Which Plane Sould I Buy?

[Harvey Pascoe]

I'm putting my LV LA jack up for sale, its just too big for my work and I need to replace it with something smaller. Another thing, I do not like the wide blade, just too hard to push in very hard wood. Since I'm no plane expert, I'm unsure about what I need. I would like to have one plane that fills these needs, although this may be wishful thinking.

I work small, narrow stock, rarely over 18"

I work mostly tropical hardwoods and lots of interlocking grain.

Smoothing machine planed wood, occasional leveling of stock before running thru planer.

I love the the precision of the LV blade adjuster and the side set screws.

I prefer adjustable throat, but is it necessary?

I'm agnostic standard vs. low angle, bevel up.

Being completely unfamiliar withe Lie Nielson planes, I've nothing else to compare to, nowhere to go to see first hand. The names of the planes eludes me as to their main purpose, jack, bench, smoother, etc. and the product descriptions aren't very helpful either.

[James Owen]

Depending on your hand size....take a look at the Lie-Nielsen #3 or #4 with a 50˚ or a 55˚ frog. The high angle frog should work fine with the tropicals, and the mouth can be adjusted from extremely open to very, very tight. Another possibility is the LN LA BU smoothing plane; it will do essentially the same thing your LV BU jack plane does, only in a smaller package (it also has an adjustable mouth).

[Chris Griggs]

It's not a plane that's typically recommended but a 5 1/4 might be a good choice here. LVs 5 1/4 is 2" wide which is beneficial in some cases, but you might like a classic 1 3/4" bladed 5 1/4 if you want something easy to push. LN makes one (that I've never used) that you can put a 50 or 55 degree frog on and I've used vintage ones that are really nice. 5 1/4s are very nimble - despite their longer footprint the narrowness makes them great for final smoothing. Also, their extra length over a 3 or 4 means they'll do a slightly better job of getting/keeping things flat . To me in use a 5 1/4 feels smaller than it is - more like a no 3 than a no 4, even though it's longer than both.

Not sure if its what your looking for, but something to consider - of course a plane ole no 5 might also do the trick for you and also keep in mind that the LN LA jack is smaller and lighter than the LV

[Chris Griggs]

The names of the planes eludes me as to their main purpose, jack, bench, smoother, etc. and the product descriptions aren't very helpful either.

Bench plane = a plane designed to be used at a workbench.

Jack = reference to either "jack of all trades" or jack as in "common". In Stanley sizes a no 5 - it's in the middle of the pack in terms of length. Typically used with a heavily cambered/curved iron for heavy stock removal. Can also be set up for smoothing or as a small jointer.

smoother = a plane used to put the final surface on a piece of wood - usually setup to take a very thin shaving. Most common is no. 3 or 4 in Stanley. The smaller size helps it get around any remaining hills and valleys and create a nice looking surface.

jointer/trying plane = the longest of the planes - a no 7 or 8 in Stanley terms (I'd also throw a 6 in this group but some will disagree with this). Used to get things FLAT. Typically, takes a medium shaving and often is used after initial rough flattening is done with a jack or fore plane. Historically speaking a trying plane is used to get things flat and square and a true jointer is reserved for jointing edges, but today most folks use the words "try" and "jointer" interchangibly.

Edit: Also keep in mind that many planes can be set up different ways. Technically you can set a large plane up to take a very fine shaving and you can set a smoother up to take a very coarse shaving. Scale of work and needs can play a big role in what any given size plane ends up being used for

[Kent A Bathurst]

I'd point you to looking at the LN #3. 9" long, 1-3/4" blade. The size is great for the smaller stuff like you work with. And - they now have available 50* and 55* frogs, for your nasty grain.

I use my #3 a lot. Good size for many tasks.

