Jointer Planes

[Mike Holbrook]

I have been thinking about a Jointer plane for some time now. I have taken my time on buying this plane because I plan to buy a quality plane. I believe this is a tool that may benefit from more in terms of manufacturing precision and features. I have some experience now with BU/LA, older Stanley and wood planes and find that I like each type in certain situations. My go to planes are the Veritas BU models. I have had a LA Jack and Standard LA Block for quite a few years now. Recently I purchased a BUS and like it maybe even more than the other two. I have ventured off into the BD planes recently having acquired Stanley #3, #4, #5, #6 planes. I like these planes for rougher work or work that may require the tool being used for longer periods of time. The Stanley planes are a little lighter, especially since I bought mostly corrugated bottoms.

My preference for the BU planes has to do with three main features that I have found beneficial or preferable. I like the low center of gravity and weight of these planes, particularly for tougher woods or grain patterns. I prefer the Veritas blade adjustment system used on all the BU models. I like the screws that hold the blade roughly in place, making it easier to return a freshly sharpened blade or substitute a different blade. I like the simplicity of the mouth adjustment system on these planes, although it may not be necessary for rougher work. I appreciate the accuracy with which these planes are manufactured and the durability of the materials used.

Of course there are BD Veritas planes that incorporate some of the same features used in the BU planes. I was stuck between the Veritas Fore plane and the Veritas Jointer plane for a while. I finally decided to buy a Stanley #6 instead of a Veritas Fore plane and use the extra money for an actual Jointer plane later on. I imagine it sounds like the decision is made and I should just buy the Veritas BU Jointer already.

Then LV had to throw the new custom planes into the mix. My first impression was that the Custom jointer was a little pricey and too heavy at 8lbs 9ozs vs 7lbs 8ozs for the BU. Lately I have been noticing features on the newer planes that may incorporate some of the benefits I find for BU planes into a BD plane. Specifically, the custom plane appears to be designed with a shorter frog and a blade that resembles a BU or Japanese plane balde. It appears that the weight distribution of the new custom planes is oriented more like a BU plane. I also find it interesting that the custom planes offer interchangeable frogs for just a little more than buying multiple blades for a BU plane.

So do I wait for Derek to review the new plane? I'm sure I can hobble along with my current planes until then. I am wondering if others see the similarities between the LV BU and custom planes I do? Should we be surprised that LV has chosen to follow a successful theme? So now we can swap out frogs and or blades to "customize" our planes performance, cool, and smart marketing I'm thinking.

[David Weaver]

The custom planes feel a lot like the BU planes. If you like the feel of the BU planes, and the orientation of the mouth (where it's located, low center of gravity), and you want a BD plane, then they are a good choice. If you really like the BU format a lot, I can't see a good reason to not just go with that.

[Prashun Patel]

You should purchase a Veritas BU jointer. Once you get it and review it, I'll decide whether I should get one. Am in the same exact boat as you. I may also make one for kicks, but I like the Veritas offering because it uses the same blades as my BU jack. I am finding good reasons to maintain multiple blades at different grinds.

[Derek Cohen]

I have been spending time exploring the new LV Custom BD Jointer in a number of configurations. Fascinating!

There is a 50 degree frog, which can be used with- or without a chip breaker. There is a 40 degree frog, and ditto. (One of the aspects that interested me was to see how well the jointer would control tear out in reversing grain with the latter). There are standard and Stanley-type handles, tall and short knobs.

At some stage I will write up my observations to act as a guide for those wanting to understand the various options.

What I will say for now is that the BD and BU jointers initially felt very different in the hand. The BU jointer is an incredibly easy plane to use as it has such a low centre of gravity, and it sucks down onto the wood. The BD jointer has a medium centre of gravity, feels solid and offers more feedback that I recall from my Stanley #7. Both the BU and BD planes feel taut and balanced.

Below is the LA Jointer with a Bill Rittner replacement handle and knob. The BD Jointer has the LV Stanley-type handle ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/2-Jointers_zps9d8c1c1f.jpg

Both jointers are 22" long, which is the same as a #7. The BU has its mouth further back than a #7, and is in fact where one would find the mouth of a #8. The BD jointer is configured as per the #7 - so is not the same as the BU.

I'm not going to write much more at this stage other than to suggest that you try, if you can, using the BD with the standard (more upright) handle. It will surprise you how right it feels. The Stanley-type handle may better suit the shorter smoothers. Your mileage may vary, however.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

Mike,

Other than a difference in size the #6 Stanley/Bailey should give you a good feel for how a jointer of the Stanley variety will work.

