Which LN to buy?

[Tom Winship]

I currently have Stanley Nos. 4, 5, and 5 1/4. I have decided to buy a LN in the next couple of months. My choices are a 4 1/2 or the low angle jack. Which would you buy?

[Sean Hughto]

I'd go off the board for a 7, Jack.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/Barry002.jpg

[Jeff Heath]

The low angle jack is a very versatile tool for the shop. With a standard iron with a bevel at 25°, you can plane end grain as smooth as butter, and you can also edge plane most docile species of North American hardwood. With a second iron, and a secondary bevel of 40° (or thereabouts) you can turn the l.a. jack into a super smoother for crotchwood, curly wood, and much more difficult-to-plane exotic hardwoods without tearout. It is truly a great tool to have, with an extra iron, of course.

The adjustable mouth also allows you to go from taking fine shavings to being much more agressive without having to move a frog.

Jeff

[Jim Koepke]

I hope to be buying an LN low angle jack (#62) soon. I do already own a Stanley/Bailey #4-1/2 and use it a lot.

My #4-1/2 is mostly used for smoothing faces of boards and large areas.

The main reason for my considering the #62 is to use on my shooting board. Its other benefits are secondary, though sure to come in handy, in my purchasing decision. My current shooting board planes are a #65-1/2 and a #5-1/2. Both of those are a little awkward for more than a few minutes of use. I like the mass of the #5-1/2, but there is no comfortable way to grip it in use. The #65-1/2 is more comfortable, but does not have much mass.

Depending on your needs/situation, you already have a smoother that can fill in for the #4-1/2 so the #62 may bring more "new tricks" into play than a #4-1/2 will at this time.

jim

[Don C Peterson]

I have the LA Jack and like it a lot. I also have a #4. I would hate to go without either one, but if forced to choose, I'd probably keep the #4 over the LA Jack. I use both on a regular basis, and I'll freely admit that the LA Jack is more versatile. But when the job calls for a smoother, I nearly always grab the #4 and it never disappoints, it looks right, and it feels right...

The only time I use the LA Jack for smoothing is with really difficult grain, I have a 90 degree blade that I modified to be a very high angle smoother. The rest of the time the LA Jack primarily does duty on the shooting board.

[Mick David]

+1 low angle jack.

[Michael Gibbons]

4 1/2 but you may consider a different angle frog than 45*.

[Matt Radtke]

The main reason for my considering the #62 is to use on my shooting board. Its other benefits are secondary, though sure to come in handy, in my purchasing decision. My current shooting board planes are a #65-1/2 and a #5-1/2. Both of those are a little awkward for more than a few minutes of use. I like the mass of the #5-1/2, but there is no comfortable way to grip it in use. The #65-1/2 is more comfortable, but does not have much mass.


What? You're not going to wait for the LN 51 to come out?

[Tom Winship]

I think more people are leaning toward the LA Jack. One of the reasons for considering it is when making drawers with hand cut dovetails, the LA jack will handle the end grain much better as many of you have mentioned. I used both at the recent LN Hand Tool Event in Austin and both did extremely well. I didn't carry a piece of mesquite to see how it would handle it.
Tom

[Richard Magbanua]

I like the LA jack option. I use mine for shooting with a 25 deg blade (very happy with this) and for pre-smoothing and edge jointing with the 35 deg. blade. I really prefer my #4 and #3 Stanley for smoothing as I find the LA jack a bit long for smoothing. However, having the LA jack enables me to use my other 2 #5 Stanleys as a fore/scrub plane and a jack set for a heavier cut.
The catch with using the LA-jack as a shooting plane is that you'll have a craving for a nice LN X-cut carcass to go with it!

[Rick Erickson]

Tom, based on what you already have I would have to say the LA Jack. The 4 1/2 is a great one and I use mine all the time but seems you already have that area covered. Sharp blades are what cut end grain regardless of the angle (within reason) so I wouldn't buy it just for that. I use my 5 1/2 as my primary plane for DT boxes / drawers. No issue with end grain.

[Graham Hughes (CA)]

Of your choices I'd suggest the LA jack, but I really would suggest a jointer, perhaps an old Stanley. My jointer is easily my most used plane.

[David Gendron]

+1 on the jointer, it look like it's what you are missing in your collection!

[lowell holmes]

I have the 4 1/2 and a LV low angle jack. I use the low angle jack more ofter. Having said that, I wouldn't part with either plane.

[David Keller NC]

Tom - I have the L-N 4-1/2 with a 50 degree frog, the LN LA jack, the LN LA smoother, as well as roughly 25 other L-N offerings, both bench and specialty planes.

The L-N low angle jack plane is a fine tool and definitely their most popular one, but it may help your decision to know why it's the most popular. Generally, that's its inexpensive price versus the bevel down planes.

