Which to buy ? The LN No.3 or the Low angle Smoother....

[John A. Callaway]

I have been given the go ahead by SWMBO to purchase a new tool ... So in the next few days I have a choice to make... I have a very fine Stanley No. 8 , a LN No. 5&1/2 , the veritas DX60 , the Veritas small plow, a LN standard angle block plane, and ... to be fair a Stanley No. 3 that just never seems to find the sweet spot of functioning as a good small smoother.

It might be me, or it might be the lateral adjustment, or it might be the frog is not square to the base, or it might just refuse to bend to my will... I dont know. I love the thing though. It feels great in my hands, and it is a tool built some time in the forties, so it has its merits. It was the first plane I purchased, and It was in rather great shape showing little wear, which according to the Schwarz indicates that it may have not been used very often because maybe it never worked right to begin with...

To further help you see see my frustration in my decision over the two choices, I also have the 55 degree HAF for my LN 5.5 ... Now this is supposed to be the ultimate fix ( along with a proper angle on the blade itself ) to taming difficult woods... Well... It met its match with the sapele I used to build the blanket chest over the projects sub forum... Not only was it very hard to push ( even with wax on the sole and denatured alcohol on the grain ) it still managed to tear out with the mouth set tight and the shaving super thin..... Again... my lack of experience could have played a part... but it also gave me a fit over birds eye maple.... but I was at least expecting that based on what I have read... On tiger maple though, it shaved it like it was soft pine... so I know it can do the job the set up was designed to do with the HAF installed....

So why do I want to try bevel up ? well... I think it would be good to explore the other side of the handplane capability... most folks seem to have at least a low angle smoother or a low angle jack in their arsenal , and I have read numerous blogs, books, and articles stating that if you encounter a tough wood , the low angle smoother is the weapon of choice.... so long as you hone out the blade to the proper angle of attack...

My 5.5 with the standard frog makes most of planing chores seem rather effortless, from smoothing big panels to shooting, and for edge jointing a part ... If i dont want to grab the No.8 .... I think another regular blade to camber as a fore plane blade and a toothed blade will take this plane to a true multi function tool....

I seem to be drawn to some of the exotics though, I love, love , love purpleheart, blood wood and rose wood.... and I like using these woods as drawer fronts, so I am thinking a Low angle smoother will get its fair share of use on these applications....as well as trimming end grain on DTs which the DX60 can do just as well....

I also love to just hold my little three, and for every drawer I build with one piece of exotic wood, there are three parts that are a domestic, straight grained species.... so the No.3 would help out there just as much.... and then there is the argument that a No. 3 will go places that a No.5.5 simply will not...

So at this point I am not sure which way to go.... at some point I am sure I will have them both.... but after this purchase the next tools in the purchase que are a shoulder plane and a router plane... then on to other lower priority tools ... things that will help separate me farther from sandpaper and power cords...

What are your thoughts ? or experience.... If you have a No.3 ( or a No.4 ) and a Low angle smoother.... which do you reach for more often ?

[Chris Fournier]

I have both the LN 3 and 4; lovely. If you're a regular ol' woodworker like me and you don't do smaller scale work all of the time I'd go with the 4 and get the 3 down the road or use the one you have already. The other way to skin the cat is to get the 4 1/2 and order a different pitch frog than the one that you have in the 5 1/2. They are interchangable and there may be synergies down this path.

[Jim Koepke]

Here is another vote for the #4-1/2.

The #3 you have may just need a bit of tuning up to bring it to a higher level of function.

My #3 is one of my go to planes for many things.

However, when smoothing a panel or wide surface the #4-1/2 gets the call. A #4-1/2 is a good complement to the #8 & #5-1/2.

jtk

[michael osadchuk]

What are your thoughts ? or experience.... If you have a No.3 ( or a No.4 ) and a Low angle smoother.... which do you reach for more often ?

I have a few No. 4 and a No. 3 run of the mill bevel down planes set up for coarse work and flattening.

