Ae you soured on bevel up?

[Prashun Patel]

I have owned three veritas bevel up planes, the jack, and two smoothers. They performed well, but i am beginning to think its just because they're made very well.

i also own a used, bailey bd jack with its orignal blade, and a bailey 7 that is stamped defective. I replaced the blade with a hock, and i have to say, i find these two planes much easier to use than any of the bevel ups. They both have horrible backlash, but they just tear out less than the bu's.

recently, bevel ups have become all the rage, and i fear i might have bought into the hype. But i am nit sure if my experience is just a fluke.

Do any of you find the same thing? I am thinking to trade all my bevel ups for bevel downs...

[David Dalzell]

I have the Veritas BU Smoother and I love it and use it quite often. I also use many different types of self made wooden planes and Baily 4, 5, and 7. Mainly it depends on what type of wood I am working with. For uncooperative grain of figured wood I usaully use either the Veritas BU Smoother of a 55 deg woody I made (Hock blade). Both work fine for these situations.

[Jim Koepke]

In my use the bevel up planes have places where they outperform the bevel down planes. This is mostly on end grain.

When planing straight non-swirling grain, the bevel down planes seem to give me a better result. This may be that most of my bevel down experience is with a "double iron" and the action of the chip breaker is creating less tear out.

My bevel up jack is the go to plane on the shooting board. Recently did a lot of shooting of 2X stock and had to use a Stanley/Bailey #6 for the extra width. This has me thinking of making a shooting board with a thinner platform to allow my LA BU Jack to reach the extra thickness of the 2X stock.

The backlash on my planes doesn't bother me enough to invest what it takes to cure it, i.e. buying new LN planes. I am so used to my planes' backlash to the extent that the LN plane without any backlash is a trifle annoying when used.

I doubt you would want to trade for any of my old Baileys. I would likely just sell them off to buy some more old Baileys.

jtk

[Sean Hughto]

Personal preference, work habits and all that. BU has its moments, but ninety percent of the time I prefer BD. I find Bd easier to sharpen to the slight cambers I like and advantageous in adjusting depth on the fly.

[Chris Griggs]

I love my LA Jack and while I bought it for shooting use it for all sorts of things, but the extent to which I use to for things other than shooting I would attribute to a) it being the nicest bench plane I own and b) it being out a lot already because I shoot a lot. Its a lovely lovely tool, but generally speaking prefer bevel down planes, and I prefer using chipbreakers (as opposes to high attack angles) to remove/prevent tearout.

There is something very nice about the simplicity and low center of gravity of the BU planes, but still I'd choose BD over BU 99% of the time. Shooting is really the only place I definitely prefer BU planes over BD and this is really only because the lack of a frog makes them easier to grip.

(There are definitely folks who prefer BU most the time. For instance, I predict Winton will be along shortly to write a 6 page post with pictures of him planing purple heart and bubinga with his LV BU smoother :p...of course, Derek loves him some BU action too, but his water also spins in the opposite direction when he flushes the toilet, so I'm not sure I'd trust him;))

[Graham Haydon]

I would like to try a BU but I have not found the need to buy one........yet :-). I think the Bailey concept is hard to beat but perhaps that's because I've been using one for 15 years and I'm very familiar with it.

[Tony Shea]

I have owned three veritas bevel up planes, the jack, and two smoothers. They performed well, but i am beginning to think its just because they're made very well.

i also own a used, bailey bd jack with its orignal blade, and a bailey 7 that is stamped defective. I replaced the blade with a hock, and i have to say, i find these two planes much easier to use than any of the bevel ups. They both have horrible backlash, but they just tear out less than the bu's.

recently, bevel ups have become all the rage, and i fear i might have bought into the hype. But i am nit sure if my experience is just a fluke.

Do any of you find the same thing? I am thinking to trade all my bevel ups for bevel downs...

I think much of your issue may be in not having the right bevel angle set up for reversing grain situations. The standard 25deg blade will def tear out a ton on reversing grain, your angle of attack will only equal 37deg. I use my BU jack plane a ton for squirelly grain with a 50deg blade installed. Sometimes I have to resort to the toothed blade on terrible grain that won't plane up in any situation. I do personally prefer BD planes but if I was already set up with LA planes then I would buy a few more 25* blades and hone different angle micro bevels to suit my needs.

There are times when I actually prefer the feel of my BU planes after a long session of planing with my Stanley's/LN's.

[Charles Bjorgen]

I'm a fan of BU planes and currently have three in addition to a few block planes. My most recent acquisition is the LV BU Jack that I found on a local Craigslist ad. It came with the PM-V11 cutter, the toothing blade and a 38 degree A-2 blade. A wonderful plane. Also have the LV BU Jointer, not much use yet, and the LN 164 that I bought way back in the 90's. After getting the BU Jack I sold a Stanley Sweetheart 62 (made in Mexico) plane that was surprising good considering the price and general negative views about that line. I used that for shooting as well as regular work. But I still like and use the regular Stanley types too.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Hello Prashun,

What angle blade did you use? If you were using the 25 degree blade then perhaps that is why you got the tear-out. A higher angle like the 38 or 50 degree blade, in proper circumstances, would give less tear-out. That's the short version of the story.

I own the Veritas jointer, jack, smoother, and shooting plane in the LA series. I much prefer them. I have all the basic bevel down planes: 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7- mostly corrugated, as well as a bronze LN no 2 that I love. After trying the bevel up I was hooked. The reasons I love the bevel up are as follows:

No chip breaker to mess with
easy blade changes
one plane plus four blades gives you the equivalent of four planes
Less "fussy" to set up than a high angle
less expensive!


I was ever skeptical, but after trying bevel up I have not used my bevel down planes since. I will likely use the No 2 when making wood surfboards because of the size and it works well on lightly curved surfaces. I plan to take the Stanley/Bailey's out now and then to give them some love.

[Shawn Pixley]

Jim,

I tend to work like you do bevel up for block plane and end grain work. Bevel down for the rest. I have a mix of Baileys and a couple LN. I don't care for the LV handles as much. Maybe my bench height.

[Winton Applegate]

am i soured on bevel ups ?
Hell No !


I am thinking to trade all my bevel ups for bevel downs
Get help.
Professional help.
Don't suffer alone.
( at least get this and study it as if your life and your sanity depend on it)
http://www.finewoodworking.com/how-to/article/souping-up-the-block-plane.aspx
(because they do)

[Randy Karst]

Just my 2 cents: I'm particularly fond of my LN low angle jack for some tasks; and to a somewhat lesser degree my LV bevel up smoother which is great on difficult grain. Most often however, I utilize my bevel down planes and prefer the finish they leave behind. I see the bevel up planes as specialty planes and nice to have in the line-up when you need 'em.

[Derek Cohen]

To be blunt, if you are working with softer, straight grained woods, then just about any plane with a sharp blade will work reasonably. Even then there is room for improvement - the better the stability of the blade the less likelihood of chatter and the better the surface quality. If this is the severest test you are likely to put a handplane to, then any modern plane (such as LV, LN, Clifton, etc. etc) is going to be perform the same as a cheap, vintage plane (such as an unfettled and detuned Stanley).

I think that anyone who says they get a better surface quality for a BU or a BD plane when all other factors are held the same (namely cutting angle, sharpness, blade stability, and wood type) is talking through their hat. As Rob Lee is fond of saying, "The wood cannot tell the difference".

When the wood becomes more complex, that is, the grain is increasingly interlocked and its hardness rises, the gloves come off and the quality of a plane and its user is better put to the test. It is difficult to subtract the user from the plane since there are techniques of set up that extend the abilities of most planes. An example of this is the use of the chipbreaker with BD planes to control tearout. Another may be the use of wax on the plane's sole.

If one were considering BU and BD for their working properties, one really needs to see this in the proper context. Are you exploring their performance capability on interlocked wood? Are you looking at the range of cutting angles they are able to achieve? Are you looking for ease of set up, blade sharpening, comfort when pushed on hard and interlocked wood? Do you prefer the looks of one over another (one must like the tools one has, for whatever reason)?

I use more BD planes than BU when you take into account the varieties involved. I often use woodies, many of which I build, and these are BD. I have both BD and BU metal planes, probably in equal numbers.

A serious consideration in my handplane use has been the conscious minimisation of tearout since the woods I use are highly interlocked. For my purpose, then, higher cutting angles have been a priority. In metal planes this was much easier to achieve with a BU plane, since the cutting angle comes from a secondary bevel rather than the bed angle, as in a BD plane. I do have a few high angle BD planes, but these introduce a second factor - the angle of effort at which the plane is pushed. Generally BD planes are much harder to push than BU planes (with a low centre of effort) when they are set with high cutting angles (such as 55 degrees and greater). There are BD planes with a lower centre of effort, such as the Malaysian-based woody design of HNT Gordon, and Japanese planes. Razee woodies are designed in this direction. The difference between a traditional coffin smoother and a low slung Krenov smoother is dramatic.

Bottom line, on interlocked hard wood with a high cutting angle, a modern BU planes will be easy to set up and will produce a superior performance with minimum effort. A modern BD plane requires more attention to detail (it has a chipbreaker to set). The BU plane offers more feedback and is more agile. The latter is equalled by a low slung BD plane, such as a Krenov woodie.