Your LA jack vs the #5 would also be planes to compare. To me the difference centers on the end grain with the LA jack being the clear winner.

Clearly my choice doesn't reflect anything but my own likes and dislikes. For all that has been done in my shop the old rust finds have worked very well.

jtk

[Curt Putnam]

If you prefer BD then go that route, if BU then go that route.

That said, I have the BU jointer and use it more than either the jack or the smoother. In particular, I like to fence it and use it to finish an edge before edge gluing. You will lose some of the interchangeability advantages by going the BD route. Despite the foregoing, I'd suggest waiting to physically handle them if possible or waiting for Derek if not. Can't wrong with either choice.

[David Weaver]

Derek, I'm confused by what you mean when you say that there is "more feedback". Can you describe that? Do you mean that it feels more direct or solid?

(for reference, I'd normally say a lighter plane has more feedback unless it's sloppily put together.)

The only one I've gotten to try is the 5 1/2 sized plane, so it sounds like the relative comparison to the stanleys may not be the same across all of the planes.

Being such a fanatic for the stanley bailey design, the custom plane feels very different to me, but it's very solid like all of the modern premium planes. I'd say from what I can recall of the BU planes it feels like 90% LV and 10% continental plane, and not a lot like a stanley. The classic profile handle is a bit more upright even than a stanley handle.

Setting the cap iron is a bit different, too, but once you get used to it it's quick. I blued the cap iron, though, so I could see it more easily. There are no dull looking bits and no curved bits on it and it can be hard to see it to set it (marker would be fine, though, it's not necessary to use blue).

I'm kind of surprised that after the rollout there really hasn't been much talk.

[Derek Cohen]

Derek, I'm confused by what you mean when you say that there is "more feedback". Can you describe that? Do you mean that it feels more direct or solid?
Hi David

To understand the feedback from the BU jointer you need to imagine a comparison between walking in a pair of slippers and then in a pair of shoes. The slippers are thin and your feet are more sensitive to the surface you are walking upon. Go from a BU Jointer to a high sided woody, and you will realise that the planes offer very different experiences of planing/ jointing. The feedback from the BU jointer has little to do with the mass of the plane - instead it seems as if it has more to do with transmission of vibration through the plane's body. Another analogy - possibly a better one - is the feedback one gets from a card scraper versus a scraper plane. The card scraper just feels more alive and immediate.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

OK, I follow that with wooden planes (especially something like beech, which warren refers to as being a dead wood). The stanley planes, though, seem to feel thinner to me, but offer plenty of feedback. The premium planes feel more solid, like a single unit, and I don't feel quite as much feedback - which may be due to weight. It's maybe more like a fundamental feel, though.

When I think of a heavier plane, I think of something like an infill, that is also solid, but offers little feedback in thinner shavings. The lack of feedback isn't necessarily from the infill, though, it's the weight. They are sort of between woodies and BUs in that the weight is there and they are authoritative, but they also have a higher center of gravity.

I'm wondering if what you're talking about as feel has more to do with the linearity of the force from the BU planes - more push and less down.

[Jim Koepke]

I'm kind of surprised that after the rollout there really hasn't been much talk.

People are getting in the holiday mode. After Christmas there should be a few brags on what was under the tree. Then there will be those who use their Christmas money and gift certificates to pull the trigger on a new tool.

For me, there are only so many ways a shaving coming of a piece of wood can feel different. For my pleasure my old Bailey style planes feel just fine.

As example my various #3 size planes have slightly different feels when in use. The Dunlap, by Millers Falls, feels the lightest and the action of the blade slicing wood feels a little on the 'flimsy' side. The K3, by Stanley, is of the early Bedrock design and has a solid feel when making shavings. The type 13 Bailey style plane only feels a little less solid than the Bedrock design. Most likely this is due to the frog mating the base. The Bedrock design is such that it dampens most of the resonate vibrations in action.

jtk

[Prashun Patel]

Derek, David, if you could have just one jointer plane, which would it be? Jim, I know your answer.

[Mike Holbrook]

Yea, we drew Derek out a little at least ;-) I could not help but notice that the fence for the BD is more like Derek suggests as an even better option for the BU plane, in his review. Good info, on the handles Derek and David. Keep working on Derek I know there is more info. to be had.

