A No. 7 vs. No. 8

[Joey Chavez]

Would like to hear some opinions from those that have used a No. 7 and a No.8. Does the extra 2" in length, wider body, and extra mass provide you with a distinct advantage over the No. 7?

Background and dilemma - I already have the Veritas BU Jointer, it is excellent. I have read that it registers to the wood similiar to a No. 8, true? My interest in hand tools started with finding a solution to flatten wider boards than my 6" power jointer could handle. Since then I have been hooked on hand planes for all tasks and pretty much have all I need outside of maybe a plow plane. Once I decided that hand planes would be a part of all I do in my projects, the LN #8 has always been an object of my desires, expecially since flattenting a wide board is what got me here in the first place. I still go out to the LN website just to look at it, I'd say about twice per week, it doesn't go on sale and the pictures don't change, but I like to look at it.


I'm currently building a smaller scale Roubo for my step dad, thinner top, thinner legs, still 8' length. It's overkill for his needs, but I wanted the practice before I build my full scale Roubo immediately after. I have the top laminated to 4 separate slabs now. I wanted to true up the sides and fine tune so they will mate just right. The weight made it difficult to run across the power jointer and keep it pressed against the fence. I am going to work on them with the jointer plane and I got to wondering if I would find an advantage with the No. 8. Future projects would involve more long and wide boards.

I have rehabbed a couple planes with success, but this is one tool I'd really like to have brand new. So, should I keep the LN No.8 at 100% pure desire, or do I have say a 50% need 50% desire given the tasks at hand?

[Zach Dillinger]

I don't think that the #8 will give you that much of an advantage over a #7 sized plane. Jointing edges, as you know, is all about length of sole. If you really want to increase your jointing arsenal, look for a 30" wooden jointer. Harder to find, but far, far cheaper than the LN, and it will do a better job on long pieces, like your bench project.

[Archie England]

For me, it's psychological...the 8 is just bigger and better than a 7. Of course, I like the #6 really well, too; so, the #7 has become somewhat dwarfed between the two. However, I've got really sweet vintage planes, a couple of Hock and LV replacement blades--and these babies work super well.

Okay, bottom line--whatever works, use it! Buy right, so buy once. Either one (7/8), if a good one, will do the job. That said, if you own a good #7 or equivalent, there's not much more benefit to paying full price for two more inches!

YMMV

[Andrew Pitonyak]

Sometimes I want the #8 because it is bigger with more mass behind it. This means that it is less likely to get stuck. Some times I want the #7 because it is lighter and I am tired... :-)

[Jim Koepke]

Sometimes I want the #8 because it is bigger with more mass behind it. This means that it is less likely to get stuck. Some times I want the #7 because it is lighter and I am tired... :-)

+1 on this.

It also depends on the conditions of the blades on my planes. Often I will do the heavy work with the #8 and then do a follow up pass with the #7 set to a very fine cut.

If I had to choose between one or the other, I couldn't.

jtk

[David Weaver]

If you are going to dimension wood by hand as a matter of practice, I would go with a 7. You will be throwing the plane back and forth a lot and less weight will be nice.

If you are just jointing edges, I would probably go with an 8, the extra mass is nice when you're walking the plane down the edge of a board.

When I used power tools more, I had a couple of 8s. Now that I do not generally use anything other than a bandsaw, I have no 8s.

[Zach Dillinger]

Weight is another great reason to look at a large wooden jointer. A 30" weighs less than a #7, let alone a #8.

[David Weaver]

I think my wooden jointer is 28", it might be 30". My only criticism of woodie jointers is they are lacking in mass if you're going to make a habit of working the entire range of hardwoods (a beech jointer is a booger to use in hard maple, especially if the wood is not straight grained). A metal bench plane handles maple and other similar woods very well.

But if everything is cherry/walnut/mahogany and softwoods, then a woody jointer is fine and is generally easier on the user.

The comment above may not necessarily apply to a brand new plane like a C&W or an old exceptionally well made plane with a tight mouth and everything still tight in it. I don't know about the newest ones, though my old one is pretty tight. It can't hang with a metal bench plane in harder woods, at least not without making me feel like I'm riding a jon boat across a choppy lake at 60 miles an hour.