Sharpening is a big issue for me. This may be a non-issue for others. The reason is that I prefer to freehand hone blades. With a BU plane the requirement is a micro secondary bevel to attain the desired cutting angle. If you wish to add in a camber, then you need to start with a low primary bevel (25 degrees) and use a honing guide for the secondary bevel. Accuracy is important here to ensure you are close to the desired cutting angle. I must admit that if I am in the middle of using the plane and the blade needs to be honed, I become impatient with the process of setting up the honing guide. With a BD plane it is a simpler matter of removing the blade, running it freehand over the media, and returning it the plane. In this area the BD plane wins, especially a single bevel type (no fiddly chipbreaker to set up), which means a high bed type. I do think personality cannot be excluded here :) .

So you see there are too many factors to be able to reduce the answer to a simple "BD" or "BU". They are all good when set up correctly.

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

The above only applies to smoothers or other handplanes where finish is important. These comments do not apply to handplanes they are for preparation of wood surfaces.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Prashun, have you ever tried wooden planes in earnest? That'll give you another kick. The feel of using a wooden plane is just so much better then anything metal. I don't know about the Australian woods, but anything from the Northern hemisphere is no problem for a wooden plane. It glides effortlessly over the wood. I know you can put some wax on a metal plane, but it wears of quickly, and the wooden plane glides better anyway. A wooden plane with an lignum vitae sole is even better. The light weight of the wooden plane is a bonus too. Preparing large boards with wooden jacks and fores and jointers is less tiring. And they are cheap. Dirt cheap. Just bought a nice wooden smoother, made by one of the last independent planemakers in Rotterdam in the 19th century; 2 euros.

So, if you are in for something new, get something very old :)

[Brian Ashton]

Snip

Regards from Perth

Derek


In short… Unless you're working with those bloody awful australian woods (where their only good quality is their resistance to termites) either bevel up or bevel down will work just as well as each other.

[Bryce Adams]

Other than block planes, my only bevel up plane is a Veritas small bevel up smoother. I use it as a problem solver with a 50 degree bevel angle, and it cures any tear-out issues I get with my bevel down planes. I've had some intermittent success setting a chip breaker close enough to eliminate tear-out with a Stanley #3 or #4, but not always. So when I hit reversing grain or the like, I grab the Veritas and get a clean surface. It's not an every day user, but I wouldn't get rid of it.

[Don Dorn]

I've had BUs and got rid of them. Not because they weren't quality tools, but for me, it just didn't make any difference and decided to turn them into cash. Just my take, but for shooting, many use the BU Jack, but if you put even a 5 degree secondary bevel on a standard 25 primary bevel blade, combined with a bed of 12 degrees, you are at 42 degrees which is only three off a BD. I'll admit that the LV BUJ worked well as a shooter, but I came across a Record T5 and find it just as easy to operate. I also prefer the thinner blades for hand honing as it's quick and easy to build a camber in. For stubborn interlocking grain, I jettison the plane and grab the card scraper. I've become far more a fan of smooth rather than completely flat.

[george wilson]

I could plane curly maple with my shop at work's LN BU jack plane. I don't have one at home,but wouldn't mind getting one.

[Prashun Patel]

Interesting thought. I am in the market for an additional jointer. The thing that has turned me off of wood planes is the way you have to adjust them.

[Derek Cohen]

or shooting, many use the BU Jack, but if you put even a 5 degree secondary bevel on a standard 25 primary bevel blade, combined with a bed of 12 degrees, you are at 42 degrees which is only three off a BD.

Hi Don

Just for reference, I have never done that - always used the LA Jack with a 25 degree bevel, whether A2 or PM-V11. The advantage of a BU plane for shooting lies in the low cutting angle (as well as the low centre of effort). Why add a higher than necessary bevel angle and remove the advantage? Low bed BU with bevel at 25 degrees will far outlast a common angle bed BD shooting at the same 25 degrees!

Regards fro Perth

Derek

[Prashun Patel]

Thanks for all the replies. I work mainly with American north east domestics, like cherry, walnut, maple, oak and ash.

I think I need to experiment with higher angles on the bevel ups.

Perhaps I'm just looking for an excuse to get an LN No. 4. That's my Holy Grail right now.

[george wilson]

Prashun,just use a little brass manner to adjust the irons of wooden planes. Not difficult to do. And,you'll get an extra kick when you learn to make .001" shavings by hand adjustment.More of an accomplishment than turning a screw.

[glenn bradley]

I have both and reach for them for different tasks. Not because one is better or worse than the other but, simply because they are different models/sizes. Both perform well for me.

The Veritas BU format planes have the advantage for me in being able to pop one iron out and pop another in to change angle in just a few moments; the advantage being derived from the little set screws that put the iron right into place. This advantage goes to naught if your irons are not consistently presenting an edge that is perpendicular to the iron's center-line. BU planes also present a lower center of gravity that helps a wimp like me out when I am not simply planing on a flat surface that is lying flat on the bench. My BD format planes get used most for general flattening and I find I will reach for my BD #3 more often than my ball-tailed BU although I do not know why.

[Chris Fournier]

Different horses for different courses. I require BU far less than BD and my plane selection reflects this fact. I have no emotional attachement to one format over the other and a sharp plane is a sharp plane that cuts wood.

[george wilson]

Are you guys aware that in the 19th. C.,they made planes for IRON (blacksmith's plane). They really were vertical blade scrapers.

[David Weaver]

Proper use of the double iron ended any need or want that I had for a BU plane. It pretty much ended my need for any premium plane, BU or BD, with the exception of one single square sided plane for shooting, which is something I very seldom do, anyway.

Any slow plodding overly precise work with BU planes on the ends of boards or panels (not that BU planes require it, but as a beginner, people tend to get obsessed with stuff like that - looking at the shaving and the plane instead of the result) has been replaced by a proper marking line and planing to the line with a common smoother of one type or another.

I'd say that I'd back bevel a BD plane if I need to to prevent tearout, but no situation in the last nearly 2 years has required such a thing.

(not so much "soured" on BU as finding more favor in the balance of common BU planes, and the grinding and honing of the irons, etc - and once you're no longer using something that rusts, it's time to sell it to someone else so it can rust on their shelves instead. I despise chasing rust off of tools that I don't use).

[Brian Holcombe]

Are you guys aware that in the 19th. C.,they made planes for IRON (blacksmith's plane). They really were vertical blade scrapers.

Does not a similar process still exist? Fairly certain that the bed on my Bridgeport mill is scraped flat and not ground flat.

[Chris Fournier]

My gut feeling is that a lot of guys succumbed to the pretty intense marketing of the tool makers who promoted their BD selection without really having a great grasp of how a plane can work at the bench. Long and short is that they didn't put the time in on their current tools to get repeatedly good results. The new and improved lingo of the manufacturers had many convinced that the orientation of an irons bevel would allow you to do much better work with less effort. Consequently we now have old and crappy BD planes and new and improved BD wonder planes. In the hands of a peson that has bought a plane to work better than another (tried and effective) design the new plane presents all of the same foibles for them. Two things haven't changed: the wood we work and the time that we have invested in mastering our craft with cutting edges the results? "Souring".

I understand that BD works better under some conditions, I don't deny that. What I also understand is that a tool manufacturer must make a new model of tool to sell to me because I have amassed a pretty complete tool kit. The BD proliferation we are discussing has everything to do with manufacturers wanting to increase sales. It's that simple.

[David Weaver]

Increase sales, but also put tools in the hands of beginners that work well, as well as having some gentleman tool appeal to spec sheet buyers and those who "have granite countertops and a new SUV (or crossover) with leather seats". LN and LV planes do work well and they do what's advertised, but any advantages that the bench planes have are easily overcome with a little bit of experience (the have finer adjustments, flatter soles and sides with better quality castings than the old planes, etc).

LN and LV haven't had to do much comparative marketing, the blog machine of "expert" non-experts has done a good job of pushing the tools as required. There is a similar group in the japanese tool world, and has been as long as I've been woodworking and buying japanese tools - and i can only guess who started it - where only the makers of $250 per piece chisels have been credited with making suitable tools, while the rest of the more production and value oriented makers (like the koyamaichis, lower priced yamamoto planes, etc) are passed by. Some of that has gone the way of the dodo bird, though, and the japanese woodworking forum is pretty dead.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Ah heck, I need an excuse to have another cup of coffee, so my $.02 as well. I'm an old plane guy, have very few LN and no LV. I like traditional because it adds something for me, so I use the "antique" stuff. That being said, I resisted spending top dollar on a rareish Stanley 62 for years, because I knew I'd use it and probably crack the mouth. Finally decided I couldn't live without one though, so I compromised and bought the LN instead. It was used, very little apparently, and I have seriously not used it since.

I don't understand why people want to mess with changing blades to different pitches so they can use one plane to do a couple things. Do any of you seriously only use one plane at a time on your bench? Mine gets a few on it every time I use them, because it's more efficient to just have several set up differently than it is to readjust constantly.

Now I'm feeling guilty about not trying the 62 yet, so to the garage!

[Brian Holcombe]

This is not aimed at anyone, but I'd like to put it out there as a point of conversation; It's the decision of the buyer to make the purchase, blaming a company for marketing their product is a bit much. Do you not market your ability to produce work? Is some of your newer work better than some of your older work?

[Tony Zaffuto]

I have and use a number of planes, but it seems it always comes down to a few that do the job "better". Two are tied for top of my list: #4 LN smoother, with HAF and my #7-1/2 LN bevel up jointer. The #4 goes without saying, but the #7-1/2 just seems to have the right balance for me and feels just right. I have more than a few in the second slot, with these including my Clifton #3, my LN 102 block, my LV 4-1/2 size BU smoother, my Bedrock jack and so forth.