I also have a LN bronze No. 4 and a LV low angle smoother (the one with the straight sides and 2" blade) both set up as smoothers. I rarely work with difficult grained wood but have have put together a few cutting boards that included strips of tropical woods and found that the LV marginally outperformed the LN as final smoothers. Part of this evaluation may be because the low angle smoother (as a bevel up configuration) has a lower center of gravity and 'felt' closer to the wood. (But the bronze No. 4 is way prettier - smiley)

good luck

michael

[David Keller NC]

John - You will get differing opinions on this, but those opinions will be incorrect - there is no appreciable performance difference between a low-angle, bevel-up plane and a traditional bailey-style plane that have the same effective cutting angle. This is not to say that you may not have a strong preference for one over the other, as the difference in center of gravity, blade adjustment mechanism, different sharpening geometry and look/feel between the two designs is fairly substantial.

Given that, I can offer a couple of tips that may help you decide (some of these may be obvious, but I'll state them anyway). The amount of effort required to push a plane across the surface of a piece of wood depends on lots of factors (hardness of wood, humidity in the shop, effective cutting angle, lubrication of the sole, etc...), but one of the keys is blade width. For that reason alone, I prefer to use a smallish infill plane with a high effective cutting angle on hard, figured woods. Yes, it takes more strokes to complete the job, but each stroke takes considerably less force than my HAF 4-1/2.

Chris Schwarz has said something similar in The Anarchist's Tool Chest - he prefers the smaller #3 smoother to the larger planes because of this very reason.

[Derek Cohen]

I hope I don't step on some toes here ...

Issue: John you have a LN #5 1/2 with a 55 degree frog, and it does not perform as well as you would like on woods with interlocked grain. You wonder whether the #3 would perform better and others are suggesting a 4 1/2. Spot the mistake.

I have a bronze LN #4 1/2 with a 55 degree frog. It is an excellent plane, but it does not perform as well as a BU Marcou with a 55 degree cutting angle. So much for planes being equal when their cutting angles are the same. And if that comparison does not seem fair, then I can point to a BU infill plane I built that, when used with a 60 degree cutting angle, outclasses just about anything out there.

On interlocked grain, cutting angle is very important. The higher the cutting angle, the higher the chances of success.

55 degrees is not that high. It is not high enough. I will use cutting angles on BU planes that are between 60 and 65 degrees. I have BD planes at 60 degrees.

By-and-large I prefer smaller, narrower smoothers to large, wide smoothers. Add a lick of wax to the Marcou or the 4 1/2 and it will wizz across the wood. So don't get too fussed about size for mobility. Nevertheless, I prefer a smaller plane for feedback or "feel". I would be looking around the 2" width as being optimal.

A small BU smoother, such as the Veritas LA Smoother, is a joy to use. The extra mass of the larger sibling BUS helps it become a better performer, but it also loses a little "feel" in the process. Better planing versus more feel .... your call.

In the BD world, don't ignore the HNT Gordon smoother (60 degree bed). This has a 2" wide blade. Needs a hammer to adjust it, but is quick to master. I also have a Brese small smoother kit I built with a 60 degree bed, but this is a small plane and was a custom kit.

At the higher cutting angles, your choices are not big. BU planes offer the easiest route in this direction, which is why they feature in these recommendations.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Matthew Hills]

Think the OP has a #5 1/2, so blade wouldn't be interchangeable with a #4 1/2.

As others have said, the wide blade compounds with the high angle and difficult wood to make it hard to push the plane.

Oh, the mouth adjustment on the LA smoother is one nice feature of this style of plane, but sounded like you've already got that dialed in on your 5 1/2.

It sounds like your current limitation is the tearout, rather than the difficulty in moving the plane. Have you tried honing a back-bevel on your smoother -- this should give you a similar angle to what you'd get from a bevel-up plane with a steep bevel honed. (this may be a case where a spare iron would be helpful, as switching between a back-bevel and a none is a bit of work)

Matt

[John A. Callaway]

All of you ... Thanks for the response... I love this cave by the creek for conversation just like this....

I will say this... In the future of my buying tools... I think the 4 & 1/2 is and always will be out. I compared it to the No. 4 up at highland one time and I just didnt see the hype... Yes, I am quite fond of the size of the little three... and I like the regular old number four too.... The choice here is one or the other ... The LN No. 3 or the LN low angle smoother.... I love the veritas line, and now that I have two of their most well thought out tools, I can state what all of us already know.... They are GREAT TOOLS !!! But I fell into the LN bandwagon when it comes to the bench planes... I know the LAS is technically a block plane... but its a bench plane.

