likely to bend the iron any further.

[george wilson]

Regardless how thick the blade is,if both thick and thin blades are ground at the same angle,they'd be the same thickness near the cutting edge,wouldn't they?

Our Cooper's shop always ground extremely acute angles on their long cooper's jointers. I have wondered how those blade's very thin edges kept from springing down,and back up,while cutting those tough oak staves,producing chattering. I mean,their bevels were 1/2" long. They seemed to work,though. By making the bevels very long,the blades were easier to hand sharpen for many more sharpenings,is what I suppose their reason was. I never remembered to ask them about it.

[Matt Wilson]

Regardless how thick the blade is,if both thick and thin blades are ground at the same angle,they'd be the same thickness near the cutting edge,wouldn't they?

Yes, but the thicker iron will be more rigid and should be less likely to flex or chatter...

[george wilson]

Think about it,Matt. Suppose at a distance if 1/32" from the cutting edge,the blade was 1/64" thick,on each iron. What would it matter what the thickness was further up the blade?

[Joel Goodman]

I think you can make the argument that a tight fitting chipbreaker supports the cutting iron in a way that a thick iron doesn't as it adds support very near the cutting edge where any iron (no matter how thick) is thin. I also think that in most chipbreakers there is a certain amount of prestressing at least the tip of the iron which does contribute to it's rigidity. In planes with heavier chipbreakers this may be greater. In my ECE I can see a sight bow to the iron when the chipbreaker is snugged down and I assume it was designed that way. For the Stanley's I think historically the cost of the steel for the iron was a lot more than the cheaper stuff that they used for the chipbreaker. After all in the early days they just used the good stuff for just the business end of the iron and the rest was not of the same hardness or composition. Or course many fine BD planes such as C&W, Gordon, and Brese have no chipbreaker but they are bedded better than a Stanley. But everything I've surmised above may be a crock!

[John Keeton]

You guys all have far more experience on this topic, but I will venture out on theory alone. It would seem that in the process of cutting, a blade would develop vibration - although minute. Those small vibrations could affect the quality of the cut, and the actual efficiency of the contact between the wood and metal. Reducing those vibrations, by any method, should improve contact - thereby improving the cut. Wouldn't that be a primary advantage to a thicker blade - or a properly machined chipbreaker?

And, regarding Joel's comment about only the edge being treated in the old days - would not the softer metal in the body of the blade absorb more vibration, thus improving the cut.

This, from a guy that until recently owned just one old plane - and didn't know how to sharpen it! So, it ain't worth much! But, it may stir some more debate:D

[Matt Wilson]

Think about it,Matt. Suppose at a distance if 1/32" from the cutting edge,the blade was 1/64" thick,on each iron. What would it matter what the thickness was further up the blade?

If the blade does flex, I wouldn't expect it to happen so close to the edge. It would occur higher before the blade is supported by the frog.

[george wilson]

Just a theory. The cooper's LONG bevel just looked to me like it was waiting to chatter.

[Brad McDonald]

For grins, read this
http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/haspc.pdf

It's a comparison of several planes, interesting read, with some results that led me away form my initial BU low angle smoother choice.

I've also read some reviews of BU's that call them fantastic.


You should read some of Lyn's postings in the forum on that site. (At the time of the study LV only had the one BU plane.)

Lyn's more recent comments show what you may consider a different perspective on BU planes. He even went so far as to say that if he could only own one plane it would be the LV BU Jack.

Brad

[george wilson]

I'd say if I could only have 1 large plane,I'd agree.