[Zach Dillinger]

David, I've never had that problem, but I don't work in hard maple. I find it a bear to work with and I don't find maple attractive enough to make it worth the effort. Give me a true hand tool wood, like walnut or cherry, any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[Bill White]

I chose a Stan. #7 to rehab and use 'cause of the weight and length. Just works better for me.
Really turned out sweet, and the bucks weren't bad either.
Bill

[David Weaver]

David, I've never had that problem, but I don't work in hard maple. I find it a bear to work with and I don't find maple attractive enough to make it worth the effort. Give me a true hand tool wood, like walnut or cherry, any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Yeah, hard maple is not that nice. But it peels away like a hard cake of butter when you have a nice infill plane to use. LN planes handle it fine, too, if not quite as buttery. Older bench planes with the stock iron not fit so well and woodies are a jarring ride.

[Zach Dillinger]

Yeah, hard maple is not that nice. But it peels away like a hard cake of butter when you have a nice infill plane to use. LN planes handle it fine, too, if not quite as buttery. Older bench planes with the stock iron not fit so well and woodies are a jarring ride.


Agreed. I have two metal planes that I absolutely love. One is a LN large shoulder plane. The other is a no-name, beat to heck infill smoother that I got on eBay for a song. I have yet to find a wood, including hard maple, that the infill won't smooth. Its just the work to get the board ready to smooth that bothers me. Like I said, I don't find it attractive enough to make it worth the effort.

[David Weaver]

I agree, it generally isn't worth the trouble. The reason I will use it from time to time is it can be had for a song compared to good mahogany or walnut, and cherry around here sometimes is second growth stuff that seems more like barely-pink gritty marshmallow puff than the nice fruitwood that cherry should be.

[Jack Curtis]

Had a Record #7, didn't much like it, sold it and got a ECE 24" wood 701P, liked it, so also got a C&W/OldSt 30" wooden honey that's simply extraordinary.

[Don Dorn]

Well, it's a tough call. I too have the LV BU Jointer and it is a great plane that is capable of giving smoother type shavings. A fellow Creeker had a nice #8 for sale and I couldn't pass it up - put a premium blade and breaker in it and it is also very nice. Frankly, I find myself using the #8 more due to Newtons 1st law. Once you get it moving, it wants to stay moving. It's set a little deeper and I use the two jointers just as Jim K described. After that, I don't even have to smooth after getting a full and fine shaving with the BU Jointer.

[Allen Hunt]

It might depend on the size of the work piece you work on the most. I saw a video of a wooden moulding plane maker that was using #7 sized plane and he was constantly feeling for plane tracks. I kept thinking that a #8 might just span the work piece and eliminate the need for multiple passes to cover the piece. And if your work piece is large you might want a #8 to cover more area every time you make a pass. I agree that metal planes are helpful on hard maple.

[Jim Foster]

One advantage to a #7 for face planing wide boards is the blade is narrower, which means less force to push across a board when face planing. I was trying both the #7 and #8 out tonight. I have a LN #8 and an older, not great, Record #7 that I've spent a good bit of time tuning, I ended up using the #7, lighter and less friction due to the narrower blade.

Note: My blades are not cambered, when I master grinding and honing blades in a timely and orderly manner, with no camber, I'll work on camber. The force required to push a wider blade could be a non-starter if I cambered the blades the way I imagine I will when more skilled.

[Russell Sansom]

I seem to mention this all the time, but an old love affair is sometimes hard to forget.

Early in my career, 45 years ago, I stumbled on a Bedrock corrugated #8 at a garage sale. I think I paid $20 for it, but even though I only had my grandfathers cabinet making tools for a comparison, it looked like an excellent tool. Besides a SEARS jack plane, it was my primary tool for planing and shooting. For me it was the perfect shooting plane. The mass is wonderful. In the shooting operation if doesn't have to be lifted, just shuffled back to start after a stroke.

Since I didn't know any better and I didn't have anything else, I used it for everything. Jointing, smoothing, shooting, and on end grain. I have a full arsenal of planes now, but my heart belongs to the 608c. When I face a task that the other planes aren't interested in, I just grab the #8.
Because of all this, I see the #7 as a big #6. That is, I ask myself, Is this a #7 or a #6 problem? The big boy sits on a throne alone. I've looked back on this many times in the subsequent years and I don't think it hurt me to be #8-centric. On the contrary. So, from my experience I'd highly recommend trying the #8.

