Are there any vintage models of Low Angle Jack planes?

[Jerome Hanby]

It looks like that's what would work really well for a shooting board and the new ones look pretty pricey...

[Chris Griggs]

Yes, but...

A) they're at least as pricey and,

B) they're not as good

My understanding is the the vintage LA Jacks are really more for the collectors, but honestly I'm not a vintage tool expert, so hopefully others will chime in.

Also, a regular Bailey 5, 5 1/2, or 6 (and really about any bench plane) will work quite well on a shooting board, though probably with a hair less ease than a low angle plane.

[Zach Dillinger]

I have a Stanley #62 that I won in an online auction. It is one of the few metal planes that I enjoy using. Paid $60 for that one and two beat-up #5s. The #5s were sold for $10 each at a MWTCA meet. The mouth on my 62 has a chip (why it went so cheap) and the iron was shot. So, net $40 for the plane, plus another $40 for a replacement IBC iron and it works great on my shooting board. Oh, I had to glue the rear tote back together too. So you can find them, they do work great, but you'll have a hard time finding one at a cheap enough price to make it worth the hassle. I just happened to get really, really lucky.

[Mike Henderson]

The problem with older low angle planes is the strength (or lack of strength) of the material in the body (iron or wood). Older cast iron low angle planes often developed cracks in the body at the back corners of the mouth (on the sides of what would be the frog on higher angle planes). Newer low angle planes use better metal for the body and they're less prone to those cracks.

If you want to go low angle, you're better off with a new low angle plane. The older ones are sought after by collectors so they're priced about the same as a new low angle plane. This is one place that older is definitely not better.

Mike

[Jim Koepke]

If you can just bite the bullet and buy an LN #62 or the LV low angle jack you will have a great tool that will last.

I saved my nickels and dimes then sold off a few excess tools to purchase the LN #62. I have not had any regrets.

It works great for shooting. I suffered an injury to my right shoulder many years ago and the #62 has allowed me to shoot end grain without the pain that would come from a lot of shooting with a higher angled plane.

jtk

[Jerome Hanby]

I've got a line on a no 62. If I can get it for a good price, I may try it out...


I have a Stanley #62 that I won in an online auction. It is one of the few metal planes that I enjoy using. Paid $60 for that one and two beat-up #5s. The #5s were sold for $10 each at a MWTCA meet. The mouth on my 62 has a chip (why it went so cheap) and the iron was shot. So, net $40 for the plane, plus another $40 for a replacement IBC iron and it works great on my shooting board. Oh, I had to glue the rear tote back together too. So you can find them, they do work great, but you'll have a hard time finding one at a cheap enough price to make it worth the hassle. I just happened to get really, really lucky.

[Jerome Hanby]

Once I get into that bullet biting mode things ramp up quickly into looking at the LN miter planes...


If you can just bite the bullet and buy an LN #62 or the LV low angle jack you will have a great tool that will last.

I saved my nickels and dimes then sold off a few excess tools to purchase the LN #62. I have not had any regrets.

It works great for shooting. I suffered an injury to my right shoulder many years ago and the #62 has allowed me to shoot end grain without the pain that would come from a lot of shooting with a higher angled plane.

jtk

[Chris Griggs]

Once I get into that bullet biting mode things ramp up quickly into looking at the LN miter planes...

Right there with you. Every time I have some extra money I put off buying an LV LA Jack thinking that someday I'll pop for a an LN No. 9 or 51, when I know in my heart I'll most likely end up with an LV LA jack anyway.

[Jim Koepke]

The #9 was one of my considerations, but the #62 seemed more versatile.

jtk

[Zach Dillinger]

If I were spending big bucks, i.e. #9 territory, I'd be buying a sweet vintage infill miter plane. I'd give up my 62 and pretty much any other plane I have if I could find one I could reasonably afford...

[Jerome Hanby]

Do you just have to luck into one of those or are their actually sellers out there?


If I were spending big bucks, i.e. #9 territory, I'd be buying a sweet vintage infill miter plane. I'd give up my 62 and pretty much any other plane I have if I could find one I could reasonably afford...

[Zach Dillinger]

Do you just have to luck into one of those or are their actually sellers out there?

Lee Richmond usually has one or two for sale. However, they are usually $1k plus, so a bit out of my range. If I ever saw one in person, less than that, I'd probably spring for it and worry about the cost later. I'm sure the other planes work just as well, but they aren't nearly as cool...

[Prashun Patel]

I love my Veritas low angle jack.

But how big a shooter do you want?

If you don't need it big, then I suggest you look at the Veritas small bevel up smoother, or the low angle smoother (not to be confused with the Bevel Up Smoother - which doesn't have square sides suitable for shooting). My jack is a little too hefty for shooting for my taste.

[Bill Rittner]

It looks like that's what would work really well for a shooting board and the new ones look pretty pricey...

My advice is to leave the antique and vintage LA planes to the collectors. By the time you buy one and make it work you will be in the price range of the Veritas BU Jack Plane. I own one of these and it is my favorite plane. It has the mass you need to get the job done. This is something that the vintage planes lack.

[Jim Koepke]

It has the mass you need to get the job done. This is something that the vintage planes lack.

+1 on this. Mass is very helpful when shooting. I can muscle a light plane through the job. If there is more than one or two pieces to be done, my shoulder lets me know it isn't happy.

Another thing to consider is the longer toe on a jack plane not only helps to register the work, it gives more room to get the plane in motion so the mass helps in the cut.

jtk

[James Taglienti]

The only reason i have a stanley 62 la jack is because i got it for 25 bucks... It works great even with the mouth chip.. If i was going to do it over again id get the veritas, i can only magine how nice that would be with an INTACT mouth!

[Andrae Covington]

+1 on this. Mass is very helpful when shooting. I can muscle a light plane through the job. If there is more than one or two pieces to be done, my shoulder lets me know it isn't happy.

Another thing to consider is the longer toe on a jack plane not only helps to register the work, it gives more room to get the plane in motion so the mass helps in the cut.

jtk

I use the LV Low Angle Smooth Plane that Prashun mentioned for shooting (and it's my regular smoothing plane). But Bill and Jim are right, the mass of a jack would be helpful. On small pieces the LA Smooth is fine for shooting. On larger pieces I have to put some oomph behind it, and sometimes still fail to make a clean, full-contact pass all the way across the edge without stopping.:(

[Chris Griggs]

Dang it guys, now you've got me wanting to pull the trigger on an LA jack! Thus far I've been successful in resisting the whole LA/BU plane craze, but for shooting its getting pretty dang hard to resist. You all suck....bunch of enablers you are!

[Maurice Ungaro]

You all suck....bunch of enablers you are!

Chris......you keep coming back here, right? :D

[Chris Griggs]

Chris......you keep coming back here, right? :D

Touche'...... Admittedly, I do my fair share of enabling as well, but just because I suck, that doesn't change the fact that you all do too.;)

[Derek Cohen]

When I see threads that ask about "vintage" BU planes I smile as I recall the Stanley #62 I purchased about 8 years ago. This was before the BU planes became as popular as they are today, although they were already beginning to become so. The Stanley #62 was my attempt to get my toes in the water, and the article I wrote on its restoration led to meeting Rob Lee, and subsequently working on a whole host of BU planes. So I have a soft spot for the Stanley #62 ... although I would not recommend anyone buying one in place of a modern version (by LV or LN). The modern versions are built of ductile iron and break-proof. The vintage versions are grey iron and fragile.

I still have my Stanley, and pull it out occasionally to use it on soft woods. It brings a smile to my face ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Restoration/Stanley%2062/Stanley62completed.jpg

The article I wrote on the Stanley #62 and Veritas LA Jack is here (be kind - it was the first review I wrote): http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasLAJack.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Charles Bjorgen]

I think it's been mentioned here before but the current Stanley company has released a series of modern planes called the "Sweetheart" series and that includes a new version of the 62 . Reviews seem mixed; some like it, others don't. One of the main complaints is that the japanning seems to flake off with use. Starting on Feb. 14, Amazon will be selling this plane for $115.50. I have the LN 164 and frequently wish I'd bought the 62 instead. I suspect, however, I'd get the LV Low-Angle Jack if I make that move.