Point I would like to make is I am passed the point of thinking about planes when I reach for one. It has become second nature what I reach for, for jointing an edge, or for smoothing.

[Jim R Edwards]

I sold most of my bevel down planes and haven't looked back! I put a lot of emphasis on how a plane (or any other tool) feels in my hand and I gravitate toward LV bevel up planes. The only bevel down planes that see any use in my shop are a LN 4 1/2 and a flat side bedrock 5 1/2. The LN is a cult classic that is a pure joy to use and will never part with it. The bedrock was resurfaced by Tablesaw Tom, has a Hock O1 blade and chip breaker, and performs amazingly.

[george wilson]

David,I thought they shot down that Yamamoto feller in WWII.

[David Weaver]

Well, wherever he landed, he learned to make planes!

[Kees Heiden]

Are you guys aware that in the 19th. C.,they made planes for IRON (blacksmith's plane). They really were vertical blade scrapers.

Hi George,

In a German museum these Roman planes with some reproductions are on display. I immediately thought about these to be metal workers planes, with the very steep angle and the iron sole.

Kees

http://www.woodworking.nl/attachment.php?attachmentid=10808&d=1385107464

[george wilson]

Holtzappfel(sp?) made a blacksmith's plane,for example. The iron was vertical,about 1" wide. Metal body,stuffed with wood.

[Kevin Hampshire]

Just got a PM-V11 50 degree blade for my Veritas BUS. So far I've only found one piece of Curly Maple that didn't succumb to that combo. I prefer my LN 4 1/2 with a 55 degree frog for most Curly Maple but partially because I'm just used to a BD plane and not as proficient at sharpening the BU.


I don't have a regular LAJ but my Veritas Jack Rabbet plane with PM-V11 cuts glides through end grain with ease. None of my BD planes will even come close.

[Winton Applegate]

looking for an excuse to get an LN No. 4. That's my Holy Grail right now.

I hearby officially say : You now have an official, bonafide, one hundred percent genuine, licensed, peer reviewed, decorated, excuses to go buy your LN No. 4
There how is that ?
I gots one.
It will cut the wood you list (might get a bit tricky in the highly figured stuff until you get the "sweet spot" scoped out).


http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy298/noydb1/Bronze4.jpg (http://s801.photobucket.com/user/noydb1/media/Bronze4.jpg.html)


And just think you will have the added "advantage" of having a chip breaker to fart around with and master.
Can't beat that !
. . . . er. . .. ?
Come on . . .don't throw rocks, I'm just keeping the ball rolling. I bought one an kept it right ? A very nice plane in deed.

PS: for those not familiar with an Official Ovaltine Decoder Ring
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdA__2tKoIU

[Chris Friesen]

I don't understand why people want to mess with changing blades to different pitches so they can use one plane to do a couple things. Do any of you seriously only use one plane at a time on your bench? Mine gets a few on it every time I use them, because it's more efficient to just have several set up differently than it is to readjust constantly.

I'm in the Canadian prairies...used tools are few and far between and they're usually crap, and shipping from south of the border is killer. I made do for some years with just a Veritas bevel-up jack and two blades (low angle and high angle). Sure, having more tools is more efficient, but having something is better than having nothing.

[Chris Griggs]

Well, as much as I tend to prefer BD planes, I just got cyber Monday'ed and bought a small BUS, so I guess I'm not totally soured on bevel ups. That's the last one though. I'll just have that and my LA jack. All other bench planes will remain bevel down, just as nature intended.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

I'm in the Canadian prairies...used tools are few and far between and they're usually crap, and shipping from south of the border is killer. I made do for some years with just a Veritas bevel-up jack and two blades (low angle and high angle). Sure, having more tools is more efficient, but having something is better than having nothing.

Chris, greetings from a fellow prairie dweller. When I first started, I thought planes were scarce around here because I never saw them, Ebay was not around yet and I needed a good source. I met an old wrench collector at a farm auction, and he got me looking in different ways. This area was settled 1860-1920, which happens to coincide nicely with the golden era of Stanley. Turns out, apparently every independant old farmer had a few planes. Some are junk, some are jewels. Farm auctions, estate sales and stuff started it for me, now people sometimes just give them to me because I'll give their old families tools a good home.

Rudy, my old tool collector friend, told me of a Phillips plow plane he bought at an auction many years ago. About 15 years later, at the neighbors auction, he was able to buy the complete and unique set of cutters for the Phillips. They are the ones with the nickers integral to the blade, and a alignment peg, and are darn near impossible to find. Pretty cool to know the history of these. Ironically, at Rudy's auction, I bought the Phillips and cutters (and about 100 others :) ), but someone had dropped it and broken the horn off the tote. While digging through the treasure trove that was his collection, I found a tool box with some saws and stuff I wanted. When I got it home and investigated further, in the box was the broken horn. Now the plane is together again, and it makes me smile to see it across the room, it's how Rudy would have wanted it. FYI, that day I also got a #1, most of a Millers Pat, a 10 1/4, and seriously over 100 others, all of which Rudy scrounged up over the years on this flat, boring, farming and ranching country. Oh, to keep on topic, I screwed up a bid and let a 62 and complete 72 1/2 get away, which is why I had to buy a LN to try BU. Still kicking myself on the 72 1/2, but I know where it lives now...

Long story short, don't give up on the barren prairies, they are actually fruited plains!

[steven c newman]

While trimming up a cutting board's end grain to get rid of saw marks, I just used a FrankenBailey #5 smooth sole, with a Buck Brothers iron ( $3 @ Home depot for the iron) Got some nice curlies once the end was trimmed. Just a collection of plane parts, put together and tuned up for what I do. Cutting board is just some Black Walnut and Black Cherry scraps.


The only bevel up planes in the shop are six block planes, don't need another BU plane....

[Zach Dillinger]

Not soured, but I wasn't all that sweet on them to begin with.

[Chris Griggs]

Not soured, but I wasn't all that sweet on them to begin with.

Your beloved LN No. 9 begs to differ ;)


(I know, I know we're talking about BU bench planes, but I do recall you mentioning that you like to pull your No. 9 in for things other than shooting:))

[Zach Dillinger]

Your beloved LN No. 9 begs to differ ;)


(I know, I know we're talking about BU bench planes, but I do recall you mentioning that you like to pull your No. 9 in for things other than shooting:))

You're right. I do treat my #9 like a bench plane in a lot of situations. I never sweetened on bevel up planes that were intended for bench plane use :)

[Chris Griggs]

You're right. I do treat my #9 like a bench plane in a lot of situations. I never sweetened on bevel up planes that were intended for bench plane use :)

I'd venture to guess that even though it was intended to be used for bench plane tasks as much as it was for shooting, I probably use my LA jack for about the same proportion of shooting vs bench work, as you do your No. 9. I quite like the BUs as "utility/trimming" planes, but I'll likely stick with BD for stock prep and smoothing. We'll see if owning the small BUS changes that, but I'm thinking even that I'll mostly call in to duty as a large block/small shooter as opposed to a finish smoother.

I feel so naked without a chipbreaker (Hey Dave, this could be you new signature line:)).

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

Well, as much as I tend to prefer BD planes, I just got cyber Monday'ed and bought a small BUS, so I guess I'm not totally soured on bevel ups. That's the last one though. I'll just have that and my LA jack. All other bench planes will remain bevel down, just as nature intended.

I was thinking of picking one of those up this morning when I saw it in the list - the "sold out" banner hadn't been pegged across the picture like all the shoulder planes I had been thinking about picking up, but when I went to the page to purchase, it was sold out. Now I know who to blame!

[Chris Griggs]

I was thinking of picking one of those up this morning when I saw it in the list - the "sold out" banner hadn't been pegged across the picture like all the shoulder planes I had been thinking about picking up, but when I went to the page to purchase, it was sold out. Now I know who to blame!

Sorry, though in my defense, there were still some there after I bought mine. Really you should blame Hilton, becasue if he hadn't bought the last large shoulder I would have probably bought that instead of the SBUS and there would have been one left for you.

Actually periodically throughout the day, after all the sold out banners were up, some of the sold out items would pop up for sale again for just a few minutes. I don't know if that's a system error or cancelled orders but I've been refreshing the large shoulder plane periodically throughout the day in case it pops up again. It's for the best that the large hasn't popped back up though! I saw the med shoulder come up for sale again in the middle of the afternoon, but I already have one of those. Its like shopping for concert tickets!


Tell you what, if I don't like my SBUS, I'll sell it to you for 15% off of retail plus shipping ;)

[Winton Applegate]

I don't understand why people want to mess with changing blades to different pitches so they can use one plane to do a couple things. Do any of you seriously only use one plane at a time on your bench? Mine gets a few on it every time I use them, because it's more efficient to just have several set up differently than it is to readjust constantly.


I am a huge fan of having a range of blades set up for different hardness/figure of wood and for hogging wood off and for finish planing.
That said here is my every day bench and what it tends to have on it.
http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy298/noydb1/roc%20cuts%20wood/MakesMeSmileeverytimeIuseit_zps720159bd.jpg (http://s801.photobucket.com/user/noydb1/media/roc%20cuts%20wood/MakesMeSmileeverytimeIuseit_zps720159bd.jpg.html)
With these three planes I could make a rocket ship.
I have jointers but don't use them.
I have bevel down jack
but use the bevel up instead.
Between the crazy back lash of the primitive (read why do people still put up with that) bevel down blade control and the waste of time (granted not much time but why even bother if it isn't needed for anything) chip breaker I have no use for the bevel down jack.