[James Owen]

My preference is the LN #8. I like the extra width, length, and mass. Having said that, however, I plan to add an LN #7 to the plane arsenal -- specifically for the high angle frogs.

Since you're looking at the Lie-Nielsens, here are a couple of thing to take into consideration when making your decision:

- The extra mass of the #8 often seems to help reduce tear-out when planing interlocking or gnarly-grained wood, including knots;

- The extra width of the #8 makes it easier to feel "plumb" on edges;

- The lighter mass of the #7 makes it easier to use for longer periods of time (at least until you get used to the weight of the #8...)

- LN's high angle frogs are available for the #7 -- you can use the same 2-3/8" 45˚, 50˚, and 55˚ frogs that also fit the #4-1/2, #5-1/2, and #6; there is currently only one frog angle available for the #8: 45˚. The HA frogs can be very useful on difficult grain.

More than anything else, which one you choose is a matter of personal preference. If you can -- at a friend's shop, at a woodworking tool store, or at a LN hand tool event -- test drive both of them before you buy; that will give you a better idea which one will work better for you.

[Paul Cahill]

So, should I keep the LN No.8 at 100% pure desire, or do I have say a 50% need 50% desire given the tasks at hand?
Fascinating thread, as I share your sentiment entirely Joey. I have the LV lineup (smoother, jack and jointer) and I am very pleased with their performance and feel. I particularly like and use the ability to swap blades. I have several spare blades setup differently and wouldn't mind adding more. I got to use the LN #8 at an event in Atlanta and just loved the feel of it. For the time being, it will reside in the 100% desire category, but who knows what the fairy godmother will do in the future.

Paul

[Jim Koepke]

For a long time the #8 wasn't even on my desire list. Then a trip looking for a new sofa took us near one of my favorite (or should I say most dangerous) tool dealers. He had a #8 at a price I couldn't refuse.

Now that I have it, I am happy with it.

Now a 30" wood bodied jointer does kind of hit my desire list. Kind of low right now, but if one crosses my path when money is in my pocket...

jtk

[Zach Dillinger]

For a long time the #8 wasn't even on my desire list. Then a trip looking for a new sofa took us near one of my favorite (or should I say most dangerous) tool dealers. He had a #8 at a price I couldn't refuse.

Now that I have it, I am happy with it.

Now a 30" wood bodied jointer does kind of hit my desire list. Kind of low right now, but if one crosses my path when money is in my pocket...

jtk

I'll let you know when mine is available... I'm finishing a 34" hard maple jointer plane for myself. Been working on it forever....

[Jim R Edwards]

I like #8's but use a Clifton #7 for my jointing and flattening needs. I also have a 28 inch wooden jointer that works extremely well too. The reason why I sold my #8 is because my Clifton performs beautifully. It weighs more than a LN #8 so mass isnt an issue. The craftsmanship of the plane is excellent and in short it does everything I need. It is one of two bevel down planes I chose to keep.

[Joey Chavez]

Wow! A lot of great input from all, I really appreciate it. After working on the top further to get the larger pieces to mate better I'm convinced that the BU Jointer would satisfy all my needs. However, that LN #8 to me is like the sleek sports car we dreamed of getting someday when we first got our drivers license. I see the value in the extra mass and length in some of my future applications. So at the end of the day maybe it's 25% need, 75% desire. Either way, I want it, it's a tool I can see passing down to one my kids some day.

[Jim Koepke]

it's a tool I can see passing down to one my kids some day.

Could a tool have any higher value?

jtk

[Steve Hayles]

I use both, but by far the 7 gets more work, that said on some boards I have shot lately the #7 didn't cut it so the #8 shone.

If you can afford both get both, I doubt good planes will ever go down in price and it's nice to have when you want 'em.


Cheers


Steve

[Derek Cohen]

I really like the LV BU Jointer. It is a precision instrument. In addition you get the best of both worlds - a plane the length of a #7 with the reference area (ahead of the mouth) the same as a #8.

Or .... you can stop mucking about and make one like mine ...

36 ½” long, 4” wide, 2 3/8” high at the front and 1 7/8” at the razee. With a 3" wide AE Berg blade …
http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/CoopersJointer_html_781967ee.jpg



For comparison, here it is alongside a Stanley #7 (22” long).
http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/CoopersJointer_html_m36d2149a.jpg

:)

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Greg Fletcher]

Now my planes feel inadequate... :eek: