What plane next?

[Daniel Rode]

I'm not particularly concerned with rough dimensioning as I will continue to do that with machines. I have a #4 smoothing plane that I'm using regularly. What I'm thinking next is something a bit longer and with more mass that would be useful for chuting, flattening small table tops, and such. I think a #7 or #8 is too large for my needs.

The #6 seems like it has plenty of mass to aide in chuting and at 18" is plenty long enough for the jointing, flattening and fine dimensioning I have in mind. However, the #6 seems to be more rare used. I like my Wood River #4 and would probably like the WR #6 but I don't want to spend $200. I'm thinking $30-$60 for the plane plus a new iron gets me a used plane for under $100 (plus some elbow grease).

Another thought is the #5. It seems much more common and at 14" it's still long enough for my needs. However, a used stanely #5 has about the same weight as my WR #4, so not ideal for chuting. Moreover, I think the iron is 2" rather than 2 3/8", so I can share them between planes which is really useful. Since I have a spare stanely iron, I could get started even cheaper.

My other concern is how to buy a decent used plane on ebay. I look a the listing and I'm not sure what to look for or what questions to ask. I want a working plane, not a collector piece.

Any suggestions or advice as to what I should consider?

[David Weaver]

Buy a stock stanley 6, but don't expect a guarantee that you'll be able to use it as a shooting plane, because the squareness of the sides varies widely. If you get one that's close to square, you'll be able to make it work for that, though. Doesn't have to be perfect, just close. It will do flattening effectively and let you work long edges if you have the urge, though.

At any rate, I'd get a stock stanley 6 (or equivalent), and one with a good iron so that you can use the stock iron for a while before you decide you need a high dollar iron.

The iron sharing for 2 and 2 3/8" planes doesn't really amount to much. You won't feel like taking the planes apart all the time to get the iron out of one and put it in another, and the irons in those sizes are as common as water.

There is a big negative wave of information for the 6 that exists almost entirely due to blood and gore (and I don't think that's a big deal), but given the number of 18" long planes out there, people who bought and used planes didn't so quickly universally agree that there was something wrong with the size.

[Daniel Rode]

Thanks David! I read the info and B&G about the #6 but I didn't give it much thought. My needs are fairly specific and the #6 seems to be a good fit.

The worrisome part is that the sole may not be square to the sides. I hadn't thought enough about that. I'll be doing a lot more chuting than flattening.


Buy a stock stanley 6, but don't expect a guarantee that you'll be able to use it as a shooting plane, because the squareness of the sides varies widely. If you get one that's close to square, you'll be able to make it work for that, though. Doesn't have to be perfect, just close. It will do flattening effectively and let you work long edges if you have the urge, though.

At any rate, I'd get a stock stanley 6 (or equivalent), and one with a good iron so that you can use the stock iron for a while before you decide you need a high dollar iron.

The iron sharing for 2 and 2 3/8" planes doesn't really amount to much. You won't feel like taking the planes apart all the time to get the iron out of one and put it in another, and the irons in those sizes are as common as water.

There is a big negative wave of information for the 6 that exists almost entirely due to blood and gore (and I don't think that's a big deal), but given the number of 18" long planes out there, people who bought and used planes didn't so quickly universally agree that there was something wrong with the size.

[David Weaver]

You may think about one of the BU jacks then. I know you don't want to spend $200, but if you're not going to run at things with a heavy camber all the time (like a traditional 6 might have done), the LA jack may fit the role better. You can shoot long edges with it, end grain, of course, and do flattening work with it.

The WR 6 would be just as good for practical purposes if it's square, but $200 for one, to me, is mildly offensive for a chinese plane regardless of the quality (and I do like WR corporate, I just don't always like their pricing policies), and I don't like that it's even a twitch heavier than a LN 6. It is, in fact, within 3 quarters of a pound of my 18" spiers panel plane kit, which is a monstrously heavy plane.

The LA jack is 2 pounds lighter.

If you only spend money in one place, I used to say spend it on a premium jointer because you know it'll be flat, but I think it's even up between that and a plane for shooting. Maybe combining the two isn't a horrible idea (but premium jointers are a lot more than $200).

The only premium plane I have left in "normal" bench planes is a LN jointer, and I keep it because I just don't have anything else that's quite right for shooting - it has to be a stroke of bad luck that the rest of my old planes are as out of square as they are. If any of my other planes were square, it would go out the door. I know it's not uncommon for people to use old stanley bench planes to shoot, because before this became a white-collar-retiree market in terms of the tools, there were plenty of old articles where the shoot plane was a plain-old stanley bench plane.

My first big LN plane was a #6. I sold it a while ago. I have a #6 stanley now. I like it just as much, maybe more -it's not as "nice" of a plane, but for what I do with it, I like it better. It was a 20th of the price (a little less). You may still want to try your luck with a #6 vintage plane first, one in good shape that someone else is currently using and wants to cast off.

[John Vernier]

I'm a recent convert to the #6, having found a good old Stanley at an antique mall for a price I couldn't walk away from. I already owned a #7, which I use regularly, and #8, which I pull out as little as possible. The #6 has become my long plane of choice for flattening most of the parts on an average furniture build. Stanley labeled the #6 a "fore plane" but I think it makes more sense to compare it, functionally, to the "try plane" which was the most common long plane used by every joiner and cabinetmaker in the wooden plane era.

On the other hand, I don't find that the #7 is really much more tiring to use than a #6, and the extra length can be an advantage for working longer pieces, so if you find a good #7 at a good price, I would say buy it. The #8, however, really is a beast, too heavy and tiring to be appealing as a general user (or maybe I just need to work on my forearm strength. I could keep the #8 on my dresser and do lifts every morning).

I find the older stock Stanley blades to be excellent, and I wouldn't trouble to buy an after-market blade until you have given the stock blade a fair shot.

[Chris Griggs]

6s are great. My WR 6 is one of my most used planes...it is the main plane I grab for flattening stock...my 7 really only gets used on edges and my 8 (Sargent 424) is in the classifieds. Even though I've always been totally satisfied with my WR, I wouldn't pay $200 for a Chinese made plane either (I paid $100 for mine). I'll second Daves recommendation for an LA jack though (if you are able to wait and save), since one or your main goals is shooting. For everything else a vintage 6 would be ideal, but you definitively do want something with square sides...don't absolutely need, but DO want, as its annoying to try to use the lateral adjustment to get things to shoot square on an out of square plane. Also, while 6's are great shooters, the BU planes are just a heck of a lot easier to grip on their sides.

[Jim Koepke]

Daniel,

I haven't taken a look through the local pawn shop in over a year. Last time they had a pair of #6s at $35 each. They have been on the shelf a long time because that seems like a high price I guess.

So if you have local pawn shops and antique malls it is a good place to start looking.

I have been fairly lucky on ebay, but still have had a few bum deals. It is a hazard of doing business online.

This may help:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?116419-Planes-and-a-Few-Things-to-Look-For

You will find better deals as your knowledge of the finer points of planes grows.

A lot of information is in the Neanderthal wisdom/FAQs section:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?103805-Neanderthal-wisdom-FAQs

I wish it was still a sticky at the top of the conference instead of hidden away in "announcements."

I have and still occasionally use a #6 for shooting. Now days shooting use is only when a wider blade is needed.

Here is my #6 and a handle made for use on the shooting board:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?130114-Shooting-Board-Plane

Derek Cohen made a much more elegant hot dog that can be found on his web site, www.inthewoodshop.com.

For me the #6 is a good size plane. So good that there are two of them in my shop. One is set up for heavy stock removal and one is set for light stock removal.

jtk

[David Turner]

Daniel: You have a private message

David Turner
Plymouth, MI.

[Prashun Patel]

Am rediscovering the joys of my LA Jack. The more I use it, the more I am realizing all the wonderful things people say about it. I'm new to shooting, but it does the job well for me. I also have a toothed blade that makes it quite painless to scrub boards to thickness and to flatten end-grain cutting boards.

[Steve Voigt]

Stanley labeled the #6 a "fore plane" but I think it makes more sense to compare it, functionally, to the "try plane" which was the most common long plane used by every joiner and cabinetmaker in the wooden plane era.


I just want to add some totally useless plane trivia...the traditional meaning of "fore," as a roughing plane, is a 17th & 18th century thing. Moxon talks about the fore, but never mentions the Jack.
But in the 19th c., the meaning changes. Nicholson, if my memory is correct, never mentions the fore, only the jack. And after a while, fore comes to mean "short jointer." So, Stanley wasn't wrong to call the 6 a fore; they were just following the then-current meaning of the word. It's only very recently that the older meaning has been revived.
Anyway. Count me as a big fan of the 6. It's the largest metal plane I use any more; if I need a longer plane, it's just so much more pleasant to push a wooden plane than a 7 or 8.

[Daniel Rode]

It's far from useless or trivia. Being so new to hand planes, much of the nomenclature is unfamiliar to me. Understanding why something has a particular name gives me a bit more insight. Plus, the history is interesting on it's own.