I understand the No.3 isnt a interlocked grain solution, and I also understand that a LAS is not the end all smoother.... my 5 1/2 has a 5 degree back bevel on it and the micro bevel on the front of the blade is just two degrees off of the stock , factory bevel. I havent altered the blade that much because ... well... right now its the only blade I have for it...

Cosman recommends using the standard frog with a whopping 25 degree back bevel .... In one of his Wood river plane promo videos.... Trying that will certainly have to wait for a second blade...

Matt you are correct, its not an issue of getting the plane to move, If you set it for a fine enough shaving it will move, but with the HAF , a fine shaving requires a lot of freight train inertia to get it cutting and moving.... And even in some woods , it still wants to be a tough job.....and in some grain ... create tear out...

Dereck, I was hoping you would chime in.... And thats just the sort of real world thing I wanted to hear.... You seem to imply you reach for a low angle before a bevel down.... in tough woods.... but what about for regular mild woods that need a smoothing ? Do you grab the bevel down or the bevel up for those tasks?

I understand that both tools can be set up for essentially the same cutting angle... and that in doing so both planes can essentially do the same tasks.... ( but here we are excluding the No. 3 until a HAF comes out or we start grinding serious back bevels mentioned above ) ... ( and LN is coming out with a HAF for the No. 3 )

As I mentioned, At some point here in the next span of near distant time I will have them both.... so I will have to live with this tool and not the other tool for at the most a year to a year and a half...but I would to know the tool purchase will give me the most bang for my buck for the time being....

I am leaning towards the 164 a.k.a. the low angle smoothing plane.... I may still take a chance and get a hock Iron for my stanley No.3 , but yeah.... I long a for a matching bronze set of the No. 3 & 4 to have at my disposal....

Having said that , and given the responses here... I think that I can try to fight off some tear out and still have a fine smoother in the same tool..... between it and the HAF for the 5 & 1/2 I will just need to get a spare blade for each and set up some regular and high angle bevels to have a choice of weapons when any grain finds its way to the bench...

Feel free to continue to comment , maybe I am overlooking a rather significant point... Does any body have the LN low angle smoother? I take it everyone assumed I was goin for the LV ....

[David Keller NC]

Feel free to continue to comment , maybe I am overlooking a rather significant point... Does any body have the LN low angle smoother? I take it everyone assumed I was goin for the LV ....

No, I kind of figured you were a L-N person from your current collection. I have the #164, and it's a fine tool that I use often. However, because physics requires that tear-out performance is equal given equal effective cutting angles, I don't use it as a high-angle smoother, I use it as a low-angle smoother for such tasks as planing end-grain cutting boards flat, trimming large carcass dovetails flush to the surface, and other end-grain cutting tasks.

I would mention that while the laws of physics do actually require that tear-out, planing effort, etc... are actually equivalent for equivalent cutting angles, that is under "all other things being equal" conditions. Specifically, things like depth and width of cut, weight of the plane, speed of the stroke (which can be influenced by the weight of the plane, among other things), blade chatter, etc... do have practical effects that make setting up empirical measurement tests well nigh impossible. But - most of those items are user-modifiable, and in practice one adjusts his/her use of the tool to (hopefully) obtain optimum performance for that specific tool and situation. But the point is that there is nothing inherent about bevel-up vs. bevel down geometry of the blade that makes a bevel-up plane perform better in figured woods or other tough planing situations given an equivalent cutting angle.

If you do decide on the #164, and given your current plane set, I would advise buying an additional blade that can be ground at a low cutting angle (perhaps the O-1 blade if they've come out with it). You will find that the 37 degree effective cutting angle is very helpful on a shooting board vs. you current 5-1/2 with HAF.

[Matt Radtke]

Think the OP has a #5 1/2, so blade wouldn't be interchangeable with a #4 1/2.

If it's a LN 5 1/2, yes it would be. Only the EARLY Stanley 5 1/2s were the odd-ball 2 1/4" wide blades.

[John A. Callaway]

But the point is that there is nothing inherent about bevel-up vs. bevel down geometry of the blade that makes a bevel-up plane perform better in figured woods or other tough planing situations given an equivalent cutting angle..


