Poll for Bevel Up and Bevel Down Preference

[David Weaver]

Please answer this only if you've had a chance to use both types of planes a fair amount, like on a project or two each.

Consider the question is for bench planes, like in the process of dimensioning or smoothing wood, and not for shooting at least at this point.

(if you're european, you can vote as an american, I differentiated between BU and BD to remove the "patriotic" effect).

[David Weaver]

I'm sure people will accidentally vote wrong here because the answers are similar.

If you're european, I guess your answer would be similar to North American because the woods are similar.

I would assume folks from australia would prefer bevel up because so far the wood seems to favor it, but that's just a guess, thus concluding they'd like BU better, they're excluded from this poll.

[James Taglienti]

Bevel down all the way. Mind i dont have a la smoother just a jack and a bunch of blocks and rabbet planes. I dont like the low bed angle + high bevel angle i think the edge isnt as keen for as long. If there was a standard bed angle (20 degrees) bevel up smoother i would like that i think. Regardless, i have a lot more time on bevel down bench planes and they perform better than my skill level.

[Sanjeev Agarwal]

I have tried a lot to use Bevel Up Planes but I am sorry I cannot get myself to like them. The lack of changing blade depth on the fly while planing and lack of a lateral adjustment really annoy me. I find Bevel Down Planes so much better.

[glenn bradley]

They both have their place so I did not vote (don't want to foul the poll). I reach for my BU planes first generally but, a cutter with a close chip breaker does better for some jobs. I ignorantly assumed most folks had a mix and used them as preferred . . . oops.

[Rick Fisher]

I have both..

In using them .. its tough .. I have a Bevel up smoothing plane which is fantastic... and a Bevel down #5 LN which is also fantastic..

So I voted bevel down because they are more attractive to me .. lol

Funny.. when I think bevel up, I think Lee Valley .. When I think bevel down .. I think Lie Nielsen. Probably no good reason for it but that's what pop's in my head.

[Chris Griggs]

Bevel down is my preference, but it's not a landslide victory. For me its not about the adjustments (the LV BU planes are pretty easy to adjust on the fly, LNs BUs less so). Mostly its about feel which in all fairness likely comes down to the fact the I'm far more used to BD planes. Much of the feel difference comes from center of gravity and the low COG of the BU planes definitely feels different if you are used to BD. I do quite like the low COG in some situations, but overall am just more comfortable with the balance of a BD planes.

Also when thinking about the things I like better about my BU planes than BD (e.g. simple blade holding mechanism, sliding adjustable mouth) I realized that those things are not necessarily found on BU planes only. The new Stanleys for example have a sliding toe.

So anyway, in addition to liking the feel of BD planes better in terms of COG and also 3-fingered grip, I also prefer the fixed angle of attack determined by the frog in BD planes, vs the more variable angle of attack determined by BU planes. That's really the key universal difference between BU and BD planes - how the angle of attack is determined. For me, BD planes simplify sharpening in terms of worrying about angles and also in terms of cambering blades too.

Overall, they just fit with the way I work, sharpen, and think a bit better.

[Kees Heiden]

For me it's simple. I don't have new planes, so everything is bevel down.

[David Weaver]

They both have their place so I did not vote (don't want to foul the poll). I reach for my BU planes first generally but, a cutter with a close chip breaker does better for some jobs. I ignorantly assumed most folks had a mix and used them as preferred . . . oops.

I think a lot of people do. I guess this is a question more along the lines of if you could only pick one, which would you have?

As time goes on, I use a bevel down plane more often (be it japanese, a US origin woody, a bench plane or an infill plane) and my sole remaining LA plane gets used pretty much just for endgrain (LV LA jack).

Most people will probably change the way they do things several years after they start, especially if they don't work for money (and speed isn't an issue). I used to love low angle planes and scrapers, but as of now, I haven't scraped any of my last three projects at all, and sold of my two big scraper planes long ago. A sharp bench plane could do anything I do now with end grain, though the quick sharpening of the LA jack makes it nice for end grain work, something most people probably sharpen for more often.

[Chris Griggs]

A sharp bench plane could do anything I do now with end grain, though the quick sharpening of the LA jack makes it nice for end grain work, something most people probably sharpen for more often.

I too prefer BU planes for end grain, but its funny, my preference for using a BU plane on end grain had little to nothing to do with low angle of attack, and everything to do with the fact that I typically trim end grain on a shooting board and BU planes are just so much easier to hold on their side. I've been considering just leaving my LA jack setup with a 45 degree angle of attack (33 degree bevel) to make it more capable for most my long grain and still just fine for shooting (yes I realize I can just switch out blades, but I'm lazy...really, really lazy). I've never felt that a low angle offers that much advantage on end grain, at least not for the woods I work.

[Ron Kellison]

I'm a Dual Citizen. Still like bevel up!

Ron

[David Weaver]

I too prefer BU planes for end grain, but its funny, my preference for using a BU plane on end grain had little to nothing to do with low angle of attack, and everything to do with the fact that I typically trim end grain on a shooting board and BU planes are just so much easier to hold on their side. I've been considering just leaving my LA jack setup with a 45 degree angle of attack (33 degree bevel) to make it more capable for most my long grain and still just fine for shooting (yes I realize I can just switch out blades, but I'm lazy...really, really lazy). I've never felt that a low angle offers that much advantage on end grain, at least not for the woods I work.

Mine's not exceptionally low, either, somewhere in the range of 45 degrees. I don't know what the biggest advantage of a very low effective angle is, but probably just that you can take off a bit more end grain at a time. I'm never going for that off of a saw cut, I never leave that much to the mark. I like the way the iron holds up around 30 couple degrees a lot better, too. Seems to strike a nice balance between comfortable to use and no premature nicking, etc.

[David Weaver]

If my hunch is right, the less frequent readers of this side forum will now come in with higher preference #s for the BU planes, as I'd guess the chance of getting folks who use planes primarily to go over a freshly machine planed board should go up.

Going to dimensioning entirely by hand is about where I dropped off the use of my LA planes.

Another interesting iteration would be what people choose when they don't use machines. The sample size wouldn't be large enough, though, and I suspect beginners will like the BU planes a lot better because they are a simpler machine, still affordable in LV's trim, and they work well.

[David Weaver]

early results to measure against later

Experienced american users, 68.5% prefer BD as of noon 6/4
Of all american users, 64.xx % prefer BD as of noon 6/4

The total share of option 6, the most chosen, has slipped over the last couple of hours giving up its percentage almost entirely to BU users in other categories.

[Rick Fisher]

Well.. it could be that Bevel up will be like the metric system.. :) .. Some folks are more resistant to change than others..

[David Weaver]

Probably the people who dimension entirely by hand or who do a lot of their dimensioning by hand (like face jointing, etc) will not ever get away from the BD planes. The flat footed feel of a BU plane, to me at least, does not lend itself to nimble use on an uneven surface. That to go along with the lateral projection of the iron to get depth and the sensitivity to lateral adjustment that I seem to notice with BU planes seems to make BD nicer to use on rough wood.

That's why I made my comment above about people who don't visit here as often, and who may be more likely to be doing smoothing only being a cohort of folks who could be more likely to prefer BU.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

Your last comment interests me David, if for nothing else than my Lie Nielsen low angle jack is my only BU plane - and the one I've settled on for all my roughing work when processing rough lumber. I don't really know *why* I like it for that task, but I do. Certainly the sensitivity to adjustments you mention are less of any issue for me when using that heavily cambered blade - I really just set the thing by eye when doing that rough work.

Bevel up, bevel down, metal or wood, I still do 90% of my lateral adjustments with a hammer. I've thought about just driving those silly levers out of my BD planes . . .

[Jim R Edwards]

Bevel up. I only have three bevel down planes left. A LN 4 1/2 (it's a cult classic!) and i just cant sell it. Its like owning a 67 mustang! Clifton #7, it is such an outstanding plane and I got it for a great price I hate to get rid of it, and lastly a bedrock 608. It is was a project plane that I restored. Will be be selling that one soon to purchase a LN low angle jointer plane.