Many folks, particularly power tool converts, have an inappropriate metal calculation about what a plane from a good manufacturer should cost. I say inappropriate because these mental calculations are usually based on comparisons to either the mass-manufactured hand-held power tools like sanders and routers, and/or comparisons with what an antique stanley costs.

Because of this, the reactions I see frequently on internet forums is "I can't afford a Lie Nielsen - $350 for a plane is ridiculous!". Generally speaking, most folks on 'net woodworking forums can certainly afford $350, they just don't want to afford it because they perceive that the $400 router or the thousands of dollars in power tools that they have in their shop have motors, after all, and a handplane should be way less than that because it's just a chunk of metal.

Obviously, you've already gone past these ideas, so the reason I'm explaining all of this is so that you realize that there's a bias inherent in the bevel-up/bevel-down debate that has to do with cost, not versatility or usefullness in the shop. Often, the ability to change blades and achieve a different planing angle with the same plane is cited as an advantage of a bevel-up plane.

However, this isn't actually true. You can very, very easily modify a bevel-down blade to give you the same planing angles as a bevel-up plane by simply putting a mico back-bevel on the blade. And I can tell you that it's a whole lot easier to change out the blade in a bevel-down plane than it is in L-N's bevel-up designs. In particular, getting the correct distance and orientation of the frog catch in the blade assembly of a L-N bevel-up plane isn't very easy - it takes trial and error. In contrast, the adjustment of the chip-breaker/blade assembly in a bevel-down plane has a certain, one-step outcome.

From the standpoint of use in the shop, the L-N LA jack is a wonderful plane for use on a shooting board, but planing end grain is the only and slight advantage that it has over a bevel-down plane. That's because you can get a 37 degree planing angle out of it, which is very slightly better than the 45 degree angle that you get out of their #9 miter plane.

But this is the only real advantage of a bevel-up plane with respect to bevel-down planes, and the BU planes do have some disadvantages not often noted. In particular, BU planes don't make good roughing planes, which is the intended purpose of the jack-plane length. The reason for this is somewhat complicated, but it has to do with the additional curvature necessary on a bevel-up blade and the lack of clearance behind the cutting edge on a BU plane. Moreover, it's been my experience that my BU planes just don't perform very well in really hard woods unless an incredibly thin shaving is taken - they tend to chatter and stall.

So - my conclusion is that a L-N or LV BU jack plane makes a superb panel plane. A panel plane is primarily a long smoother, and it's a better choice when finish-planing a panel for a furniture-scale frame and panel door than a shorter smoother. They also make excellent shooting board planes, though they're not as nice to use as the L-N #9 miter because their sidewalls aren't as tall and they're slightly less stable.

So, after all that, I would suggest that you get a jointer, because you really need it if you process wood by hand, and it's still a necessary tool if you primarily rough out wood with powered planers and jointers, because you will still need to remove machining marks from the edges of a board, and they're critically important in flattening your bench from time to time.

If you don't want a jointer, then I would suggest that a L-N 4-1/2 with a 50 degree frog is a far better choice for you than a LA jack because it makes a better smoothing plane because of its shorter length, and you already have a Stanely #5, which is an excellent jack/roughing plane. If you want to have the versatility of several planing angles in one plane, then get an extra blade for the #4-1/2 and put a back-bevel on it - I would suggest a 10 degree back-bevel to yield a 60 degree planing angle.

If you do choose a BU jack and buy more than one blade, do yourself a tremendous favor and buy one additional frog catch assembly for each additional blade - it will save you a whole lot of frustration.

[Joel Goodman]

David - would you illuminate this "frog catch assembly" concern with the LN low angle jack? I understand that the low angle smoother from LN has a complicated blade assembly -- I don't have one so I can't comment -- but I have the LN #62 and don't find it hard to switch blades. Pop in the iron, set the projection and square and close up the mouth. I have two blades, one at 25 and one at 37 degrees which cover a lot of situations. I have several other planes but often find the low angle jack to be preferable. I just got the toothed iron but haven't used it yet. If I could have only 2 planes I'd keep the #62 and my sweetheart #7 jointer.

[David Keller NC]

Joel - Argh, I'm a moron. I actually loaned my LA jack out about a week ago, and didn't have it in front of me. You're quite right that the blade mechanisms are different - I was thinking about my LA smoother, for which I have a couple of different blades and purchased an extra frog catch because I got irritated with the complexities of switching the part from one blade to another.

However - that points out another difference between the LA BU planes and the BDs of equivalent length. I think L-N came up with the complex blade advancement/retraction mechanism on the LA smoother to solve a problem that BD planes have in general. In most designs, it isn't possible to advance the blade on the planing stroke - this is particularly true with BU planes that have a Norris mechanism. The L-N smoother blade mount partially solves this problem by placing the blade advance knob on the top of the blade.

Not everyone uses this technique, though, so it might not apply. I couldn't work without it - it makes very precise adjustment of the shaving thickness very easy (thanks to Rob Cosman for that technique - I'm sure he didn't invent it, but it's a remarkably cogent observation).