[Jim Koepke]

I think it's been mentioned here before but the current Stanley company has released a series of modern planes called the "Sweetheart" series and that includes a new version of the 62 . Reviews seem mixed; some like it, others don't. One of the main complaints is that the japanning seems to flake off with use. Starting on Feb. 14, Amazon will be selling this plane for $115.50. I have the LN 164 and frequently wish I'd bought the 62 instead. I suspect, however, I'd get the LV Low-Angle Jack if I make that move.

In a world where the LV Low-Angle Jack or the LN #62 are known quantities and there are still questions about the Stanley offering it would be wise to stay with the winners. Someday Stanley may overcome problems they have had with production. Just the same it will not have a great effect on the secondary market. Sometimes that is the best guarantee for a buyer if for some reason the product does not meet one's needs or expectations.

My caveat would be to inspect and use the Stanley #62 before buying. This opportunity was presented to me before purchasing my LN #62. Though with the business practices provided by both LV & LN I would not have hesitated to buy either of these purveyor's product over the phone or internet.

jtk

[Joe Bailey]

since we're on the subject of low-angle planes, have a look at this!:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/320838730158?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649#ht_2142wt_1396

[Derek Cohen]

Regarding the new Stanley #62, I have used it briefly on a shooting board, after tuning it up for its owner. While it appeared nicely made, and performed well in bench plane mode, I found it difficult to grip on the shooting board. The problem was its broad lever cap, as I could not get my fingers below to grip in the style I use on the LV LA Jack. For more details on gripping the latter, and for a comparison of three shooting board planes, go here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Furniture/ShootingPlanesCompared.html

Joe, the plane you link to is the Stanley #164 (although the eBay ad calls it a #64). This is a rare plane, unlike the #62. The few examples that remain fetch high prices.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Joe Bailey]

I have to disagree with you Derek - I checked the catalogs and Patrick Leach's site. There is a 64 and it's japanned as per the eBay photo.
But for proof I went to the really useful site of one of your fellow countrymen:
The 164: http://www.hansbrunnertools.gil.com.au/stanley%20by%20numbers/Stanley%20160.htm
The 64: http://www.hansbrunnertools.gil.com.au/stanley%20by%20numbers/Stanley%2064.htm
I believe there's still validity to your point - it appears both are seldom seen.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Joe

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing about ... ???

The #164 is rare and, therefore, expensive I said, you said and Hans Brunner says ..




Stanley 164 Low Angle Planeoffered 1926-1943value A$ 3,000 - no chips or cracks!9" long with a 2 inch cutterOne of the very rare Stanley planes. As with all low angle planes, pay attention to the sole. This plane is prone to chips and cracks around the mouth and that devalues the tool considerably. In fact, I strongly advise anybody not to buy a damaged plane - unless you get it for a song.http://www.hansbrunnertools.gil.com.au/imagesStanley%20by%20Brunner/Stanley164det-1.jpg (http://www.hansbrunnertools.gil.com.au/imagesStanley%20by%20Brunner/Stanle164det-2.jpg)http://www.hansbrunnertools.gil.com.au/imagesStanley%20by%20Brunner/Stanley164soledet.jpg (http://www.hansbrunnertools.gil.com.au/imagesStanley%20by%20Brunner/Stanley164soledet-2.jpg) 164 sole details


http://www.hansbrunnertools.gil.com.au/imagesStanley%20by%20Brunner/Stanley164-1.jpg







Regards from Perth

Derek

[Joe Bailey]

Hi Derek,
First off, my apologies - I see that my post was unclear.
I make reference to this line in your original post: "Joe, the plane you link to is the Stanley #164 (although the eBay ad calls it a #64)"
My point was that the poster didn't erroneously list a #164 as a #64 -- they are two different planes (see the (2) links I provided) - and he has correctly referenced the one he is selling.
Hope that clears things up.

(by the way - I'm a fan of your posts - both instructional and tool reviews.)

[Derek Cohen]

Well Joe, I owe you an apology. I apologise! And I learn something new. I was not aware of the existence of a #64, only a #164. They look the same, but the #64 lacks the adjustable mouth of the #164 (and the astronomical price tag - although it remains in the silly price range).

Thanks for the correction.

Regards from Perth

Derek