[David Weaver]

Looking at the results, i can only say "The Canadians, they are loyal, for sure"

Joshua, it may be that i'm extrapolating the feel of the LV planes to all BU planes, or maybe it's the center of gravity. I'd imagine nothing will ever be universal in hand tool woodworking, just like the single and double iron thing.

I just have always had a better feel on coarse work with BD planes, and with the chipbreaker stuff, i'm really digging the intermediate step with a panel plane at common pitch - one where the mouth can be wide enough at common pitch to give me a range of shaving thickness.

maybe if I had a 20 degree heavy infill maker's BU plane with a tote more downward, I'd have a different feel for it, but you never know what people think until you poll. And even then, you only know the thoughts of the people who answered.

[Prashun Patel]

I think the BU's get a lot of press and are in fashion right now.

Personally, I think the key is a sharp and properly angled blade.

I prefer any plane that makes removing and resetting the blade easy, bkz that encourages me to sharpen often. Right now, that's a Veritas BU jack.

[Derek Cohen]

Probably the people who dimension entirely by hand or who do a lot of their dimensioning by hand (like face jointing, etc) will not ever get away from the BD planes. The flat footed feel of a BU plane, to me at least, does not lend itself to nimble use on an uneven surface. That to go along with the lateral projection of the iron to get depth and the sensitivity to lateral adjustment that I seem to notice with BU planes seems to make BD nicer to use on rough wood ...

Sorry David, but I just do not agree. You want a nimble plane? Try the Veritas Small BU Smoother (I have one and a LN #3, so speak from experience). Angle for angle, the BU planes are far more agile and easier to push than BD planes. Compare the LV LA Smoother or LN #164 against a #4 (Stanley or LN). Try them at 45 degrees and 60 degrees (the BD planes would need back bevels). What you get from the BU planes is a lower centre of gravity, and this makes a noticeable difference in the hand.

Having said that, I do have a preference in the BU/BD option, and it is not simple but it hinges around the need for planes with high cutting angles and cambered irons.

For my style of planing I prefer BD planes. So there! :) What is my style? It comes down to sharpening. It is easier to free hand hone a blade for a BD plane than one for a BU plane. With the exception of a 25 degree bed BU smoother I built, all BU planes have a bed of 12 degrees (as you know). Since it is impractical to hone on a hollow grind, a honing guide is necessary to create a micro secondary bevel at the necessary angle. Now this is not an issue for those who typically prefer honing guides (you guys can simply enjoy the BU planes without a fuss), but I prefer free handing. It is a testimony to the performance of the BU planes that I use them as much as I do (and I use them a great deal). Once sharpened, they are a joy to use. It is just that I lack the patience to use a guide. Consequently, many of my planes are actually BD planes. I can whip out a blade, quickly renew an edge, and reset it as quickly. But they are not as light and nimble as the BU planes.

As a rule of thumb, BU planes excel at the angle extremes - high and low. BD planes excel in the mid range. Low cutting angles are preferred for end grain, such as on a shooting board. So which would you prefer, a LA Jack (with a 37 degree cutting angle) or a #5 (with a 45 degree cutting angle)? I know which I prefer. On the other hand I do have a BD shooting plane as well (a #51). This improves over the LA Jack, but it is not apples vesus apples, since the #51 has a 20 degree skewed blade and a lot more mass.

For removing waste fast, give me a BD plane any day. Why? Because it is about taking rank cuts and the cutting angle favours a mid range setting. (And this makes it ideal for a free handing).

Jointer? Well my preferred option is a long woodie, which is BD. However I much prefer the LV BU Jointer over a Stanley #7. The BU has a feel of precision owing to the extra control from the low centre of gravity.

At the end of the day the choice is a personal one. Both are capable of performing at a level that enables one to build anything one sets one's heart on building.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/LV%20planes/Small%20BU%20Smoother/BUand3-1.jpg


Regards from Perth

Derek

[Chris Griggs]

Since it is impractical to hone on a hollow grind, a honing guide is necessary to create a micro secondary bevel at the necessary angle.

Hi Derek,

Off shoot question for you... I know that's it has always been your feeling that it's impractical to hone on a hollow grind in BU planes. Having read probably all you articles, as I understand it your feeling is that its impractical because of the need to camber a BU plane more to get the same effect. Correct? I only ask , because now that I have some BU planes I just haven't found this to be an issue at all. If I need more camber than I can hone in I simply grind it it. However, I actually haven't found this necessary since I don't use my BU planes for heavy work. For light work I find that I can hone in plenty of camber on a BU plane by starting the biasing of pressure on the corners when I'm on a 1k stone - where as on a BD plane I don't add any camber until I get to the fine stone. On BU planes I also very slightly "clip" the corners of my blades before I hone in camber as a further measure to avoid track marks if I don't put quite enough camber in. Long story short, I do the same things that folks do on BD planes, just to a slightly greater effect.

Anyway, I know theoretically why you use MBs on them and have also read your article about your secondary hollow grind. However, I would be curious what your experience has been in honing BU planes directly on the hollow grind, since it hasn't been something I've had a problem with. Just hoping you could clarify your thoughts on the matter. Could just be a case of different strokes for different folks...

[Sam Takeuchi]

The way I understand it, it's not the camber that's the issue, but producing repeatable and consistent honing angle (=cutting angle) from hollow ground bevel. Grinder tool rest setting isn't exactly the most accurate system to establish a bevel angle. It's not so much of a problem with BD planes as cutting angle is fixed, and it's not really important if it's 30, 28, 32 or whatever. Cutting angle will stays the same. However for BU planes, honing angle is the cutting angle, and to achieve repeatable and consistent performance, accurate honing angle is necessary. If honing angle is established from bevel angle, variation in tool rest angle will directly translates into honing angle and it can cause inconsistent performance or result, which may or may not pose a problem. To eliminate that variable, honing guide is pretty much the only way to achieve that for BU plane blades.

There is no problem hollow grinding BU plane blades, as I see it, hollow grinding is a maintenance issue and for BU plane blades, it is a way to reduce amount of metal you have to work (by grinding at shallow bevel, you only need to work on tiny amount of metal at edge for desired micro bevel angle, also greatly reducing the amount of metal needs to be removed for making slight camber than, say, full 50 degree bevel). To be honest, variation in a degree or two isn't much of a problem in actual use, but if you have a high angle blade with 50 degree bevel, it's not exactly the easiest or most practical keep blade set steady on the stone during honing. Honing guide ensures honing angle stays as close as possible for the life of a blade, taking human error factor out of the question.

[Chris Griggs]

Thanks for the clarification Sam.

I agree grinding isn't the most accurate way to set an angle, but as you said Sam I'm not worried about a degree or two. If I want a 50 degree included angle and I get 49 or 51 I don't think it matters (for me anyway, as always, YMMV). Also, once I establish the angle that works for what I'm doing, whatever it is, its pretty easy to repeat grind it to the same angle. A fresh hollow grind, while twice as much steel as an MB still isn't all that much steel, and again, I find I am able to hone in plenty of camber pretty quickly.

Anyway, based on what Sam said it seems like part of the reason freehanding BU planes on the hollow is not not an issue for me, is because I'm not using really high angles on my BU planes?

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Chris

The issue is not grinding the bevel angle. A degree here-or-there is of little consequence. The problem is that of creating a fine (minimal) camber, per se. It is very difficult to achieve anything remotely accurate if you use a grinder. The camber on a jack is one thing, but the camber on a smoother is gentle and slight. On a full bevel face it is, nevertheless, too much steel to remove by hand on a 1000 waterstone. Consequently I have advocated a low primary bevel (e.g. 25 degrees) with a high (e.g. 50 degrees), cambered secondary bevel (using a honing guide). This involved the least amount of steel to be removed of all the methods.

I have never been successful at "clipping corners" either. In raking light I can see fine tracks.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Sam Takeuchi]

Ah so I was off then.

[Dave Anderson NH]

Howzit them Canadians get to vote twice and us Yanks and the Mexicans only get to vote once? We're all Norte Americanos.

As a guess, I'll bet 94-98% of all planes ever made have been bevel down. This will certainly skew the data.

I use both and while often the choice is random, more often, it is based on what the first swipe or two on a particular piece of wood shows me. If whatever I used doesn't work, I shift planes until I get one that does.

[Derek Cohen]

Dave, I didn't get to vote at all - there is clearly prejudice against Antipodeans!

Regards from Perth

Derek :)

[Chris Griggs]

Hi Chris

The issue is not grinding the bevel angle. A degree here-or-there is of little consequence. The problem is that of creating a fine (minimal) camber, per se. It is very difficult to achieve anything remotely accurate if you use a grinder. The camber on a jack is one thing, but the camber on a smoother is gentle and slight. On a full bevel face it is, nevertheless, too much steel to remove by hand on a 1000 waterstone. Consequently I have advocated a low primary bevel (e.g. 25 degrees) with a high, cambered secondary bevel (using a honing guide). This involved the least amount of steel to be removed of all the methods.

I have never been successful at "clipping corners" either. In raking light I can see fine tracks.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Thanks Derek. That is what I initially thought your reasoning was. For whatever reason, I haven't found a need to use an MB to get fine smoothing camber on my BU planes, but I have also used BU planes far less then you, so maybe I just haven't ran across a situation where I need more than I am getting off the stones on the hollow grind, but still small amount.

I haven't had success with just clipping corners either. I just do it sometimes as an added measure to blades that I use for very fine work and have a minimal amount of camber in.

[David Weaver]

Dave, I didn't get to vote at all - there is clearly prejudice against Antipodeans!

Regards from Perth

Derek :)

You have the trick wood! I figure the aussie folks are going to be BU guys in general, because the design suits woods well, and my guess is that people are not going to be likely to hand dimension a 3x7foot piece of jarrah casework.

But that's a guess, I gave BU to the aussies by default.

[David Weaver]

At the end of the day the choice is a personal one. Both are capable of performing at a level that enables one to build anything one sets one's heart on building.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/LV%20planes/Small%20BU%20Smoother/BUand3-1.jpg


Regards from Perth

Derek

I guess it all comes down to what we feel or what we think we feel. Edge jointing is one of the things I appreciate a bench plane for the most (bevel down) and I'm assuming the LN 7 feels somewhat similar in stability to a LV BU. For people who are really on a tight budget, like really tight, I would always I guess suggest vintage planes, because if there's anything lacking in the planes, if you use them a lot, skill will make up for it quickly if it's not a fatal flaw (e.g., a plane that is slightly convex is still a good plane in the hands of a decent user).

But I always think if any serious user who does more than just smooth planing can afford only one premium plane, a premium jointer (in my case, the LN #7 is a big favorite) is my first choice for that user. When I moved toward building smoothers and using cheap planes for tough work, I kept the LN 7, it is a pearl.

What leads me to BD for jointing is that I don't use any jigs or any such thing and the tallest plane always tricks my brain into believing it will be the easiest to create a square edge with freehand. I've pushed and pulled every kind of plane I can find (OK, I didn't pull the bench planes, but I pulled planes designed to be pulled) and for a quick edge that's almost always dead on first try, the BU planes always give me what I expect.

It's a lot like golf - I often figure what I feel with clubs is what someone else will feel. Quite often it's not.

[John McPhail]

My intent in asking the question immediately prior to the creation of this poll was simply to understand what "the majority of North American users" in David's prior comment actually meant. After watching the buzz surrounding the chip breaker analysis video I naively thought there had been a credible study. I'm lukewarm about the whole thing actually, my curiosity was really about the North American users thing.


I will say that being able and willing to adapt is a skill that will lead to good things, even in the tiny world of hand tool woodworking. You have to practice it just like any other skill.


BU or BD? Me? Agnostic. I use both kinds, country *and* western. J/K :D You have to use each tool in the way that lets its best features shine. I like a tool that give me consistent results, and I can accomplish that with either, thankfully. Someone else mentioned ease of dismounting the iron for sharpening, I appreciate that as well, but it's not a dealbreaker for me.


Carry on. Or better yet make some shavings!

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

When I was experimenting with cambers on my Lie Nielsen BU jack, I found the same thing that Derek mentions - that a small camber for these types of blades is difficult to grind away on stones if you're working the full bevel, but a bit too little to grind away with a bench grinder, hence the benefit of a microbevel.