[Richard Line]

Take a look at the LV low angle smoother, not the bevel up smoother. It has all the LV features you like, its smaller, lighter than the jack. It come standard with a 25 deg. blade, but also get the 38 and 50 deg. optional blades. At 10 in. long it should be long enough to joint stock that is 18 in. long, and it can be used with a shooting board (unlike the bevel up smoother). The optional blades will allow you to tackle nasty grain and the standard blade will work on end grain.

Of course I'm biased. I have one and it has been working great for me, even with a no. 5 & 7 available.

[Jim Belair]

Take a look at the LV low angle smoother

I agree with Richard for all the reasons he's stated. (and I don't have one so I'm not biased like he is)

Jim B

[Don Dorn]

It's not a plane that's typically recommended but a 5 1/4 might be a good choice here.

I was thinking the same thing when reading your post. For the size lumber the OP is speaking of, I think it's the perfect choice. I've had one only for a short time, but I"m wondering how I got along without it for so long. Since it's shorter than a regular jack, I find it useful for a smoother and, belive it or not, a jointer on the small stuff. I love my #3 and will never get rid of it, but it doesn't see near as much use now that I have this.

[Harvey Pascoe]

Having already bought two block planes this week, the LN line is a little rich right now.

Something caught my eye I hadn't noticed before was the LV BU smoother, 9" long with 1-3/4 blade. Looks like this might fit the bill as I've got a Stanley that is well tuned and works well for rough work. Near as I can tell the LV low angle smoother is a bevel up plane according to catalogue. It is only 1" longer and weights 2 oz less than the BU smoother with the main difference being 1/4" blade width and 12 degree less angle with standard blade, as these are both LABU planes. Other than that they seem to be the same plane except the LA plane is $25 less.

Even so, the narrower blade gets my vote. Thanks for the input, I think its got me on the right track.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

It come standard with a 25 deg. blade, but also get the 38 and 50 deg. optional blades.

I prefer to always use the 25 degree blades and just sharpen a small secondary bevel on them. Different strokes for different folks, though, and depends on how you like to sharpen. No right or wrong, just think about how you like to sharpen and or grind before you order.

[Richard Line]

I prefer to always use the 25 degree blades and just sharpen a small secondary bevel on them. Different strokes for different folks, though, and depends on how you like to sharpen. No right or wrong, just think about how you like to sharpen and or grind before you order.

I had had the same impression you had, that the higher angle blades had the base bevel at the higher angle. However, when I got my 38 & 50 deg. blades, the primary bevel appeared to be 25 deg, with the secondary bevel at 38 or 50 deg. Sharpening the higher angle blades is just touching up the secondary bevel.

[Terry Beadle]

I wouldn't sell that LV LA Jack just yet. It's 15 inches long and if your material is mostly 18 inches or less, it's an ideal length for working that stock. It probably seems heavy more than too long....my guess. The interlocking grain is probably giving you the most cause for issues. The suggestions of getting another blade and setting it up for final strokes is a good one IMO. I would probably set the new blade with the primary bevel to 25 and a micro bevel at 35. Then I would put a 15 degree back bevel. I would make certain that the blade edge was sharpened with a pronounced radius. It's a jack plane. It needs a good crown to the top bevel edge. The back bevel would be one alternative. I believe David Charlesworth set up a LN LA Jack to work with tricky grained hardwoods with a primary bevel of 35 and a micro bevel at an additional 15 degrees. I think he thought a back bevel on a low angle jack would not be as effective as a back bevel on a normally 45 degree frog..but that's beside the point.

If you are still stymied with the weight of the LV LA Jack, buy a Hock blade and make your self a krenov 8 inch smoother. That will give you lite weight and a great edge with a shorter sole to manage the smaller stock. Adapt a Steve Knight mouth piece and you will be good to go. IMO the LV LA Jack with the ajustable mouth is the best plane to set up the stock your are working and the smaller krenov plane will finish the job to specification needs.

If you don't want to go that route, then a #3 Clifton would be a good alternative and cost less than the LN IMO.