So that's it really. Of all the tons of planes I have of many different types from Japanese to woodies with the modern spring assisted blade control mechanisms and traditional bevel down Stanley these are what work.

I suppose I am suppose to type "for me".

I get all the others out and have fun using them, exploring their limitations and idiosyncrasies and how to work around them but if I have a big planing job of hard stuff that takes me to my physical limits. These guys geeeeter done.

PS: if you look close blades are not in two of the planes; I stopped to sharpen and wound up taking the photo after pulling the blades out.

[Chris Griggs]

Between the crazy back lash of the primitive (read why do people still put up with that) bevel down blade control and the waste of time (granted not much time but why even bother if it isn't needed for anything) chip breaker I have no use for the bevel down jack.


Now now Winton, preferences and niche needs of those who work masochistically hard woods are all well and good, but lets not start this again....oooooh for shame!!!:)

You know as well as I do the chipbreakers are most certainly not a waste of time. In fact, when you consider that a chipbreaker lets you maintain a relatively low enough angle of attack whilst still fending off tearout, and realize that you can put a shiny surface woods ranging from the softest crap BORG pine to any number of figured hardwoods ALL WITHOUT CHANGING BLADES you will realize the chipbreakers is actually a time saver. (Of course, if we were really interested in saving time we'd sell all our beautiful planes and buy huge drum sanders)

[Erwin Graween]

Hi,

To be honest and give a straight answer. Both types of planes can achieve great results. But there are differences that can be either pros or cons. And one question for which I don't have the answer (or at least I'm not sure) --> see chipbreaker below.

BV UP

Pros :
You can set different angles as much as you want by grinding the blade. Interesting for low angles that can't be achieved with BV Down. Useful as one Jack plane with several blades covers multiple uses (shooting, etc).
Blades are thick so no chatter.

Cons :
Harder to get a curve on a blade. Very well explained by Derek. Though I think it's only a matter when you set the curve radius.
No chip breaker. But I never experienced I needed one. Some people say it helps with difficult grain. My personnal thought is that if it's probably true, the effect is less thant good sharpness and correct bevel angle.

BV DOWN

Pros:
Tons of them on the second hand market (also mean easier to find spare parts).
Easier to set a radiused blade.
Chipbreaker (if really it helps).

Cons:
Lighter blades.
Can't achieve low angles.


I hope it helps. That's the way I see it.

Regards,
Graween.

[Kees Heiden]

Hi,

To be honest and give a straight answer. Both types of planes can achieve great results. But there are differences that can be either pros or cons. And one question for which I don't have the answer (or at least I'm not sure) --> see chipbreaker below.

BV UP

Pros :
You can set different angles as much as you want by grinding the blade. Interesting for low angles that can't be achieved with BV Down. Useful as one Jack plane with several blades covers multiple uses (shooting, etc).
Blades are thick so no chatter.

Cons :
Harder to get a curve on a blade. Very well explained by Derek. Though I think it's only a matter when you set the curve radius.
No chip breaker. But I never experienced I needed one. Some people say it helps with difficult grain. My personnal thought is that if it's probably true, the effect is less thant good sharpness and correct bevel angle.

BV DOWN

Pros:
Tons of them on the second hand market (also mean easier to find spare parts).
Easier to set a radiused blade.
Chipbreaker (if really it helps).

Cons:
Lighter blades.
Can't achieve low angles.


I hope it helps. That's the way I see it.

Regards,
Graween.

Some extra pro's of the double iron, bevel up plane:
- A 45 degree bedding angle, a chipbreaker with a 40 to 45 degree angle on the front, very close to the edge, is lighter to push then a steeply bedded plane.
- The 45 degree plane has less wear on the edge.
- Wooden planes with this configuration are available en masse, which means the ultimate in plane feeling. Low angle wooden planes are too fragile and high angle wooden planes are rare or expensive.
- For me personally the plane with the chipbreaker just feels better.

Regarding the thin blades, that's a feature! :D Makes for much less work when sharpening. And on all these types of wood which aren't crazy hard they work perfectly well.

BTW, chipbreakers work. They work very well indeed. The con is that it is a bit fiddly. Either you get used to that or not.

[Prashun Patel]

I had a chance to increase the bevel on my bevel up smoother. It does help.

I'm still getting the LN #4...

[Derek Cohen]

- A 45 degree bedding angle, a chipbreaker with a 40 to 45 degree angle on the front, very close to the edge, is lighter to push then a steeply bedded plane.
- The 45 degree plane has less wear on the edge.

Hi Kees

If you are comparing a 45 degree BD to a "steeply bedded" BD plane, then I would agree. But not if you were comparing to a BU plane. The low centre of effort of the BU plane makes a significant difference in reducing the "lightness to push".

I am not sure where you get your information about BU vs BD blade wear? A 45 degree bed BD plane consistently demonstrated significantly more wear than a 12 degree BU bed plane in my recent shooting plane comparison.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Hilton Ralphs]

Has anyone considered that the crafty Prashun with nearly 7000 posts started this thread just more than 24 hours before the Lee Valley Cyber Monday sale to lesson the stampede on BU planes? ;)

So Prashun, how many planes did you buy? Go on, fess up.

[Prashun Patel]

Nefarious plot foiled :mad:! Seriously, I would have been the first to gloat. The only thing they had left by the time i woke up at 6am was the small bu smoother which I already own. I drooled over the large shoulder and jointer only to see that they had been snatched up. LV could at least have the decency to raise the visible sale price once they get sold out. That way I wouldn't feel so bad being late to the party.

[Chris Hachet]

Hello Prashun,

What angle blade did you use? If you were using the 25 degree blade then perhaps that is why you got the tear-out. A higher angle like the 38 or 50 degree blade, in proper circumstances, would give less tear-out. That's the short version of the story.

I own the Veritas jointer, jack, smoother, and shooting plane in the LA series. I much prefer them. I have all the basic bevel down planes: 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7- mostly corrugated, as well as a bronze LN no 2 that I love. After trying the bevel up I was hooked. The reasons I love the bevel up are as follows:

No chip breaker to mess with
easy blade changes
one plane plus four blades gives you the equivalent of four planes
Less "fussy" to set up than a high angle
less expensive!


I was ever skeptical, but after trying bevel up I have not used my bevel down planes since. I will likely use the No 2 when making wood surfboards because of the size and it works well on lightly curved surfaces. I plan to take the Stanley/Bailey's out now and then to give them some love.
I am really thinking that a Bevel Up jack plane may well be my next purchase, probably from LV because of the PMV11. If not, LN. I work a lot of hard Maple and quarter sawn white oak, so being able to pull the blade out, hone it quickly, and get back to work would be the largest contributing factor.

[David Weaver]

you will realize the chipbreakers is actually a time saver.

I would say substantially superior when all things are considered - well, except for LN who couldn't get the chipbreaker drilled right on some of their planes so that it could actually make it to the edge - that and their desire to peddle a bunch of frogs instead of advising beginners of something relatively simple.

I used to be in love with the lack of backlash on the LN frogs (the 8 has some backlash, though, IME), but the reality is that when you're dimensioning entirely by hand, there really isn't that much adjustment being made, and when there is, 75% or more of it is in the direction where there's already tension (i.e., if you adjusted for more depth the last time, you're probably doing it again and there's no backlash).

It's like the jack rabbet planes, the arguments are enticing when they're in text, but when you're at the bench, nothing really materializes.

[Chris Hachet]

In short… Unless you're working with those bloody awful australian woods (where their only good quality is their resistance to termites) either bevel up or bevel down will work just as well as each other.This is pretty much my take on it....probably a matter of personal preference and what you are comfortable with.

[David Weaver]

I am really thinking that a Bevel Up jack plane may well be my next purchase, probably from LV because of the PMV11. If not, LN. I work a lot of hard Maple and quarter sawn white oak, so being able to pull the blade out, hone it quickly, and get back to work would be the largest contributing factor.

If there's any difference in how long it takes to get a chipbreaker apart and back together, it's cancelled out by the extra lapping on the back of a bevel up plane iron (to remove the wear bevel that would be on the bevel of a BD plane) and the more nitpicky maintenance of camber.

[Kees Heiden]

Hi Kees

If you are comparing a 45 degree BD to a "steeply bedded" BD plane, then I would agree. But not if you were comparing to a BU plane. The low centre of effort of the BU plane makes a significant difference in reducing the "lightness to push".

I am not sure where you get your information about BU vs BD blade wear? A 45 degree bed BD plane consistently demonstrated significantly more wear than a 12 degree BU bed plane in my recent shooting plane comparison.

Regards from Perth

Derek

The Stanley types have the same "centre of effort" as the BU planes.

And in your test the significant part was that a higher cutting angle (in that case 45 degrees) resulted in more wear then the low cutting angle (37 degrees). That's independent of BU or BD.

It's quite logic in fact. When you raise the angle, you need to push harder. When you use for example a 55 degree plane to reduce tearout, all that extra force is exerted at the weakest point of the blade: the edge. In a 45 degree plane with the chipbreaker close enough to the edge to get the same anti tearout effect, you are still planing at 45 degreed and only higher up at the blade the extra force is used. higher up on the plane with enough steel to deal with this extra force.

Of course we should do an extensive test of this theory. But I don't really want to do that test. And you probably neither. There are the tests from the Japanese professors of course, meassuring the forces and wear and concluded that the chipbreaker didn't increase wear, instead it reduces wear.

BTW, I am not soured on bevel ups at all!

[Chris Griggs]

Hi Kees

If you are comparing a 45 degree BD to a "steeply bedded" BD plane, then I would agree. But not if you were comparing to a BU plane. The low centre of effort of the BU plane makes a significant difference in reducing the "lightness to push".