I suppose a good solution might be coarser stones - but what I settled on was moving back and forth between the grinder and stones.

I ground a straight across hollow grind on my blade, and sharpened it just until I got an edge, then added my camber. A little longer than working a microbevel, working both "ends" of the bevel, rather than just the secondary bevel. Got close, and as it started to seem a little slow, I went back to the grinder, working slowly and carefully just on the edges, pulling the hollow grind back towards the edges, making sure to leave just little bit of polish at both ends to give me something to register off of when honing. Back to stones to add a little more camber, got it kind of where I liked it, and then a quick hollow grind session again, leaving just a hair of polished steel again to ride on when honing. I think all in all I might have gone back and forth maybe three times - just hollow grinding to make it quicker to work on the stones as the polished area got too big on the edges from adding the camber.

Once I got it where I want it, it polishes up on the stones pretty quickly, and I just bring it back to the grinder to remove the extra steel to make the honing faster. I think the pronounced hollow from the 6 inch grinder helps. Certainly the thick LN blade helps, but I haven't seen a BU plane with a thin blade outside of block planes.

I don't even pay too much attention to the angles on the grinder, just make sure that I'm leaving a tiny area on each edge of the bevel so I'm polishing as little steel as possible. Sometimes I screw it up and end up getting a double hollow grind, as I have to go through with two passes - one to remove excess polished steel area near the cutting edge, once to remove it from the other end of the bevel. Obviously, if you get your grinder rest set right the first time, it's easier. As long as I leave a little polish from the last honing for the blade to register off of, it's pretty easy to just keep the blade relatively the same, the hollow ground just keeps me from having to polish as much steel.

It's a hassle, and took a while to set up the blade, but it was less of an annoyance to me than hauling out the guide every time I sharpen. Of course, I don't use a blade like that in that jack anymore - just a heavy cambered one and a straight one, so it was pointless in the end.

[Kenneth Speed]

I use both BU and have a LV low angle jack plane. If I had to have just one plane it would be the LV low angle jack,it is absolutely the most versatile plane I own.

[Jeff Heath]

I prefer BD, but there are times when my low angle BU planes are indispensable. I'd say it's an 80/20 split. I only make BD planes.

Jeff

[bob blakeborough]

I have more BU planes than BD planes owing to the fact that I live near an LV store and have much easier access to them, but I do have both. LV, LN and vintage Stanley. I find that I reach for whatever seems to work best at the time and sometimes while I have grabbed a BU, I switch to a BD mid job, while other times I go from BD to BU mid job. I think other than personal preferences to things such as blade adjustment mechanisms and grip, anyone who says ones is always better than the other in all situations is just being plain hard headed and stubborn.

My answer in the end to the specific question of "if I could only choose one", what would it be? Well I did go with BU in the poll, but only because I think you get a wee bit better versatility from a BU design with changing you grinding angles allowing you to tame more varieties and more difficult pieces of wood with relative ease compared to BD. That is my reasoning. The fact I am Canadian and LV is Canadian is a nice side note, but I wouldn't blindly support any company if they made inferior products just to keep it at home...

[Jim Barrett]

I know this is an old thread but will add my 0.02 cents....I find myself using my LN 62 (LA Jack) more often and my LN 4 and 5 1/2 a lot less...just feels better in my hand...interesting enough that Tom Fidgen (The unplugged woodshop) mentioned that he uses his LV LA Jack for just about all of his work. He gave away his LN 5 1/2 and # 4 to a buddy...hmmmm....interesting

Jim

[David Weaver]

The non-scientific study seems to suggest the canadians are loyal to their mother tool company, and the rest of us...well, more of us like BD than BU, but I'm surprised by the over 3+ liking BU as much as the poll indicates.

I would've narrowed this down to people who only use hand tools to process their lumber, but that would've left about 4 respondents.

I haven't used my BU plane (the only one i have being a LV BU Jack) since this poll was initiated....with the exception to that being a stanley #18, which has replaced my LN block plane.