[Norb Schmidt]

I would not recommend back beveling a Bevel Up Low Angle plane. Firstly, the bed itself is only 12.5 degrees, and secondly, all you're doing is eliminating the clearance. If you want a scraper - you can get by with a $10 card scraper. Back Beveling (in my opinion only), should only be used on bevel down planes.

I find the LA Jack a good size for almost anything. It may be the interlocking grain that will cause additional difficulty in getting any plane through the wood. Or, the more common causes include sharpness of the blade, depth of cut (shaving), or a rough sole of the plane (to which most use wax, some use Tallow - yuk).

A small coffin smoother with a 50 or 55 degree pitch might be a nice option. They are extremely light and they have the high angle that will be beneficial in taming tearout in interlocked grain timbers. Old Street has a nice selection as do others.

[Curt Putnam]

There is also the new LV bevel up #3. Would be a really great addition to the LV LAJ - which I would keep

[William Hovis]

I, too, do a lot of work on small stock - tropical hardwoods as well as softwoods - and have been using a LN #2 for several years. I think it's perfect for this application.

[Harvey Pascoe]

Hah! My LC jack sold within 30 minutes of my posting the ad. Before I shipped it, I honed the blade and took a few passes on a piece of cocobolo. Ugh, I just don't like this thing, blade is way too wide for me to use with ease. So off it went and I placed the order for the LV LABU smoother with extra blades. With the short stock I use, flattening a warped piece takes little effort with a 1-3/4 blade but becomes a struggle with 2-3/8 blade, not to mention its harder holding small stock than large.

I still have a lot to learn about planes and a lot of that will have to be via experience since so much personal preference is involved. But to me a plane is a tool, not something to obsess about, such as making sure I get exactly the right one, or ending up with twenty of them. No, I decided five is the limit but I already have six! Will having multiple angle blades make it more versatile? I didn't think it did for the jack, but I"m hoping this one will be different. Time will tell.

[Chris Fournier]

High pitch and no larger than a #4. The #3 is smaller and easier to push through the exotics that you're using and is plenty large for the small work that you're doing. Either will work well for you.

[Joel Goodman]

Not to hijack but 50 or 55 for the LN #3? Is the 55 a lot harder to push? Is a 5 1/4 an advantage with the added weigh w the 55 H< frog? Thanks!!

[Mark Baldwin III]

The Norris type adjusters that LV uses are the same concept as a micrometer, just no graduations. I'm not sure about the thread pitch that they use. Many Norris adjusters have very fine effective pitch, like around 70 tpi. Micrometers use a 40 tpi thread. The basics are there, one would just have to add graduations to it.

[Sam Takeuchi]

The lack of technology in hand planes really baffles me, particularly when it comes to blade adjustment, these tools are like something out of the tenth century. Take the LN yoke/lever/thumb screw mechanism with the absurd amount of slack in it. I have a Stanley with the same mechanism and to me its totally infuriating. Its the main reason I did not buy LN.

I don't know how you guys can put up with that. At least the LV has engineered an improvement of that, but as I was using a depth micrometer yesterday, I wondered why can they not produce a plane with a depth of cut control like that, measuring advancement in .001"? Answer: There is no good reason, all it requires is the fineness of the the treads involved.

The other problem is the blade skew. My eyes are just not good enough to detect when the blade is completely parallel or skewed to the amount I would like. Pushing the blade around with your fingers and then trying to lock it in place is hardly a reliable way to do this.

Examine the way digital calipers work and ask yourself why this technology hasn't been incorporated into plane blade adjustment and control so that setting blade depth isn't always a process of trial and error. Are these tools just so steeped in tradition that nobody wants to bring them into the 21st century?