I am not sure where you get your information about BU vs BD blade wear? A 45 degree bed BD plane consistently demonstrated significantly more wear than a 12 degree BU bed plane in my recent shooting plane comparison.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek. To your second point. IIRC, you tested longevity comparing the higher angled LN 51 w/CB against a lower angled BU LV shooter right? Wasn't your conclusion/hypothesis that the decreased amount of effort/force needed when using the lower angle to shoot endgrain contributed to better edge retention?

This isn't really applicable to what Kees is saying. He's speaking of planing long grain with a 45-50 degree blade with CB vs 55 degree or higher w/o CB. If in fact it is true that the less effort, lower angle of attack=longer edge longevity than he is correct that the BD plane with CB would last longer than the BU at a high angle. I'm not saying that is necessarily true, perhaps even the high blade bevel angle would offset things and bring the BU back to top for retention, but it would need to be tested. I don't know that answer, but I'm not sure you can extend your shooting plane test to this situation,it seems like an over extension of the results.

(EDIT: Kees beat me to it...I'm also not at all soured on BU planes...in fact they are growing on me, but I do love me some BD with chipbreaker action)

[David Weaver]

Hi Kees

If you are comparing a 45 degree BD to a "steeply bedded" BD plane, then I would agree. But not if you were comparing to a BU plane. The low centre of effort of the BU plane makes a significant difference in reducing the "lightness to push".

I am not sure where you get your information about BU vs BD blade wear? A 45 degree bed BD plane consistently demonstrated significantly more wear than a 12 degree BU bed plane in my recent shooting plane comparison.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I'd hate to use a shooting durability test across endgrain to make decisions about how an iron will wear in the much more common jacking, jointing and smoothing. The "low centre of gravity" makes the BU planes feel flat footed and awkward, especially for tasks like jointing an edge.

I'd say the market decided the same, as the stanley 62 was available for almost 40 years, but never gained popularity when purchases were driven by professionals and not us white collar amateurs.

[Jonas Baker]

I bought the Lie-Nielsen bevel up jack plane after trying it out as a shooting plane with the "hot dog" attachment. I tried it against a #9 with the hot dog attachement and the #51 shooting plane, and I was impressed with how well it performed in shooting against those two planes, which are essentially used as dedicated shooting planes. So for me, the bevel up jack planes make great shooters (with the hot dog attachment) and then the versatility of different angle blades and a toothed blade make it a very useful plane.

So I haven't soured on bevel up planes, but I do tend to use wooden planes the most, as I prefer the feel of them.

Jonas

[Derek Cohen]

The Stanley types have the same "centre of effort" as the BU planes.

Kees, that is nonsense unless you can explain how a plane with a 45 degree bed can be the same as a plane with a 12 degree bed.


And in your test the significant part was that a higher cutting angle (in that case 45 degrees) resulted in more wear then the low cutting angle (37 degrees). That's independent of BU or BD.

Kees, my response was to you stating, "The 45 degree plane has less wear on the edge". One of the results of the review was that a 25 degree A2 blade in a BU plane held an edge significantly longer than a 25 degree A2 blade in a BD plane. There is little to question about the facts there.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Chris

I'll try and answer you tomorrow (my time). It's late here - I'm off to bed.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

Kees, that is nonsense unless you can explain how a plane with a 45 degree bed can be the same as a plane with a 12 degree bed.

.

Kees, my response was to you stating, "[/COLOR]The 45 degree plane has less wear on the edge". One of the results of the review was that a 25 degree A2 blade in a BU plane held an edge significantly longer than a 25 degree A2 blade in a BD plane. There is little to question about the facts there.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Nobody would put a 25 degree bevel on a bevel down plane. I wonder how the test would turn out if you put a 32 degree final bevel on the A2 iron. The cutting angle of the BD plane is fixed, so there is no reason to generate great big clearance amounts, especially if it's at the expense of reason.

Steve Elliot showed quite a while ago that 32 or 33 degrees is the sweet spot for A2 steel (and it probably is for every steel) - the lowest angle at which planing long grain causes failure due to wear instead of deformation.

I personally have never noticed any deficiency in using a LN 7 with an A2 iron to shoot, but I follow steve's guidelines, or more precisely, I follow the method that charlesworth prescribes with that plane. The iron in the plane holds up better than my LA jack did at 25 degrees (for obvious reasons) and I'd have to say I prefer the LN 7 as a shooter, even though I limit shooting to where it actually needs to be done (small work and miters, and only when the small work is not part of a larger panel - because in that case, it can be planed without shooting after assembly).

At any rate, there shouldn't be any great reason to need to remove mass amounts of metal and use an extremely low angle to shoot - if there is, the problem is with the sawyer and not the shooter.

I've had private discussions with several people about edge retention (regarding the 32 degree issue, and 25 on chisels - for chisels, mainly the point that the paring chisel that holds its edge well over a variety of soft and medium woods at 20 degrees is a fallacy, and that most steels will perform similarly at similar total angles, though some will grind and sharpen less conveniently. 25 degrees is about the lowest practical angle for any chisel that will see a variety of woods). A twitch over 30 degrees of total angle is better for *any* iron, and edge holding in the 25 degree arena seems to me to be more dependent on hardness than alloy.

20 degrees on a chisel is nearly the practical bevel for a razor, and 25 degrees on a plane has the same effect - premature sharpening that, as long as people seem to take to sharpen, more than negates time involved to solve problems that are created by poor sawing.

[Chris Griggs]

Hi Chris

I'll try and answer you tomorrow (my time). It's late here - I'm off to bed.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Cool. Will look forward to your thoughts.

Darn, I wish I had thought to throw a 1 3/4 PMV11 blade in for my miller falls 8, when I ordered my SBUS yesterday. Equal steel, equal blade width, comparably sized BU vs BD planes. Would have made for a good test.

[Derek Cohen]

Nobody would put a 25 degree bevel on a bevel down plane. I wonder how the test would turn out if you put a 32 degree final bevel on the A2 iron. The cutting angle of the BD plane is fixed, so there is no reason to generate great big clearance amounts, especially if it's at the expense of reason.

Hi David

My tests did include both 25- and 30 degree bevel angles. The 25 degree A2 blade in BU mode outlasted a 30 degree A2 blade in BD mode. It's all here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/LVShootingPlane.html

Now I will go to bed! :)

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Hope you had a good sleep Derek!

In the end, bevel up or down, it's just a wedge plowing through the wood and a user pushing against a handle. You make a lot about the centre effort but I'm rather unsure what you mean.

About your test in the endgrain situation. You tested a a2 blade in a 37 and a 45 degree situation. The latter failed sooner. Later you did the same with pm v11 with the same result. So I would conclude that higher cutting angles promote more wear. Caveat, long grain planing with even higher angles might prove different.

Now I am going home and hopefully to bed early. I'm tired!

[David Weaver]

I'm a little bit surprised that it fails that badly at 30 degrees, but I guess I shouldn't be. I've noticed smoothing that on any ultramodern hard iron that wears slowly, a final bevel on a BD plane of 35 degrees ensures (unless an iron is defective) that failure is due to wear. The importance of that being that if a surface is being final smoothed, rows of tiny lines are not flattering. But, a while ago when I tested several A2 irons against each other, without exception, the iron that failed to cut first was the iron that chipped out earliest.

So, I'd suggest a final bevel greater than 32 (my memory wasn't that good, steve noted failures in some irons until he got to 34 degrees).

http://bladetest.infillplane.com/html/bevel_angles.html

I don't usually like to get into analytical tests that don't involve the actual process of woodworking, but in this case, steve's experience agrees with what I have seen- that being that even at 30 degrees, an A2 iron will develop small chips that can be seen in a smoothed surface, and that will mean failure considerably earlier than an iron with only 10 degrees of clearance. It will also mean more work to sharpen the iron that chips, and my distaste to sharpen any longer than about 2 minutes from start to finish makes that unsavory.

It would be interesting to see how the LN plane would fare at 34 degrees or 35 (steve suggests 34 from his test). If it would fail at 35 degrees, then it would suggest that the iron is not on par with LN's average iron, as I haven't seen any damage of the type in your picture when I've used an iron sharpened based on charlesworth's suggested angle of 35 degrees - not even when using the ln #7 on a shooting board.

All of that said, I would hesitate greatly to extrapolate shooting board test results to apply proportionally or directly for other planing tasks.

[Curt Putnam]

To totally ignore the minutia of blade wear I will say that the Veritas BU plane hold some advantages (for me:)

I have Stanley planes: 3, 2 4s 2 5s, 2 6s and a Tablesawtom roundside # 8. Also have an LN bronze # 4 with 55° frog
For BU planes: the small # 3, the 4, 5 and 7

The Veritas totes fit my hand, the Stanleys not so much. The LN, not at all. My right hand comes in at 4.25" across the palm - large, but not all that large. Chipbreakers are sometimes referred to as a "bit" fiddly. Well, when one has essential tremors they can be "real" fiddly. The lack of one can be a blessing. For one who does not run a plane all day, getting the iron back in and going is a lot easier with the Veritas BU planes. The set screws really help as does the tight fit on the Norris style adjuster. As for cambering, all I've needed to do so far is to break the corners.

Now for all of that, sometimes the Baileys work and the BUs don't. Don't know why although the consensus is my POS bench (I've bought the lumber to build a new bench.) To be fair, sometimes the BUs work and the BDs don't. But I'm usually switching sizes when that happens. I can say with authority that BUs are easier for beginners.

If you look at the subject from the point of view of using a tool to accomplish a task, the choice generally is to grab whatever feels the best. Sometimes it is just grab whatever is sharp. I have yet to work a plane with a freshly honed edge to needing a re-hone in a single session. For the most part, wear bevels and 30 vs 32 degrees are not issues on my mind.

[Chris Griggs]

You make a very good point Curt. Its very easy for me and lot of folks to get wrapped up in the minutia of edge retention and ultimate tearout prevention. End of the day I think user comfort is a prime factor for me and probably the one of the biggest factors for most people. I grab the planes that feel good to use most often. Its one of the reasons I almost always reach for a 6 before a 7, even if a 7 might technically be more appropriate...I find them more comfortable and less fatiguing to use.

Same thing applies for BD vs BU no doubt. People use the planes that feel best and handle the best in there hands.

I'm very comfortable with using Baily planes, but even I really do appreciate the nuts simplicity of the BU designs. Sometimes the low center of gravity of the BUs feels nicer to me, sometimes the more vertically centralized center of gravity of baileys does. And honestly, while I can and do use set and use chipbreakers with ease, but I must confess that when I am using my LA jack and it comes time sharpen the ease of just popping the blade out and back in really delight me...there is something to be said for simpler designs with less parts (not just in planes but for a lot of things)

If I had to pick a single camp BD or BU it would be BD. But I must admit that really I'm perfectly happy with either and, for me, it really is nice to have some of each.

[Kees Heiden]

It looks like I have to get myself a real BU plane someday, just to know what all the hoopla is about. Any tips for a nice versatile one that doesn't break the bank too much?

[Chris Griggs]

It looks like I have to get myself a real BU plane someday, just to know what all the hoopla is about. Any tips for a nice versatile one that doesn't break the bank too much?

Well given that they are pretty much LV and LN (I'm pretending the new stanley doesn't exist) none are cheap. But I would think this one (http://www.leevalley.com/US/Wood/page.aspx?p=45864&cat=1,41182,52515) would be the best all around-er to compare to say a bailey no. 4, and its not too expensive (relatively). I don't own the one I just linked to and technically the LA Jack is more "versitile" since it can be called in as a small jointer/panel plane, but for smoothing and trimming (and for comparison to other smoothers) the No. 4 sized one seems like a good option.

[Tony Zaffuto]

One of these days I'm going to have to start measuring the angles I use! I'm thinking the angles may be 25 or may be 30 degrees and I don't differentiate much between sharpening for BU or BD, as I free hand. I also don't pay attention to intervals between sharpening: if I perceive a need to sharpen, I do and generally (at least for chisels) I strop pretty regularly.

What I do pay attention to is how long a new tool's edge lasts and what I need to do to adjust it, to achieve the sharpening I'm after for the wood I use. For example, I have one new LV PMV11 chisel. I wasn't satisfied with how it cut when new or how sharp it felt, after initial honing. I lowered the angle a scoosh and it made all the difference in the world.

[Hilton Ralphs]

I have to get myself a real BU plane someday. Any tips for a nice versatile one that doesn't break the bank too much?

Yes, in exactly 364 days time there will be this really cool sale. Get up early.

[Graham Haydon]

Chris, why are we pretending the new Stanley does not exist? Does it have some issues?

[Chris Griggs]

Chris, my are we pretending the new Stanley does not exist? Does it have some issues?

I just can't speak to its quality in any detail. I have heard it has issues, but I've also heard good reports. I've held it and it seemed like one of those tools that you might get a decent one or you might get a bad one...frankly for the price the Woodriver planes (of which I own one) seem much much nicer (but they only make BD).

Mainly, I just don't want to recommend a tool that I cannot comfortably attest to the quality (good or bad)... it may be just fine in most cases, but I don't know, and can't really speak to it. I do know the LN and LV BU planes to be excellent though.

[Chris Vandiver]

Same company that makes Woodriver planes;


http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Quangsheng_No._62_Low_Angle_Jack_Plane.html (http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Quangsheng_No._62_Low_Angle_Jack_Plane.html)

[Chris Griggs]

Same company that makes Woodriver planes;


http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Quangsheng_No._62_Low_Angle_Jack_Plane.html (http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Quangsheng_No._62_Low_Angle_Jack_Plane.html)

Interesting. Given the popularity of LA Jacks I'm suprised Woodcraft has decided to carry them. I bet they'll pop up there sooner than later.

[Graham Haydon]

Thanks Mr Griggs, thought it would be something like that. It is surprising than the Woodcraft have not launched the LAJ that we can get in the UK. It looks to be a nicer item than the Stanley.

[Kees Heiden]

I looked around. Ln or lv would be around 250 euro. But the Chinese 62 can be had for 129 euro. That's more like it and it looks a lot better then the Stanley. Oh well, I'll think about it.

[David Weaver]

Nobody would put a 25 degree bevel on a bevel down plane. I wonder how the test would turn out if you put a 32 degree final bevel on the A2 iron. The cutting angle of the BD plane is fixed, so there is no reason to generate great big clearance amounts, especially if it's at the expense of reason.

Hi David

My tests did include both 25- and 30 degree bevel angles. The 25 degree A2 blade in BU mode outlasted a 30 degree A2 blade in BD mode. It's all here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/LVShootingPlane.html

Now I will go to bed! :)

Regards from Perth

Derek

It's interesting how well the smoothcut iron held up. I would assume that's due to its hardness, though the V11 iron doesn't seem (to me) to have the same hardness advantage, so it can't only be hardness.

I've never shot 60 strokes in a row with the LN jointer without doing something else between them, so I'll likely never find out if the issue with your LN iron is hardness related with all A2 irons (and mine), or if it's that particular batch. I haven't been particularly satisfied with A2 irons at 30 degrees, though, there is still small chipout at that.

[Chris Griggs]

...a confession and epiphany from a loyal BD plane user...

Well, I started to write this as a PM to my buddy Dave Weaver, who helped me and many of us unlock the magic of the chipbreaker. Whose guidance took me from someone who preferred BD planes but was very "BU curious" to someone who would plump for BD every time the BD vs BU question was brought up in terms of anything other than shooting. But as I wrote it I realized, it was best suited for this thread.....

I am slowly over time getting to like to use my BU jack more and more for things other than shooting. The plane that once felt awkwardly balanced has begun to feel precise....the upright tote that once hurt my wrist is beginning to feel in line with my stroke....the 4 finger grip that just felt flat out WRONG has started to feel as normal as a 3 fingered one...and the lack of the ingenious invention that is the chipbreaker, the thing that took me from someone who just sorta preferred BD planes to someone who stood proudly holding the banner for the BD army, isn't being missed much...

I've had my BU jack about 2 years now....and slowly, VERY slowly, it has crept into my hands more and more often to be used for things other than shooting...which was the sole purpose of its purchase.

I started a new project last night...a little bench seat/storage bench/window seat. I was prepping the leg stock which at about 2 ft. long x 2 in. wide made a jack size plane a good tool for following my coarsely set transitional jack. Usually, I would have grabbed my MF No. 15 (5 1/2) or my No. 6 for this but this whole conversation prompted me to grab my LA Jack. Now, of course, I have used my LA Jack for such tasks before, but I've always gone back to my BD planes pretty quickly. This time (and lately in general though), I stuck with the LA Jack, and in doing a lot of work with it began to realize, GASP, that its very very different feel from my BD planes...that 4 finger grip and that low "center of effort" Derek always talks about, is something that I have become comfortable with,and dare I say, have started to like very very much..

I, for the first time last night (well, first time while sober), had a moment where I imagined a shop where maybe my main users would be BU. Not becasue of tearout or edge life or other minutia that really aren't that relevant to mostly tame walnut, cherry, and maple I work, but because the feel and ease with which my BU jack was gliding through the wood last night made me want to keep using it...because, honestly, as much as I love chipbreakers and think they are absolutely genius, there isn't much in the way of tearout I get that I can't prevent by any number of methods... Because, when it was time to rehone...it really was nice to so mindlessly just pop out the thick iron, rub it around on a stone for second, and pop it back in (not that setting a CB really adds any time or real effort, but I do appreciate the simplicity of the BU single iron, and subjectively feels more convenient).

All this is too say, that I'm realizing the minutia that make one plane perform better than the other in more extreme situations...just isn't all that important to the woodworking I enjoy doing. So while I can and do get very wrapped up in that minutia, when push comes to shove, what I care about...what wins my dollars, is subjective comfort and ease of use. As I get more and more used to the different feel of my BU Jack, the subjective comfort and ease of use improves, and the more I can envision buying more BU planes where I had once longed for only BD. I've long wished for an LN No. 7, but cleaning up my edge with my LA jack last night, I for the first time thought to myself..."hey maybe I would like an LN 7 1/2 or LV BU jointer...this whole low center of gravity thing/and 4 fingered grip isn't throwing me off anymore, and darn it, it feels pretty good."

Its funny, after all this when I look at pictures of the LN/LV BU bench planes on the websites I still see special purpose planes...not general use bench planes. And even as I write this and reread through this post, I am thinking..."Chris, what the H E double hockey sticks are you talking about???!!! There's nowhere to point your finger on those blasted things....you strongly prefer BD planes". But even though my bias is telling me one thing my experience is starting to tell me another...that these things really are nice to use.

Will I abandon all BD planes?...no, of course not...Will I abandon mt wish for an LN No. 7...probably not....and for a finish smoother I still have a hard time picturing using anything other than a BD bailey style plane with a closely set chipbreaker. But my feelings are changing, and in all likelihood they will lead to have a larger mix of BD and BU planes that I ever thought I would. My new LV SBUS will should arrive this week...I wonder where it will take me.

(P.S. Dave, will you still be my friend if I start to prefer BU planes?)

[Derek Cohen]

Derek. To your second point. IIRC, you tested longevity comparing the higher angled LN 51 w/CB against a lower angled BU LV shooter right? Wasn't your conclusion/hypothesis that the decreased amount of effort/force needed when using the lower angle to shoot endgrain contributed to better edge retention?

Hi Chris, here is the reply I promised.

One important conclusion reached was that blade orientation had a significant part to play in the longevity of their edges. Regardless of the bevel angle itself, the higher bed of the BD blade created greater force on its edge, and this appeared to be responsible for its increased wear. Conversely, the lower bed angle of the BU blade reduced the force on its edge. For this reason, an A2 blade with a 25 degree bevel in a BU plane was able to last longer than a A2 blade with a higher 30 degree bevel in a BD plane.


This isn't really applicable to what Kees is saying. He's speaking of planing long grain with a 45-50 degree blade with CB vs 55 degree or higher w/o CB. If in fact it is true that the less effort, lower angle of attack=longer edge longevity than he is correct that the BD plane with CB would last longer than the BU at a high angle. I'm not saying that is necessarily true, perhaps even the high blade bevel angle would offset things and bring the BU back to top for retention, but it would need to be tested. I don't know that answer, but I'm not sure you can extend your shooting plane test to this situation,it seems like an over extension of the results.

Up till a year or so ago I was convinced that a BD blade outlasted a BU blade in planing face grain. That was a result of the wear bevel created on the back of the blade. This has been documented by Steve Elliott. Then I began using the Ruler Trick with BU blades. This creates a low (2/3 degree) backbevel where the wear bevel is situated. Now I cannot say that the BU blades last as long or longer than a BD blade - I have not made any comparisons, and neither has Steve. My subjective impression is that the BU blades with the RT last longer than without the RT. Certainly they are quicker to hone.

These BU vs BD comparisons get out of hand. I do not take sides. My original post on this threat praised both equally. They do feel different in the hand, and in use there are pros and cons. Use whichever floats your boat. What gets up my nose are comments that put one or the other down without foundation. Then I will pipe up - not to support BU planes, but to put the record straight, whichever plane is involved.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

(P.S. Dave, will you still be my friend if I start to prefer BU planes?)

:rolleyes: kids these days

[Chris Griggs]

Thanks for your thoughts Derek. The ruler trick thing is interesting. I remembered you saying that you preferred to use the ruler trick on BU planes becasue of the wear bevel, but I did not recall that you thought it increased edge retention. I do like the ruler trick but I stopped using it because I kept losing that dang ruler..un doing the rt can be a pain if one is not judicious in how they use it so I am reluctant to go back to it...but again it is something that I feel gets blades sharper, easier, and so your feelings on edge longevity do make it tempting to start using again on my BU planes anyway (its something I've gone back and forth with a lot).

Anyway, that's a whole other loaded debate. I think this conversation has been much more interesting and productive than many of the BD vs BU threads that pop up periodically, but I agree these do very often get out of hand...as you said previously, if you're getting a nice surface, the wood doesn't care if its BU or BD. Your right, they do feel very very different in hand, and if your used to one kind the other kind can feel out of sorts. That was the biggest surprise for me the first time I used BU plane...how very different it felt.

[Chris Griggs]

:rolleyes: kids these days

I'll take that as a yes!

On the plus side for you, if I become a BU fanatic you might be able to weasel my MF 15 away from me (but probably not...its just too cool to part with :))

[David Weaver]

Up till a year or so ago I was convinced that a BD blade outlasted a BU blade in planing face grain.

I've found them to be about the same, subjectively, but I have to admit I have only ever counted strokes testing irons one time (edge grain on a flat sawn maple board). As long as the angle is about the same.

I'm convinced that the long wear bevel on the flat face of the iron is more cosmetic than anything else -at least when it comes to practical use - and actual pictures of wear on both sides of an iron from kato and kawai seem to suggest the depth of wear is similar on both sides of a very worn iron. The wear in those picturs is just at the tip on the underside and above it on the back side, though their top side of the cut was influenced by the cap iron.

That's probably not going to make much sense for someone who hasn't sharpened a BU iron, nor for folks who haven't seen the K&K pictures.

I personally don't think there's anything superior about the irons themselves, BU or BD, but I think the design of the bailey plane is superior in function, especially if we are talking about a single plane and an iron (vs. an array of irons). I think the difference is exacerbated for someone who prepares wood entirely by hand (as in, it's magnified in the jack-jointer stages). The projection of the iron is less, the cambering is easier, and there is ability to effectively limit tearout even in a heavy cut (not eliminate, but limit) that doesn't exist without stepping up angles in a BD plane - which is undesirable in dimensioning rough lumber that doesn't require a steep angle.

All of that said, the reality is almost all of the planes sold to amateurs are going to get used for rough work very little and they're going to do a lot of play/experimentation as well as smoothing work and leveling of dovetails, etc. And even that I consider the simplicity of being able to use a single plane and single iron to do every type of wood, it's not like you can't do coarser work with a BU Jack, i just find it undesirable, and note that Veritas must also have to some extent (their scrub plane is bevel down). Properly set up, jointing and finer is probably a wash.

[Kees Heiden]

Yes weird discussion because I don't have a preference either.

But now you are "accusing" me of illogical reasoning, I have to answer.

In your test you had two variables and then draw a conclusion. The variables were BU against BD, AND high against low cutting angle. And then you conclude now that the high cutting angle wasn't relevant, only the fact that one of the planes was BU the other BD.

When you look at it with a mechanical mind you could also conclude that the blade orientation wasn't important, only the cutting angle.

You should have compared a BU with a 32 degree sharpening angle to the BD plane. That would have eliminated one variable. I suspect you would find similar wear.

With all respect, Derek. And best wishes from foggy and wet Holland.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Kees

It is all the illogical comments that create interesting discussions here :)

About the bevel angles used in the recent BU/BD tests: a major reason for using a BU plane for shooting is its ability to be set up and plane at low angles for ease of entry into the wood and a cleaner cut. A 25 degree bevel will create a 37 degree cutting angle. The BD plane, by comparison, regardless of bevel angle, planes at 45 degrees. Increasing the BU bevel to plane at 45 degrees (one would need a 33 degree bevel) may strengthen and extend the life of the edge but it reduces the low angle advantage.

Then there is the issue of the 25 degrees on an A2 blade. It is recommended that A2 only be used at 30 degrees (and higher). Indeed, I recall chiding Rob Lee for releasing the Premium block planes (a few years ago) with A2 and not O1 blades. However the fact is that I had used A2 in a LA Jack as a shooter for many years and always honed at 25 degrees (several blades, not just one). And in all these years I have never had the edge fail at this angle. Further, the edge I have achieved on A2 always seemed to be pretty decent - more effort to achieve than O1 but as sharp.

When I compared the Veritas and the LN shooters with A2 blades, finding the 25 degrees on the BU Veritas outlasted the 25- and 30 degrees on the BD LN, it was a surprise, and even more of one when the extent of the gap was shown. At first i thought that this reflected on the LN steel, that it was poorer in quality to the Veritas steel. However I went back and tested steels again, and I am confident that the LN A2 steel is good steel and was not the cause of the difference in the shooters. The difference came down to the angle at which the blade impacted the wood, 12 degrees vs 45 degrees.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Chris Griggs]

However the fact is that I had used A2 in a LA Jack as a shooter for many years and always honed at 25 degrees (several blades, not just one). And in all these years I have never had the edge fail at this angle.

For the record I thought Derek had finally lost it when he started saying this. Finally I went back and dropped the angle of the A2 blade in my LA jack from about 32-33 degrees to what I thought was about 25 degrees (about..i'm not all that precise with a grinder). Initially, it was failing, but then I checked the angle with a protractor and it was a couple degrees below 25. I raised to more like 25 or just a hair above and I've had no problems. I've been flabbergasted by this, but its true. In a BU plane my A2 blade is holding just fine at about 25. Go figure.

[Derek Cohen]

Thank you Chris. :)

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

[...] The difference came down to the angle at which the blade impacted the wood, 12 degrees vs 45 degrees.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Not exactly. The difference in angle at which the blade impacts the wood is 37 versus 45 degrees. The wood doesn't know how the bevel is oriented. It sees a wedge of steel aproaching, nothing more or less.

I have some quite complex ideas to do some measurements myself and want to ivestigate this further. Out of curiosity. Don't expect results anytime soon though.

[Julie Moriarty]

I have owned three veritas bevel up planes, the jack, and two smoothers. They performed well, but i am beginning to think its just because they're made very well.

i also own a used, bailey bd jack with its orignal blade, and a bailey 7 that is stamped defective. I replaced the blade with a hock, and i have to say, i find these two planes much easier to use than any of the bevel ups. They both have horrible backlash, but they just tear out less than the bu's.

recently, bevel ups have become all the rage, and i fear i might have bought into the hype. But i am nit sure if my experience is just a fluke.

Do any of you find the same thing? I am thinking to trade all my bevel ups for bevel downs...

I'm still cutting my teeth with using planes but I have found bevel up planes easy to use. And, because they are usually cheaper than their bevel down counterpart, I have more of them than bevel down planes. FWIW, all mine are L-N. I have a Stanley jack plane that I bought over 30 years ago. I used it back then for one project but it soon found its way into a drawer. I just didn't like using it. The L-N planes make you WANT to use them. And maybe that's all that's important.

[Jim Koepke]

I'm still cutting my teeth with using planes but I have found bevel up planes easy to use. And, because they are usually cheaper than their bevel down counterpart, I have more of them than bevel down planes. FWIW, all mine are L-N. I have a Stanley jack plane that I bought over 30 years ago. I used it back then for one project but it soon found its way into a drawer. I just didn't like using it. The L-N planes make you WANT to use them. And maybe that's all that's important.

Ease of use and tools that "make you WANT to use them" are very good reasons for one's personal preferences.

When a plane feels real good in my hands I have to be careful not too keep making shavings when the surface is done.

Maybe that Stanley jack plane of yours deserves a fresh sharpening and another chance.

jtk

[Curtis Myers]

I have owned three veritas bevel up planes, the jack, and two smoothers. They performed well, but i am beginning to think its just because they're made very well.

i also own a used, bailey bd jack with its orignal blade, and a bailey 7 that is stamped defective. I replaced the blade with a hock, and i have to say, i find these two planes much easier to use than any of the bevel ups. They both have horrible backlash, but they just tear out less than the bu's.

recently, bevel ups have become all the rage, and i fear i might have bought into the hype. But i am nit sure if my experience is just a fluke.

Do any of you find the same thing? I am thinking to trade all my bevel ups for bevel downs...

Wood grain does not care if the plane is bevel up or down.
Rule of thumb:
Blade must be very sharp
Preventing tear out = use a high cutting angle of 50-60 degree (harder to push but eliminates tear out).
End grain = use a low angle of cut 37 degree.

45 degree angle is a compromise where it is easier to push but not enough an angle to prevent tear out. I do not use 45 degree.

Bevel up planes do offer an easier way to achieve the different angles of cut and have a low center of gravity.
I have multiple blades (with a different bevel angle) for each of my bevel up planes.

[Mike Brady]

The L-N planes make you WANT to use them. And maybe that's all that's important.

Insiteful and well said, Julie.

[Roderick Gentry]

LN planes are definitely nice, but I have a lot of planes both home made and various purchased models, LN planes make you want to buy them, but use them, not so much. The have some of the worst charactristics of the type, like hand chewing. And there is nothing all that special about the function. When it comes to buying them they are beautifully executed, when it comes to using them they have overlooked some of the advantages of more modern designs.

BU planes are good, they aren't perfect, but they are very efficient. I can see them as not having enough of the bells and whistles that the restless tool collector wants, But they are a very efficient part of the actual builder's toolkit. Just turns out simple wooden planes you can make in 45 minutes in a well equipped shop, are more efficient still.

[Chris Griggs]

The have some of the worst charactristics of the type, like hand chewing.

I once had a Bichon Frise that had that same problem :)

[Jim Koepke]

LN planes are definitely nice, but I have a lot of planes both home made and various purchased models, LN planes make you want to buy them, but use them, not so much. The have some of the worst charactristics of the type, like hand chewing. And there is nothing all that special about the function. When it comes to buying them they are beautifully executed, when it comes to using them they have overlooked some of the advantages of more modern designs.

I have often wondered why the bigger planes don't incorporate a temperature controlled drink holder.

Mostly though my planes only need a way to control the depth and evenness of shavin' makin'.

If I really wanted set screws to hold the lateral setting I would drill and tap my planes or I would buy new Veritas planes.


BU planes are good, they aren't perfect, but they are very efficient. I can see them as not having enough of the bells and whistles that the restless tool collector wants, But they are a very efficient part of the actual builder's toolkit. Just turns out simple wooden planes you can make in 45 minutes in a well equipped shop, are more efficient still.

Again, my satisfaction can be derived with just the bells and whistles a user needs. My hoard of tools might look like a collection, but it is my intent to either use every tool I buy or sell it to raise money to buy more tools that will get used.

Dang, if I could make a usable, all be it simple, plane in 45 minutes I could probably make some money.

jtk

[Rick Markham]

This was an interesting read, and a pertinent one for me. I've got a bunch of nice BD planes, all of which I love. I have also in the last few months have been seriously considering increasing my collection with a bevel up jack and smoother, or maybe I'll just get another LN 4 1/2 with a 55 degree frog... decisions decisions... the LN miter plane would be nice compliment to the LN 51 shooting plane I bought a few months ago (boy that's a nice one.)

I remember why I had to stop coming here, you dang knuckle draggin neanders see me coming a mile away... Did someone say Handplane? Psh... I don't have a problem... I can stop whenever I want :o

But what fun would that be :D

[Roderick Gentry]

Again, my satisfaction can be derived with just the bells and whistles a user needs. My hoard of tools might look like a collection, but it is my intent to either use every tool I buy or sell it to raise money to buy more tools that will get used.

Dang, if I could make a usable, all be it simple, plane in 45 minutes I could probably make some money.

jtk

I'm sure we are the same in that regard, I don't collect tools either, but 35 years, starting from a period when most everything was junk, and just the mandatory upgrades will amount to a collection. If on top of that I was a collector, it would be very painful.

The 45 minutes number is honest, but not obvious as to what it covers. It only covers working from dressed stock to the point where the shaving comes out. What you do to get wood, from cut it yourself, to pull a piece out of a bin that needs 6 sides of complicated dressing, is too variable to account for, so I leave it out. And the final finishing could vary hugely from french polish and hand carving to just dipping it in a drum of oil, so I leave that out.

But it is dead easy to make the actual plane in 45 minutes. I have done it in front of classes, who I think rather resented the fact that I had been booked for 6 hours. Starting with a 6 sides dressed block of wood, where 8 sides would be dressed again , a lot of resawing, pin making, wedge fitting, gluing, etc... I can also do a blade in 45 minutes from raw stock or a file. This would not include the initial sharpening of the blade, which is also a huge variable for people. Being a krenov plane I like to use a drill press, lathe, bandsaw, and a jointer/planer, or hand plane, depending on what is there. This is not a dovetail games kind of thing. I am sure there are folks out there who could do it in half that time, or maybe 10 minutes, I really have no idea. I only bring it up so people will know how doable it is in a normal shop, not something you have to set aside until you have a ton of time.

I'm not a neanderthal, I have done it all, but that includes machines also. Nobody is machine free in our culture, for real. Everyone buys some wood, or uses a car, or gets tools that could not be made without a machine. There is high skilled an low skilled, and some neanderthals are more like router/TS users if they use all these tools and jigs to the point where there is basically zero skill. I'm impressed by skill, part of which is that skill to leverage tool functions to get accuracy etc... But some people think that working by hand is the same thing as having hand skills, which it is not.

An interesting question would be when was the last time the skilled cabinetmakers where machine free. Hundreds of years ago they were using machines to grind tools. I don't actually know when the last generation was that used only human power and no machines. The sawmill dates to the 3rd century at least, and the use of human stand ins is skill/effort wise, no different.

Not that anyone brought this up, Just pondering.

In any case, maybe some day I will give a try as to how fast I can make a hand mortised hand plane entirely from scratch starting with 6 sides true, to the level of a BU plane; no breaker installed, taking a fine cut. The pros can probably easily break 45 minutes, but for me it kinda depends how it works out. At the end one can spend an eternity on the tune, or it falls in place. The Japanese pros can make 6 planes a day by hand, starting from the seasoned blocks, through to finish. Some use automated machines that do the rough-out, which saves labor, but that isn't the part of the labour that slows them down more than a minute or two. Making a plane really isn't a big job, depending on size to some extent.

[Kees Heiden]

Hi Roderick,

You are seriously fast, but I agree, making a plane doesn't take a ton of time. My first Krenov took a weekend. I made one a few months ago and was finished in half a day. Practice makes perfect.

Regarding traditionally morticed planes, these guys back then were seriously fast. I did some calculations last year from archived data and concluded that they made 5-7 planes a day. Very comparable to the Japanese workers. They worked from rough stock, well seasoned split billets of beech. The amount of machines was minimal, only later in the 19th century the specialist machine morticers were introduced. In such circumstances I think it is faster to make a morticed plane.

[Jack Curtis]

...The Japanese pros can make 6 planes a day by hand, starting from the seasoned blocks, through to finish. Some use automated machines that do the rough-out, which saves labor, but that isn't the part of the labour that slows them down more than a minute or two. Making a plane really isn't a big job, depending on size to some extent.

My first Japanese plane took close to a day from a rough blank; but every one after has taken an hour or two. This is all done with hand tools. And I'm no pro.

[Bill Rhodus]

For what it's worth (probably not much) I have been using a Stanley 62 BUJ for several years on a shooting board that has an A2 iron ground to 25 degrees and have not experienced any wear issues; seems to last as long as my Veritas irons. As far as buying the Stanley 62, I believe Chris is absolutely correct in that the Stanleys can be hit or miss as far as quality. A family member bought me two 62's and a #4 smoother as a thank you for some furniture I built them and I felt obligated to use them. This required me to smooth the blade beds due to rough machining (bed was flat but tool appeared to have been fed thru the cut too quickly, leaving a rough finish) and contacting Stanley for replacement adjusters due to sloppy machining. If you get a deal on the Stanleys and have the ability to fettle them they are fine, if not, buy a Veritas.

[Brian Holcombe]

I've been fighting with my LN BU jack (we almost stopped talking), but recently put a decent micro bevel on it (probably 10 degrees) and it has improved the performance. I can now use it beyond the shooting board without much tear out.