I just want to add some totally useless plane trivia...the traditional meaning of "fore," as a roughing plane, is a 17th & 18th century thing. Moxon talks about the fore, but never mentions the Jack.
But in the 19th c., the meaning changes. Nicholson, if my memory is correct, never mentions the fore, only the jack. And after a while, fore comes to mean "short jointer." So, Stanley wasn't wrong to call the 6 a fore; they were just following the then-current meaning of the word. It's only very recently that the older meaning has been revived.
Anyway. Count me as a big fan of the 6. It's the largest metal I use any more; if I need a longer plane, it's just so much more pleasant to push a wooden plane than a 7 or 8.

[John Vernier]

Yes, it seems that 'fore plane' evolved in some circles (like the Stanley catalog - could it be an American thing?) to mean the same thing that 'try plane' meant all along, at least to the English. Nicholson describes try planes being 22", long planes being 26", and jointers being about 30". You are right that he doesn't mention fore planes, only jacks. And smoothing planes, of course. Antique wooden try planes at 22" are far more common than anything longer, because every carpenter and joiner would have depended on it constantly.

[Warren Mickley]

Moxon mentions the Jack Plane on page 161, 1703 edition.

279880

[Jim Matthews]

The Bevel Up Jack would be my suggestion.

It's useful, in many applications.
The LN version has an accessory grip called a "hot dog" that makes shooting a sure thing.

[Steve Voigt]

Moxon mentions the Jack Plane on page 161, 1703 edition.

279880
Whoops, my bad. Thanks Warren.

[Daniel Rode]

The LA / BU Jack plane would probably be ideal for me but it's far beyond my current budget. I'm working on a set of end tables and I want to clean-up and flatten the tops with a plane. If the price is within reach, I'd buy a vintage plane. If not, I'll make due with the #4 for a while longer.


The Bevel Up Jack would be my suggestion.
It's useful, in many applications.
The LN version has an accessory grip called a "hot dog" that makes shooting a sure thing.

[John Coloccia]

If you don't have this:
http://www.leevalley.com/en/wood/page.aspx?p=47881&cat=1,41182,48942
or this:
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/block-planes/adjustable-mouth-block-planes/
you're missing out :)

I have both and use both. Pretty much these two, and a LN #5, is what I use for 90% of my work. Albeit, I build instruments, not furniture, but they would still be the first planes I'd have in my arsenal before anything else and I'd still use them 90% of the time. I sold my #7. Very nice to have, but unnecessary IMHO for anything but large furniture, and maybe church doors.

But that's just my opinion.

[Chris Griggs]

Given the budget I'd say a vintage no. 6 is definitely the way to go. You might get lucky and get a squareish one or you might not. You CAN get by by adjusting your lateral adjustments or by shimming your shooting board if you are shooting with a not so square plane...its just somewhat inconvenient....but its not a nightmare. Also, I wouldn't bother with an after market blade if budget is a concern. The aftermarket blades can be a nice improvement, but that stock blades work great.

Keep an eye out for Miller Falls 18s as well as 6s, and get in touch with Joshua Clark (hyperkitten.com) and see if he has anything for sale right now. He's one of the few tool dealers out there still selling quality tools at reasonable prices.

[Hilton Ralphs]

This is crazy, Leach had a Stanley 62 low angle jack for $265 but a brand new Lie-Nielsen will cost you only $245 and a Veritas equivalent with a V11 blade $249.

[Peter Pedisich]

I agree with Chris, vintage No. 6 (18") is the way to go.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-nXuZuU-wfX8/UF-o48M6xBI/AAAAAAAAChk/Kr-Xe6ZVtzc/s800/IMG_7229.JPG

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ep5QLtmVTmM/UYxscCXwAoI/AAAAAAAAChk/GubWLLBQ3KA/s800/IMG_8247.JPG

[steven c newman]

Vintage #5 and #6?279917DE#6c, Ohio Tool Co. 05c, Bailey #5, Corsair C-5, Four Square (SW) 5-1/4. Should do for a start??

[Curt Putnam]

I bought a # 6 recently for $40. Tablesaw Tom has a # 6 ready to go for $105. He is a retired machinist with a surface grinder - his plane are ground flat and square to within 0.0015". A quick Google will locate his website. Just wanted to give you the spread on usable vintage stuff.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

This is crazy, Leach had a Stanley 62 low angle jack for $265 but a brand new Lie-Nielsen will cost you only $245 and a Veritas equivalent with a V11 blade $249.

I'd imagine the market for vintage 62s is pretty much only collectors - they're much more rare than standard bench planes, and from the reviews I've heard, not nearly as nice as new ones. You see a lot with damage too - the low bed angle on large plane like this benefits from ductile iron, it seems.