As far as hand plane goes, incorporating new technology and mechanism is a lot slower than other types of tool. Not so much because it's a tradition bound tool. Yes, a lot of people like the traditional look and feel of certain types of planes and that's fine. It has all the features and mechanical innovations that are more than capable of yielding superb result. But like anything else, like you say, it's not about planes or tools. It's you. If you haven't learned to use the very tool that's available to you and fault the tool at hand for it not doing precisely what you want, then you'll always find fault in tools. Every tool have little something everyone wish they had, but unless you are making your own tools, users have to be flexible and have to compensate for the lacking properties or feature.

LN plane with absurd amount of slack in it? Did you buy it, handle it or just heard about it? Because the LN bench planes do have certain amount of slack (like all others, though not as much), if it had that much slack that makes you think it was absurd, there's something really wrong with that, definitely. It surely have some wiggle room with lateral adjustment lever as it's' not locked in the blade slot and depth adjuster and cap iron yoke engagement slot have to allow for yoke movement. If you are comparing this tool, a plane, with a micrometer, a tool destined to do to measuring, you will be disappointed with every tool you come across. unless you shell out for surface grinder, milling machine and whatever other machines that are designed to work within that tolerance or less. You don't adjust depth of cut with numbers. This so called 0.001" is some arbitrary number that's used a lot here, but it's not a precision standard woodworking tools are supposed to be held against. Lack of numbered adjustment mechanism, you use your eyes, fingers and sense to compensate for that. Final blade protrusion isn't normally adjusted by eye. You just roughly make it parallel and then go for a test cut, or touch the blade protrusion by finger(s) and adjust as you see it fit. If nudging it by finger is a chore, use a small hammer to tap it. It allows very precise adjustment.

It's really up to you what you do with a plane, and of course what you think of it and whether you like it or not is up to you, but at least take the time to learn some basic before you dismiss a tool as ancient buggery still trapped with the technology from the bygone era. If you skim this board or any other woodworking hand tool forums, a lot of people would say they chose to use hand tool for the precision and fineness they allow while working, that's me included. And they can do it with surprising efficiency, even with 150 year old wooden plane. I find it rather baffling that you spend all that money buying tools in the couple hundred dollar range without bothering to learn how to use them. There are a lot of things to be critical about hand tools and new technology should be available as they mature, but it's an old and simple tool. Even a block of wood with blade stuck in it works fine, how much technological improvement do you expect this type of tool to have in a life time? Not a whole lot. It's not supposed to be precision machined tool, made within the tolerance of 0.001", adjusted by just eyes or fingers.

As an added bonus, here's a easy way to adjust your blade. Flip the plane so the sole faces up, you look from the toe toward the blade. Eye(s) about level or slightly higher than the sole. If light source is behind the plane, it makes it easier. Protrude blade about 1/10" from the sole, adjust it side ways to so you end up with nice rectangular shadow (if it was straight blade. If cambered, it's easier) relative to the sole. I assume your eyes can see that much at least? Retract the blade a nudge or so up the sole (so that blade is retracted all the way). From there, advance the blade by just give a slight turn, less than 1/8 turn or so to give fine cut. If it's skewed, give blade a light tap with a hammer or scrap of wood you have around. That's it. That's not a trial and error, is it.

Another point. Don't buy a plane because someone said it's for roughing, smoothing or whatever. #7 isn't a jointer if you are making a small box or something small. That's just unwieldy chunk of steel that has nothing to do with your box making unless you are prepping materials from rough sawn lumber. Don't buy #4-1/2 because someone said it's heavy and a better smoother than #3 or 4 either. Always buy tools according to the size of your work.

[Roy Lindberry]

I'm putting my LV LA jack up for sale, its just too big for my work and I need to replace it with something smaller. Another thing, I do not like the wide blade, just too hard to push in very hard wood. Since I'm no plane expert, I'm unsure about what I need. I would like to have one plane that fills these needs, although this may be wishful thinking.

I work small, narrow stock, rarely over 18"

I work mostly tropical hardwoods and lots of interlocking grain.

Smoothing machine planed wood, occasional leveling of stock before running thru planer.

