LN 98/99 or LV side rabbet or ...

[Jeff Willard]

I was going to hijack Jim's recent thread but it's Christmas, so I'll ask here.

I have been considering a side rabbet plane. For those that have/use them is there a major difference in the utility of the LN 98/99 vs. the LV side rabbet? Also, for those that may have used both, what about ergonomics?

[Michael Faurot]

I've not used the Lie-Nielsen side rabbet planes, but I do have the Veritas and a Stanley No. 79. The Veritas plane is a good tool, like all of their stuff, but maybe a bit top heavy compared to the No. 79. I can't say that I necessarily like or use one more than the other, but I do like that both planes have the left and right versions built-in.

[Derek Cohen]

I have been considering a side rabbet plane. For those that have/use them is there a major difference in the utility of the LN 98/99 vs. the LV side rabbet? Also, for those that may have used both, what about ergonomics?

Hi Jeff

I have a comparison of the Veritas, Stanley #79 and LN #98/99 here:

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/TheVeritasSideRabbetPlane.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

Wonderful thing about threads, it is so easy to start a new one.

The Stanley #79 was my first side rabbet. It works well, some have a concern about the back blade dragging. It has one stop for both blades. Unless an uneven dado or slot is being cut this should not be an inconvenience. It is a bit more awkward than the #98/99 to use. The Record, Marples, Preston and Lee Valley style side rabbet has a single depth stop that must be changed when moving from one side to the other. This could be a hassle. If I am wrong on this, hopefully someone who knows better will chime in. The other thought is having to deal with one of the blades pointing up when using the plane.

The Stanley #98/99 and the Lie-Nielsen side rabbets are two separate and complete planes. The depth stop from #98 will not work on the #99. At least not on the Stanley. I do not know if the LN is any different. The Stanley model has a grove for the depth stop to register in to keep it straight.

Time, patience and a good amount of money can get you a nice set of Stanley side rabbets. Often ones being offered are missing their depth stops. This is difficult to understand as the depth stops are very useful when cutting straight sides. Maybe more people than I have imagined use them for cutting sliding dovetails in the past. I have a constant ebay search for Stanley parts and have not seen a depth stop for the #98/99s listed.

See the thread on things to look for when buying planes, specifically the > Don't fall through the cracks!!! < part:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?p=1176257#poststop

for some information on buying Stanley side rabbets. I am not sure it was mentioned there, but the knob for the #98/99 side rabbets is the same size as the knob for the Stanley #1. The post and nut holding the knob is also the same on a #1. So, if the knob is bad it is going to likely cost in the area of $50 to get another knob. Those #1 collectors have set the price. This is another one of those planes where any part is harder to find than the whole plane, so do not buy one that needs parts unless it is for parts you need. DAMHIKT!

But on the bright side, the first #98/99s I paid too much for before knowing what I know now can be sold off for parts and bring me more than what I paid for them. Or they can be turned to another use.

jim

[Mike Henderson]

Time, patience and a good amount of money can get you a nice set of Stanley side rabbets. Often ones being offered are missing their depth stops. This is difficult to understand as the depth stops are very useful when cutting straight sides. Maybe more people than I have imagined use them for cutting sliding dovetails in the past. I have a constant ebay search for Stanley parts and have not seen a depth stop for the #98/99s listed.

jim
I questioned an eBay seller one time who was offering a set of 98/99's without depth stops. He replied that the early 98/99's were sold without depth stops. I then checked Patrick Leach and he says that the depth stop was added around 1930 - the 98/99 was first offered in 1896 and was only made to 1942.

I wonder if you can put a depth stop on an early 98/99 - that is, whether there's a hole for the depth stop screw (probably not).

Mike

[Jim Koepke]

I questioned an eBay seller one time who was offering a set of 98/99's without depth stops. He replied that the early 98/99's were sold without depth stops. I then checked Patrick Leach and he says that the depth stop was added around 1930 - the 98/99 was first offered in 1896 and was only made to 1942.

I wonder if you can put a depth stop on an early 98/99 - that is, whether there's a hole for the depth stop screw (probably not).

Mike

My opinion may be totally wrong. That said, my dating is based upon what logo appears on the blades of planes with depth stops. I have seen the V-logo on many and that is the logo on my pair. I have also seen the T-logo with depth stops. These two logos span approximately the 1908 - 1920 time period.

I also once bid on a #98 that was from the WW II era with no nickel plating and instead had the black Japanning that was common in the WW II era.

It is possible that Stanley made the side rabbet planes with a provision for depth stops that were not provided for another 20 years. It does not seem likely.

One common way that those doing type studies use to date items is when it appeared in a published catalog. This does have the draw back of not taking into account the marketing thought that goes into producing a catalog. If a particular product is not a fast mover, a company may not want to tell their potential customer about improvements to a product with a lot of old inventory still on store shelves.

This is not to impugn the work of Patrick Leach or others who have spent vastly more time or searched through resources I can only imagine. Their work is the bedrock upon which my opinions are based.

It is very easy for an error to find its way into any scholarly study and be propagated over time into being the evidence used to prove itself.

One of my favorite errors in some type studies is the placing of a blade stamped with an 1892 patent date into a plane that was supposedly made in 1891.

Type studies where done by people interested in the history of manufactured products. The are intended to give a relative idea of the order of changes in a product. Once one is done, it is difficult to revise and the incentive is no match for the difficulty. Most people will be happy to write notes in the margins of their copies.

With the advent of the internet, there may be some like myself, who have copied one of the type studies from the web and have inserted their own notes into the text. My copy is one that was on the internet without images many years ago. I do not think the site it was on is still running. I have since added my own pictures and text. Like others after a flurry of activity, I have not done many more corrections or updates. It is also in various forms since having to update operating systems has caused the use of different programs over time to create and maintain my copy. Since it is mostly someone else's work, I do not feel I have any right to publish my copy.

To do much more expansion on my copy would require taking apart different planes to take pictures. This is not something I would embark upon lightly. Taking apart a plane that needs tuning is one thing. Taking apart a plane that is working to my liking is another.

Here are some images of a Stanley #98 The first shows the plane with a close up of the trade mark stamp on the blade and the label on the box. This is a pre-Sweet Hart stamp and box:

135022

The next image is of the back of this same plane. It has the slot and screw hole for a depth stop.

135023

Last is an image of an early #98 without a depth stop. This is a type 1 with a patent date on the reversible front part of the skate. There are ones without the patent date on the skate and no provision for the depth stop.

135024

As stated at the beginning of this post, this is all just my opinion on the matter and I could be full of feathers on the issue.

Thats my position and I am sticking to it, if you do not like it, I have other positions.:D

jim

[Jeff Willard]

Jeez! TMI :eek:. I'm a meatcutter-we don't know words like "impugn". All I wanna' know is-does it work real gud?:D

[Jim Koepke]

Jeez! TMI :eek:. I'm a meatcutter-we don't know words like "impugn". All I wanna' know is-does it work real gud?:D

There are much better tools for cutting paper thin slices of meat.

For trimming a little wood off the side of a dado, slot or rabbet, the #98/99 combo works well for me.

jim