[Matt Stiegler]

I voted BU jack for its shooting versatility, but agree with Sean, David, etc. that without a doubt I'd get a jointer over either of your options if you don't have one already. I also agree that if you opt for the 4 1/2 a higher angle frog makes sense.

[Jim Koepke]

However - that points out another difference between the LA BU planes and the BDs of equivalent length. I think L-N came up with the complex blade advancement/retraction mechanism on the LA smoother to solve a problem that BD planes have in general. In most designs, it isn't possible to advance the blade on the planing stroke - this is particularly true with BU planes that have a Norris mechanism. The L-N smoother blade mount partially solves this problem by placing the blade advance knob on the top of the blade.

Not everyone uses this technique, though, so it might not apply. I couldn't work without it - it makes very precise adjustment of the shaving thickness very easy (thanks to Rob Cosman for that technique - I'm sure he didn't invent it, but it's a remarkably cogent observation).

I am confused, I thought the LN BD Smoother was a copy of the Stanley #164.

Second confusion, why can't a blade be adjusted on the planing stroke?

I have done it with all my planes, including block planes that have an adjuster that is some what like a Norris adjuster.

Some planes do have a problem with the Stanley #45 and other planes with this type of adjustment and blade locking set up in that when the blade is set with the lock loose, the adjustment changes when the lock is tightened.

jim

[Tony Zaffuto]

low angle jack

[David Keller NC]

I am confused, I thought the LN BD Smoother was a copy of the Stanley #164.

Second confusion, why can't a blade be adjusted on the planing stroke?

I have done it with all my planes, including block planes that have an adjuster that is some what like a Norris adjuster.

Some planes do have a problem with the Stanley #45 and other planes with this type of adjustment and blade locking set up in that when the blade is set with the lock loose, the adjustment changes when the lock is tightened.

jim

Well, as with anything else, it's certainly possible that someone's come up with a way to do something that I find impossible. For me, it is necessary to have the adjuster above the blade on a BU plane and within an index finger's reach of the adjustment knob to advance the blade on the planing stroke. The Stanley/Bailey mechanism on a BD plane is pretty much perfectly placed for this type of adjustment.

The comment about the Norris adjuster, though, isn't really about the convenience of the position of the adjuster knob, but has to do with the mechanics of the mechanism. On any of these that I've seen, the lever cap bears down on the blade, and the mechanism is below the blade. Adjusting the blade's advance/retract mechanism while the lever cap is tight puts enormous force on the adjustment rod's threads, and can "bell-mouth" them. In fact, this is the most common fault on antique Norris adjustable planes - the threads on the adjustment rod are stripped or deformed from a user not understanding the the lever cap must be loose to adjust the blade, then re-tightened when the blade's at the right depth - certainly not a one-handed operation.

I can't comment on how close a copy the L-N LA jack is to the Stanley #164 (I've never had a 164 - they're scarce at the MWTCA events I go to).

[Jim Koepke]

David,

Thanks for the explanations. My only knowledge about the #164 is from Blood & Gore and John Walter's book. B & G does indicate there is a "cap iron" that has nothing to do with breaking chips. He says it is like the one on the #9. At the description for the #9 is a picture of the little piece of metal that could be the problem you mentioned. Maybe a scribe mark on the blade to facilitate alignment might be helpful.

As for adjusting while planing, my techniques may look awkward to others. Due to injuries and arthritis, my left hand has to get involved with blade adjustments on some bench planes when adjusting on the fly. The larger adjuster nut helps, but those do not work on the type 6 and earlier planes.

With block planes, the lever is loosened and the knob is turned while pushing the plane along the wood. Two hands are still required. This to me is one of the great advantages of the knuckle joint cap. It is the easiest to manipulate, the lever on other lever caps is not real difficult to relax the hold a bit while adjusting then flip it into place and start making shavings.

jim

[David Keller NC]

Interesting technique with the block plane. I'm not sure I could make that work for me, as I've the L-N copies and the adjusting knob is well underneath the blade. I'm also curious how you keep the lateral alignment when adjusting the plane in this way - I'd think the force of pushing it forward would skew the blade to one side or the other.

[Jim Koepke]

Interesting technique with the block plane. I'm not sure I could make that work for me, as I've the L-N copies and the adjusting knob is well underneath the blade. I'm also curious how you keep the lateral alignment when adjusting the plane in this way - I'd think the force of pushing it forward would skew the blade to one side or the other.

The wheel lock lever cap is the most difficult to adjust this way and blade skewing is a problem. With the others, the left hand is holding the blade and lever cap while the right hand is doing the adjusting. Both hands contribute to the forward motion, which is very slow.

To explain more, I would have to go out to the shop and take notes. After doing it so long, it just feels natural. To the observer, it is likely worth a comedy spot on YouTube.

jim