I love the the precision of the LV blade adjuster and the side set screws.

I prefer adjustable throat, but is it necessary?

I'm agnostic standard vs. low angle, bevel up.

Being completely unfamiliar withe Lie Nielson planes, I've nothing else to compare to, nowhere to go to see first hand. The names of the planes eludes me as to their main purpose, jack, bench, smoother, etc. and the product descriptions aren't very helpful either.

Here are a couple of things worth noting:

1. Flattening rough stock prior to machining, and smoothing previously machined stock are two completely different operations. If you use the same plane for both, you will either be unhappy with your final surface, unhappy with the time it takes to flatten stock, or unhappy with the time it takes to set up the plane for each operation. Personally, I think for these two operations, you would be better off with two planes.

2. Since you are working mostly interlocking grain wood, a bevel up plane would be the way to go, since you can simply hone a much steeper micro bevel on it with little or no effort to eliminate tear out. In your case, only wanting one plane, I would not recommend switching to a bevel down configuration.

Looking at these two things, I would suggest a low angle smoother (something with a very tight throat) and something along the lines of a jack or junior jack. For leveling stock a 5 or 5 1/4 would work well, and as this is not the finished surface, it does not need to be bevel up (unless you have no room for any tear out).

The hand plane world is as fascinating as it is complex. The reason there are so many planes is because they are all designed to make specific jobs easier (aside from some that are obvious marketing gimmicks). The best all around plane is mid sized "jack" plane (#5), and yet it must be properly set up to any individual job really well. As much as I hate to tell you this, if you are only going to have one plane, I think you already have the best one for the work you are going to be doing. Yet, if you don't like it then it's no good to you at all. No offense intended, but since you say you don't know a lot about planes, I need to ask: Are you sure that the problems are "plane-specific" and not because of inexperience (i.e. too dull an iron, trying to take too thick a shaving, throat not appropriately set, to high a bevel, etc.)? If you think these might be the problem, it could be beneficial to find somebody near you who can help you figure these things out.

In the end, since your LA Jack is not working for you, I think the solution is to be found in at least two different planes: One designed for smoothing previously machined surfaces and one designed for leveling rough stock.

[george wilson]

As a guitar maker,back in the 50's and 60's,when I had little money,I used a Stanley low angle block plane for just about everything. You are apparently using only small wood like I was. Having had both the LV block plane,and the LN,and the new,nickel plated looking LV block plane,I can recommend any of them. The slippery LV polished plane makes me careful to get a good grip,though!! Probably the regular LV or LN would be a more practical choice.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a small wooden plane,either. I used then exclusively for years in my museum work in public. I made many beautiful instruments with them. Eventually,when I get around to sorting my slides out,I'll start posting pictures of them. They,and my inlaid guitar in the FAQ section here,were all made with wooden planes.

Edit: After reading your problems with excessive play with a LN block plane,I will say that there will always be some slack in any plane,lathe,or milling machine. It doesn't matter. You back up the blade,and screw the blade forward into the sample of wood you are testing,tapping the iron sideways if necessary if the blade cuts more on 1 side than the other. Same with wooden planes,which I enjoy using very much. With a little practice,you can adjust one to cut a .001" or .002" shaving. I have actually measured how thin the shavings can be from one.

It would be possible to make a micrometer adjustable plane with minimal backlash,but still a bit of it. But,then,you would have the problem of always grinding and honing the iron dead square. That implies supplying inserts that are pre precision ground ( like those Garrett Wade chisels!!!!) The whole thing would get very expensive and cumbersome. It is just better to learn simple skills like normal workmen have done for thousands of years.

[Terry Beadle]

My bad. I wouldn't recommend a back bevel on a Low Angle Jack. I was thinking ahead to how to set a normally bedded 45 degree smoother with a back bevel for use in tricky grain.

Add another whoopsie to my senior moment score ! Hoot!