Prashun, no you jump first so I have the advantage of hind sight ;-) I am still reviewing the Stanley planes I am struggling to get properly set up. I probably want make a decision on a jointer until I get a little more experience with the Stanley planes. I have past negative experience to overcome in regard to the Stanley planes, dating back to newer Record & Paragon planes. Also Prashun I am still working on my 26" wood jointer. Getting a blade, wedge and gripping set up that I am happy with is taking quite a while.

Like Curt my favorite plane was a jointer, at least until I bought better planes. The original guy I bought tools from at Highland Woodworking (back when it was Highland Hardware) liked a jointer as his main plane over a #5. I think I inherited his prejudice in that regard.

[Prashun Patel]

I was planning to build a wood one myself. But I have a dining room table project coming up that is pushing the issue faster than I'd be able to build/perfect a good wood jointer.

I honestly like the feel of bevel down planes a little better than the BU's. But I think I love the easy-in-easy out of the BU blades even better... It encourages me to sharpen more often which ultimately leads to my best results.

I should probably just hold out for a used bedrock jointer. I have a Hock blade/chip breaker that's made my untuned Bailey's sows ear into a passable (not quite silk) purse. I'm sure it'd do well in a more worthy plane.

[David Weaver]

Derek, David, if you could have just one jointer plane, which would it be? Jim, I know your answer.

I could really get used to any of them, I guess. If I could get lucky enough to have a stanley 7 that was dead square and had patina on it with no rust, and no use on the iron, that would be ideal.

I take a heavy shaving any time I can because I'm usually working from rough and I don't worry about surface quality (other than minimizing tearout) until smoothing, and I've come to realize that there are not that many people working like that.

I will always have at least two jointers, a stanley 7 type of some brand (right now I have a millers falls 22) and the wooden one I just made - unless I make a better one.

(but I think if you stuck me with any jointer, I could get along fine as long as I didn't get stuck with one where the mouth is higher than the ends of the jointer and I have no way to correct it - it really doesn't matter much)

[Frank Martin]

I do have the BU jointer along with the BUS and LA Jack. I am primarily a power tool user. I got the jointer when it first came out about 8 years ago and recently the need came up to use it. Took it out, put a sharp blade from the LA Jack, set up the fence, tried it on scrap, adjusted the fence and the blade and in less than 2 minutes I was getting a perfect 90 degree edge with no tear out. I call that top notch performance. I do think it is a fair point to compare with the BD version, but given that you have the other two that share the same blade, BU may be a good option unless of course you want to have both:D

I am also curious about the new custom planes and will likely get one soon, after I see some reviews out there. I am thinking abut the #4 size.

[Frank Martin]

Don't mean to hijack the thread but I am curious as I don't remember seeing that information on the LV website.

[Bill Moser]

I have a few jointers -- an LV BU, a couple of round-sided bedrocks (607, 608), and a couple of woodies. I'm not very analytical about my planes. Some of them feel more like they're my kids, or something. My 607 feels that way, I just don't think I could ever part with it. Derek made an interesting observation about the LV BU: it sucks down onto the wood. Very smooth feeling.

[Mike Holbrook]

The three things I am missing so far on the Stanley planes are 1) an adjustable mouth 2) the screws in the side of the plane body that keep the blade centered 3) A plain flat blade (adjusting the frog so that the chip breaker and blade fit properly with the fixed mouth seems complicated to me at this stage). I can see work arounds for those Stanley features, but at least at the stage I am at they are time consuming.

Another question I have regarding these planes has to do with the blades. I heard that the Stanley blades with SW are good blades and I have a couple of them? I have one that has the Stanley logo in a triangle, which someone somewhere insinuated was at least a decent blade and one blade has the Stanley logo in more of a rectangle. Any advise on these Stanley blades? Is it worth worrying about the differences, or is it a try and see thing? It seems like the chip breakers edges could do with a little work so they register well across the entire blade surface? At first I thought these blades were going to be soft and easy to work. Now I am thinking the steel may be tougher than I thought.

The attractive thing about the new custom Veritas BD planes in regard to my three Stanley issues is the new design seems to eliminate 2 1/2 to 3 of these issues.

[Jim Koepke]

Derek made an interesting observation about the LV BU: it sucks down onto the wood. Very smooth feeling.

My thought was that is the bevel up interaction with the shaving. Kind of like a chisel on the scribed line when chopping out dovetails. The action is more noticeable on thicker shavings with smaller planes.

jtk

[Jim R Edwards]

I have a Clifton #7 and it is a very good plane. Weighs over ten pounds and just plows through wood with minimal effort.