[bob blakeborough]

The non-scientific study seems to suggest the canadians are loyal to their mother tool company, and the rest of us...well, more of us like BD than BU, but I'm surprised by the over 3+ liking BU as much as the poll indicates.

I would've narrowed this down to people who only use hand tools to process their lumber, but that would've left about 4 respondents.

I haven't used my BU plane (the only one i have being a LV BU Jack) since this poll was initiated....with the exception to that being a stanley #18, which has replaced my LN block plane.

I wouldn't say the poll shows that it is Canadians are specifically loyal to LV anymore than Americans are Loyal to LN, but more that geographically we are closer to a main supply source (LV) that offers and promotes more BU products than we are to a company (LN) that promotes more BD products. We also do not have the same wide access to vintage planes at cheap prices Americans do. Remember, our country may be huge in land mass, but our population is roughly only the same amount as one of your larger states (think California). This leaves us with less avenues to get our woodworking tools in a cost effective manner. It's a good thing we have a premium manufacturer in our own back yard or I bet you would simply have less hand tool woodworkers here IMHO...

[David Weaver]

You might have fewer, though shipping from the US isn't too bad. A lot of ontario looks like the US in terms of construction and towns, there must've been fairly active trade in tools 100+ years ago.

But, anyway, if we had LV stores in the large cities here, there would probably be more BU plane users. My tastes changed the day I dropped using power tools, which meant that I went to softer woods at the same time.

Personal circumstances, local availability, etc. I'm sure all of that stuff has a pretty large effect on what you do.

[bob blakeborough]

You might have fewer, though shipping from the US isn't too bad. A lot of ontario looks like the US in terms of construction and towns, there must've been fairly active trade in tools 100+ years ago.

But, anyway, if we had LV stores in the large cities here, there would probably be more BU plane users. My tastes changed the day I dropped using power tools, which meant that I went to softer woods at the same time.

Personal circumstances, local availability, etc. I'm sure all of that stuff has a pretty large effect on what you do.Ontario and Quebec are the only two provinces that have remotely similar structure, but even those places just don't have the population base you guys have, and what they do have is based largely in close proximity to the border. The do have more vintage tools in the wild than the rest of us here in Canada, but still not degree of availability you guys do overall. Most people I know do not like buying vintage over the internet either as you end up getting crap too often, and anything good from reputable dealers in the US isn't cheap, so by the time you factor in not just shipping, but brokerage and sometimes duties, exchange (depending on the day), you end up spending a fairly substantial amount on used and when you have such a good store close buy, avoiding cross border shopping hassles, many people feel more comfortable just popping for new.

Also, just as you point out, if you guys had LV stores in the States you would probably see more BU plane users show up than right now, if we had LN stores in Canada, you would probably see more BD users develop here as well...

My point being, I don't think it is so much "Canadian Loyalty" dictating what style of plane we use. Trust me when I say, most Canadians consider US built products "domestic" and would buy them based on that just about as much as if it was Canadian. We are very well aware that our two economies are very central to each other, and ours relies more on yours than yours on ours, and many of us try and buy accordingly when we can...

[David Weaver]

I think we have the same view of products in the US. Canadian is basically domestic, except for the fight that goes on about lumber out there in the west.

Some folks in the US consider products made in quebec and folks from quebec as foreign goods and foreign folks, though.

[Chris Griggs]

My point being, I don't think it is so much "Canadian Loyalty" dictating what style of plane we use.

I agree. If it were about national loyalty wouldn't you guys only be using English made Cliftons? :D

[David Weaver]

I agree. If it were about national loyalty wouldn't you guys only be using English made Cliftons? :D

haha. Must Use Crown Tools!!

[Jim Koepke]

Some of my Stanley tools are marked "Made In Canada."

Some used tool availability has to do with how long an area has been settled.

It also has to do with the type of folks who moved into an area and the trades they were involved in for their livelihoods.

There are many other factors like all of the hardwood forests in the east compared to softwood forests in the western part of North America.

jtk

[daniel lane]

Whoops. Voted BU, meant BD. (Darn that random clicking!) But at least I'm skewing the results! :)


daniel

[David Weaver]

But at least I'm skewing the results! :)


daniel

rimshot!!!