Boy, you sure know how to put a guy right back on the fence.... :) I know the geometry doesnt lie.... but it seems like a blade laying on a 12 degree bed versus a super almost straight up 55 degrees seems like you are asking for more chatter, and you are forcing the little straws or fibers of the wood to shear off instead of being shaven.... I do understand how the bevels and back bevels make them all equal.... but the eye just doesnt agree visually with the math when thinking off the two planes with blades positioned and turned completely different ways.... This is what is so hard to get past.

I can basically work my 5.5 at 50 degrees with the regular frog, and the 5 degree back bevel.... and the back bevel is very small, so I will probably grind it off to put it back stock, or get another blade and really increase the angle of the back bevel..... I can also install the 55 degree frog and with that same five degree back bevel plane wood at 60 degrees.... To put a twenty degree back bevel on that iron and set it atop that frog were are talking a 70 degree cutting angle.... so we are basically in scraper attack angles at that point.... Even at 60 degrees of attack we are pretty close to that mark.... so.... I am again thinking I should just get the No.3 , enjoy it for what it is.... a great tight spot and small work smoother.... and wait on the LAS..... but in doing that I lose what numerous people say is the real battle axe when it comes to fighting tearout in a panel of almost any wood....

hhhmmm..... Its amazing how wrapped up we get in this stuff.... I love it. The choices , the debates, the RESULTS of that next project thanks to these tools....

But I still dunno which way to go at this point...

[john brenton]

You gotta make a little crummy plane hammer and tap that no. 3 into submission.:D

The bench is almost finish. It's hideous...but I'm stoked.

[Robert Dean]

Here is another possibility--send the Bailey no. 3 to Steve Nisbett (has an Ebay store, called Flatwood Tools) to machine the sole flat and seat the frog properly. He'll do this for much less than a new Lie-Nielsen no. 3, and, in my experience gets them right. Then if you want to get LN performance from the plane, install one of the heavy IBC "Cosman" iron and chipbreaker sets in the restored plane. I've done this kind of makeover on a couple of old Baileys and their performance is very similar to my L-N equivalents at about half the total cost (purchase of old plane, machining fees, and new iron). That isn't to discourage you from purchasing a new L-N plane, but instead will let you make the old one into a fine tool, and allow you expand the variety of planes you have.

Bob

[Salem Ganzhorn]

I don't understand this strategy. The cosman blades in particular are too pricy. And in the end I am afraid you have paid almost as much and still have an inferior plane. As the LN will either be brass or ductile iron. And the adjustment mechanism is sure to be better. Also the LN will retain most of it's value.

I have struggled to get my stanley 7 to be as good as my LN 7. Way too much effort and unfortunately it has not yet paid off. Maybe I stink at fettling? But either way I will just save some more and buy LN or LV.

By the way I have an LN 2 and 4. I didn't set out to have a 2 but have found this pair useful. When the grain gets really squirelly I switch to a scraper anyway :).
Best wishes,
Salem

[Jim Koepke]

With the #4-1/2 out of the picture, my choice would be to go for the #164.

This is based on your already having the #3. My thought on that is with a little work, you could turn the one you have into a fine tool.

Your comments:

It might be me, or it might be the lateral adjustment, or it might be the frog is not square to the base, or it might just refuse to bend to my will... I dont know.

Without knowing the exact problem(s) it is difficult to describe a solution.

As far as buying another blade is concerned, I have been able to make just as fine a shaving with an original blade as with an aftermarket blade. A sharp blade is a sharp blade.

Aftermarket blades may be able to hold an edge longer, but I do not think they can magically come to a sharper point.

Too bad you live all the way across the country from me. I would be happy to help you set up your #3 to make some fine shavings.

As far as the difference between BU and BD planes I think one thing a lot of folks forget is the function of the chip breaker. My opinion is the BU plane can get more leverage on a shaving and in some cases cause tear out that would not occur with a carefully set up BD plane.

Amazing though how different folks have different experiences with the same tools and similar tasks.

jtk

[Tony Shea]

I have to agree with Derek hands down. I've gone with the BU planes for tough woods and have been extremely impressed. I can't afford the expensive infill versions but have LVBUJ and their smoother with a whole assortment of blades. I actually have grown to like the feel of them just as much as the BD bench planes. OK, maybe i still like a bench plane a tad better in feel but just don't think there is any better antidote to knarly grain as the BU arsenal LV and LN offers. I've kinda decided on LV's BU vs. LN's due to feel of their BUJ feeling so nice as a shooting plane. Therefore went with LV for the smoother. For bench planes i def prefer LN's hands down. If you plan on planing much figured wood I would not even make this a debate and start off with the BU plane. It works wonderful on straight grain wood as well as long as you keep a couple different blades with different microbevels. And stick with the 25* blades to put your different micros on. All this was going off Derek's suggestion on his posts and website and don't know how I got by without them. Hope what I wrote makes sense as I;m in a bit of a rush. Keep us posted on the decision./

[Josh Rudolph]

Boy, you sure know how to put a guy right back on the fence.... :) I know the geometry doesnt lie.... but it seems like a blade laying on a 12 degree bed versus a super almost straight up 55 degrees seems like you are asking for more chatter, and you are forcing the little straws or fibers of the wood to shear off instead of being shaven.... I do understand how the bevels and back bevels make them all equal.... but the eye just doesnt agree visually with the math when thinking off the two planes with blades positioned and turned completely different ways.... This is what is so hard to get past.

I can basically work my 5.5 at 50 degrees with the regular frog, and the 5 degree back bevel.... and the back bevel is very small, so I will probably grind it off to put it back stock, or get another blade and really increase the angle of the back bevel..... I can also install the 55 degree frog and with that same five degree back bevel plane wood at 60 degrees.... To put a twenty degree back bevel on that iron and set it atop that frog were are talking a 70 degree cutting angle.... so we are basically in scraper attack angles at that point.... Even at 60 degrees of attack we are pretty close to that mark.... so.... I am again thinking I should just get the No.3 , enjoy it for what it is.... a great tight spot and small work smoother.... and wait on the LAS..... but in doing that I lose what numerous people say is the real battle axe when it comes to fighting tearout in a panel of almost any wood....

hhhmmm..... Its amazing how wrapped up we get in this stuff.... I love it. The choices , the debates, the RESULTS of that next project thanks to these tools....

But I still dunno which way to go at this point...

I vote for the LAS and put a 10 degree back bevel on a spare blade and do a head to head comparison. I would be interested in your findings. I know the 10 degree back bevel I put on my #4 made a world of difference.

Either way you go, you can't go wrong.

[Derek Cohen]

Dereck, I was hoping you would chime in.... And thats just the sort of real world thing I wanted to hear.... You seem to imply you reach for a low angle before a bevel down.... in tough woods.... but what about for regular mild woods that need a smoothing ? Do you grab the bevel down or the bevel up for those tasks?

I understand that both tools can be set up for essentially the same cutting angle... and that in doing so both planes can essentially do the same tasks....

Hi John

The advice here is becoming theoretical. It is time that you went out and tried the different planes to experience matters for yourself. At the end of the day it is your pleasure that needs being met, not the opinion of others. For most of us here woodworking is a hobby, and we get as much fun from owning a plane of our dreams as in building the furniture, etc of our aspirations.

To answer your question, I use BU and BD smoothers pretty equally. However it must be clarified that most of the BD smoothers I turn to have beds of 55 degrees and up. I tend to work with reclaimed and recycled hardwoods that are mostly very hard and interlocked. Common angle smoothers are erratic in performance here. My jointers (2 BD woodies I built and a LV BUJ) are also high angle. The Jack planes are common angle BD.

The advantage of the BU design for smoothing is that one only needs to hone one micro secondary bevel to achieve the desired cutting angle. With a BD plane (that starts off with a common angle bed), adding a backbevel means that sharpening becoming a more complicated activity.

The advantage of the BD design is that sharpening (as long as a backbevel is not needed) is simpler for those that freehand the bevel. This does not apply for those that use honing guides, where they would have the same sharpening strategy for both BU and BD. My preference is to freehand, and so you must realise that BU planes create more frustration for me when sharpening. This is the reason I have given attention to this area. It says much about their performance that I use them.

The really big advantage of a BU plane is that it is very easy to get a high cutting angle. A single micro secondary bevel is quick to do. Along with this, the LV planes have a high tote angle, and this encourages one to push forward rather than downward. There is less effort in this strategy than pushing down, as with the typical Stanley tote. While there should be no difference in effort expended on BU and BD planes with the same cutting angle and blade width, in reality they do feel very difference (in my experience), with the low centre of effort of the BU plane responsible for it being less demanding to use.

Planes are more than simply cutting angle. One needs to look at differences in construction, materials used, blade support, comfort when held, adjustments to the blade, and the ease of removing and re-setting the blade. Keep these in mind when you compare planes.

I understand that you have set your sight on a LN #164 (rather than the LV LAS). Both are excellent planes and their performances are equal. The LN is a prettier plane. The LV is technologically more advanced and easier to use. At the end of the day get the one that pleases you most - you are the one that will live with it.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Brian Ashton]

And there you have it... The answer to the question is you need one of each.

But seriously the choice of which one you buy is less important than knowing how to use the one you buy. And you'll only learn that by making lots of shavings and reading the odd nugget of information from places like this. Look at the work produced hundreds of years ago, they had, relatively speaking, far inferior tools but produced work that is far superior than what most produce today... That should tell you that it had far more to do with knowing how to use the tools than having what is suppose to be the best there is for the job.

[John A. Callaway]

I hadnt given any thought to the handle shape of the LV and its effect on the force either forward or down ... thats quite interesting... And Derek .... your words mean alot when it comes to decision making. Every one here knows you have put your hands on almost every production run tool out there... I will certainly have to give the LV planes a very close look as far as bevel up goes.... I can get the LV and another extra blade for the cost of just the LN plane...

And to be clear, you are referencing the wider of the two.... the BUS , not the LAS .... ?

I will look into this and see what I think..... Dereck you have the small plow, is the handle on the BUS shaped similarly ? I can reference that , since I have it. ( lovely little tool by the way )

You mention that the LV is technologically superior .... What should I be looking for here to compare the American apple to the Canadian apple ? Because to me.... it just looks like , well, looks.... and a different set of knobs and totes....


Jim sent me a p.m. and I think I am gonna send my little No. 3 out to him and see what conclusions he can draw from its flaws ... and hopefully correct them... So I think I am going to give a low angle plane a go....

[Derek Cohen]

You mention that the LV is technologically superior .... What should I be looking for here to compare the American apple to the Canadian apple ? Because to me.... it just looks like , well, looks.... and a different set of knobs and totes....

I was comparing the LV LAS rather than the larger LV BUS since the LAS is the equivalent of the LN #164.

My experience with the LN planes is in part because I do own several, plus I have demonstrated for Lie-Nielsen Australia at a couple of woodshows. My experience with LV is because I own several of their planes as well, plus have been involved in pre-production testing for many.

The LN #164 is a re-make of the Stanley #164, but adds superior materials (unbreakable ductile iron rather than fragile grey iron) and the wonderful LN "look" (top-of-the-drawer fit-and-finish with a tasteful contrast of brass, steel and iron). The LV LAS is based on the #164 but add many refinements.


http://www.lie-nielsen.com/images/164WEB.jpg

1. The LN (above) has the Stanley tote, which many prefer to the LV tote - more later - and I do see it as more attractive than the LV. In part this is due to the familiarity of the Stanley design.

2. Removing and replacing the blade on the LN is complicated by the Stanley "dongle" attachment. This needs to be removed and replaced each time, making for more time in set up, and more fiddling with adjustments to return to the previous setting. There is no lateral adjustment built into the adjuster.

3. I am not enamoured with the mouth adjuster. This is the L-shaped bar at the front. The knob is loosened and the bar then swivelled. I often lose track of which direction it should move, and it tends to stiffen up with grit.

4. The LN has a thicker blade: 3/16" versus the 1/8" of the LV. Psychologically, I like the idea of the thicker blade, but in reality anything over 1/8" in a 2" wide is overkill (and driven by public demand).

Here is a comparison of the different tote angles (the LV tote is the MkI) ...

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/The%20Veritas%20Low%20Angle%20Smoothing%20Plane_ht ml_1f1f717.jpg

See my review of the LV LAS: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/The%20Veritas%20Low%20Angle%20Smoothing%20Plane.ht ml

The main technological additions on the LV include:

1. The blade adjuster is a Norris-type, which offers fine front-and-fore adjustment as well as lateral adjustment. My one complaint of this is that it is set in a loose shoe, and one must watch that it does not come away when lifting the blade (otherwise pop it back in). This was an area of improvement I suggested to LV when building the premium block planes, where they added a lock screw.

2. Removing and replacing the blade is as simple as removing the level cap.

3. There are side set screws which (a) hold the blade in a pre-determined position, which allows the blade to be returned to its exact setting, (b) these also offer fine lateral adjustment, and (c) some think that they are there just to provide extra lateral stability, so do not use them (I have heard Chris Schwarz describe them this way), but this is only one of three uses.

4. The mouth adjustment is as easy as twisting the knob and sliding the mouth plate forward or backward. It is totally intuitive and easy. I've never had a problem with grit.

5. The mouth adjustment is further refined with a depth stop. This allows one to set the mouth opening to a desired size, then slide the mouth open to clear shavings or get the mouth edge out of the way when replacing the blade, and then returning the mouth plate to its desired position without risking it hitting the blade bevel.

6. The tote may look uncomfortable, but it was designed for ergonomic reasons. I don't like the looks, and like others changed it out. On the larger LV planes I discovered that the upright angle was more comfortable, and returned the BUS and Jointer to the originals. The LAS and LAJ have custom totes, but these retain the vertical angle of the original.

7. The dimple on the side of the body is a finger hole. This acts as a grip when using the plane on the shooting board. When done with the correct technique (I demonstrated this in one of my articles), it negates the need for a hotdog grip.

Here is my tote-modified LAS ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/LV%20planes/LVLAS2.jpg

It is easy to point out all these differences on paper. It is not that simple in practice since emotion comes into play. You must choose the one that pleasures you the most. Keep in mind that actual planing performance is the same. It is ease of use that differs.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Keller NC]

To add a couple of notes to Derek's comments:

As Derek comments, the L-N plane does not have a lateral adjuster. Many folks (including me) feel that a lateral adjuster adds needless compication to the simple BU design, but regardless of which way you view lateral adjusters, you will likely want a small brass hammer to go with this L-N plane. The hammer is used to adjust the centering of the shavings with small taps to the side of the blade, and doing so is far more precise than any mechanical adjuster once you get used to it. This is partly the reason why many infill users prefer a plane without the Norris-style adjuster - it is more accurate and precise to set the iron's depth and centering with small hammer taps, and this can be done with the lever cap cinched down.

Attempting to adjust a Norris-style adjuster with the lever cap cinched down will very likely damage the adjuster. The only exception to this rule that I'm aware of in the infill world is Karl Holtey's design where the blade rests on 3 small pins that are very slightly proud of the infill bed. I cannot comment on Lee-Valley's plane when it comes to this, because I've always gone the way of caution and loosened the lever cap before adjusting the iron.

Bevel-up planes require a higher camber (curve) to the front of the iron than the equivalent width bevel down design to give equivalent shaving widths. On a smoother, one generally cambers the iron to avoid leaving tracks on the work. Because I'm a wood carver and thus regularly have to sharpen complex profiles on blades, I personally do not think this extra camber is any big deal to do, particularly on a smoother, but others disagree with me on this point. But if you find cambering a blade by 5 - 10 thousandths a chore, this may influence your BU/BD decision.

One final thought - Derek's quite right about the large center of gravity difference b/t a BU & BD design. It is this difference that, in my opinion, makes using a BU design easier to use on a shooting board. And this is in addition to the lower effective cutting angle, which helps greatly to reduce the force required to take an end-grain shaving.

[James Owen]

Think the OP has a #5 1/2, so blade wouldn't be interchangeable with a #4 1/2.

Actually they would: LN, Clifton, (modern) Stanley, etc., #4-1/2, #5-1/2, #6, and #7 planes all use 2-3/8" irons. Early Stanley #5-1/2s used a 2-1/4" iron, which can be something of a challenge to find, if you have one of them. LN designed and manufactured the 50˚ and 55˚ high angle frogs specifically with that interchangeability in mind; the same thing applies for the #4 and #5, both of which have 2" irons.

[James Owen]

Also take a look at the 63˚ wooden Chinese style planes that Japan Woodworker sells (Lee Valley also sells a version of these planes). Very nice planes, decent quality steel, and a reasonably tight mouth. I've found that they work wonders when the HAF LNs still tear out. Best of all -- for your wallet -- they are fairly inexpensive ($50 - $70 range).

Another option would be the HNT Gordon line, specifically designed to deal with the tough interlocking grain found in many Australian woods.

[David Keller NC]

Derek - That's a really nice job on your modified L-V. The idea of replacing the tote didn't occur to me before I sold my L-V LAS. That was my chief objection to the plane (in fact, all L-V bench planes). Maybe I'm just old and not "hip" enough, but those totes are just butt-ugly.

IMO, the two aspects of the totes as supplied from the factory that contribute 99% of the "ugly" factor are the lack of a "root flare" on the base, and the sharp angle at the back where the grip flares to the top. Your modification addresses both of those shortcomings quite well.

Sort of interesting that Leonard Bailey's influence is still at work 100 years after his death, and in unexpected ways (contributing to what looks "right" and "ugly"). That must drive Rob Lee crazy - it makes positioning oneself as an innovator in the WW handtool field quite difficult!

[John A. Callaway]

If this is the chief complaint with LV tools... the tote... Then why havent they addressed the issue and changed the design of the handle... ?

[John A. Callaway]

Okay.... I have read all the reviews... Watched the LN videos on their product, and poured over this thread twice today... We basically , as a group decided the next plane for me should be a low angle smoother over a new number three since I have one of those already ( needing a little work ) ...

Here is the bottom line that I keep hearing... The tools ( the LN versus the LV ) perform exactly the same. There is some trickiness to the set up of the LN blade assembly, and some folks dont like the norris style adjuster on the LV ... So its a toss up based on comfort , looks, and ease of use. I am huge fan of Lee Valley. I splurged on the DX60 block plane a while back over the LN block plane based on its looks and it technologically advanced design. I love it, I held the LN block up at highland the day I met Thomas Nielsen. I didnt like the feel of it in my hand. ( He actually gave me advice on which LV dovetail saw to buy !! ). I have the LV plow and love its ease of use. I think Lee Valley makes exceptional specialty planes. That is where they will get my business as far as planes go. I have lots of other LV stuff that I wouldnt trade.... Like the detail chisel set and the skew chisels ... worth every penny to me... I have plans on purchasing the LV router plane very soon. I like the look of the LN , but the LV can use and has more factory made blades available for it, so to me its function out of the box surpasses the LN .

Its a tough call when two great companies and tool makers offer a tool with only minor differences, and you feel like you are taking sides some times when you choose one over the other in a public forum like this...

So.... Having said that, I followed my gut and bought the LN 164 today... to be fair I have been wanting the Lee Valley MKII honing jig and camber roller.... so I got them too. I went with Craftsman Studio.... they had everything in a one stop shop , free shipping , and no tax over highland woodworking which is in the state of Georgia where I live. Saving 25 buck on sales tax and 20 bucks on shipping can be a real deciding factor.

I figure since the tools have to literally go from one side of the country to the other it will be friday, possibly next monday before they arrive.

I will dig up this thread then and post pictures.

In the mean time.... I know most of you neander guys dont visit any other forum on here... but I have a Arts and Crafts style Bridal chest build over in the projects sub forum I would like some of you to go look at... I didnt post it here because it wasnt a neander build through and through... The orbital sander got alot of use as well as the table saw.... I did learn the mortise and tenon joint though... and how to glue up veneer...

Thank you all for your input and knowledge. It helped me out alot and taught me quite a bit.

[John A. Callaway]

So the new plane arrived yesterday. It actaully beat a Rockler order from minnesota that I ordered friday morning....

As always, the fell, fit, and finish of LN tools is top notch. The MKII jig seems very simple to use....although I wonder when it gets put to use if I will encounter any of the problems some others have mentioned.

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j87/trainman0978/DSCN3097.jpg

I brought everything into the house today to set up for a serious sharpening session. This blanket chest is basically finished, so like every other project, I take a little time to go through and hone all my edge tools so they are ready for the next project.

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j87/trainman0978/DSCN3098.jpg

[Joel Goodman]

I don't have the LN 164 but I do have the LN 62 which IMHO is a great plane. I do remember LN recommending making a very simple jig -- just a board with a stop so you can reset the yoke or whatever it's called to the same position on the iron each time. Here's the link http://www.lie-nielsen.com/pdf/AngleSettingJig.pdf . It's part of their jig for angle setting for a simple generic honing guide -- you will not need that function as the LV guide has it's own gizmo for that (as well as the dial a microbevel) but the yoke setting part looks useful for the 164. I see you have the camber roller for the LV jig -- I just leave that on pretty much all the time -- seems to work fine for cambered and non cambered sharpening.