[Mike Holbrook]

Wow the Clifton #7 is over 10 lbs. I thought the Veritas BD #7 was heavy at 8 lbs. 9 ozs., good to know it isn't the heaviest.

The three Stanley plane features I mention above are currently time consuming, at least for me, at my current learning state. The Stanley blade/frog/cap iron setting features all work down to blade adjustment challenges. Derek mentions using the new Veritas BD with and without a cap iron. The videos and the plane description reveal "The cap iron registers on a low-profile blade carrier attached to the blade, which allows fast removal of the cap iron for blade sharpening. It also lets you restore the cap iron without losing its position relative to the cutting edge.". The video also offers a brief glimpse of the different system for mating cap iron and blade and a locking, push button style Norris-type adjuster. All in all it appears that the new BD plane attempts to minimize any and all challenges BD planes use to suffer in comparison to the BU planes blade adjustment system. Again Veritas appears to be incorporating features that users like on their BU planes into their BD planes, even to the point of using or eliminating a cap iron as the user sees fit. As Derek says Fascinating!

It would seem to be quite a coup if Veritas has designed a BD plane that can be used with or without a cap iron and simultaneously incorporated the blade adjustment features that are popular with Veritas BU plane users. To whatever degree these features succeed, we are left with choosing between BU and BD blades and the feel and balance of the two plane designs.

[Jim Koepke]

It would seem to be quite a coup if Veritas has designed a BD plane that can be used with or without a cap iron and simultaneously incorporated the blade adjustment features that are popular with Veritas BU plane users. To whatever degree these features succeed, we are left with choosing between BU and BD blades and the feel and balance of the two plane designs.

What would really be amazing is if there could be a low angle frog to change the plane from a bevel down to a bevel up plane.

Now that would be radical.

jtk

[Derek Cohen]

Don't mean to hijack the thread but I am curious as I don't remember seeing that information on the LV website.

Frank, the blades are 1/8" thick as I recall. Definitely thinner than the 3/16" BU planes.

Keep in mind that many will use them with the chip breaker.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

What would really be amazing is if there could be a low angle frog to change the plane from a bevel down to a bevel up plane.

Now that would be radical.

jtk


Hi Jim

That is already present!

Any of the frogs could be used in a BU configuration, such as a 50 degree to act as a 80 degree scraper plane using a 30 degree (reversed) blade. What makes this practical is that the blades are thick and stable, and the mouth is easy to open up (it slides away like the BU planes).

However there is also the 40 degree frog which, with a 30 degree bevel, can work as a low angle 40 degree shooting plane and a high angle 70 degree smoother. All this is without using a chip breaker. (I have planed reversing grain without tearout using the 40 degree frog and closed up chip breaker).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Noah Wagener]

I read that you want a high center of gravity for a jointer. Any deviation from square when jointing an edge is felt more. Apprentices were given razee jointers because they are less likely to tip out of square but it can not be felt as much.

[Derek Cohen]

I read that you want a high center of gravity for a jointer. Any deviation from square when jointing an edge is felt more. Apprentices were given razee jointers because they are less likely to tip out of square but it can not be felt as much.

Larry Williams (Old Street) used to write about how it was easier to orientate for vertical with a high-sided woodie. I can accept his logic here, and have no doubt that there are many that benefit from such planes and prefer to work that way. No argument from me.

I think that there are a number of ways to joint edges, and that the most successful way (best way) for one is not necessarily the best way for another.

I have built a few high-sided wooden jointers (and classic coffin smoothers). After a while I find myself returning to the BU Jointer. For myself, it is more important that I have a feel for the surface of the wood than a feeling for vertical. I have a good sense of vertical generally, for example, can saw plumb with a backsaw with my eyes closed, and consequently it may be that I do not require extra sensory input in this department.

Jointing mating edges I prefer to match plane. Therefore my jointer plane blade is straight, not cambered. I understand the cambered method, however one is either joining two edges or preparing a flat edge, and for this I find a straight blade edge preferable. My BU Jointer has a 40 degree straight edge (the only bench plane I use with a straight edge).

For jointing single boards (such as when preparing a stretcher for a mortice-and-tenon joint), my method is to place a square against the edge and see where, and by how much, the top needs to be re-shaped (sometimes you do not want a jointer for this). I will then move the blade over to that area, and tip the plane to remove that section. With the feedback from the plane it is possible to determine where it is cutting. Once square, or largely square, the edge can be planed on the square.

I'd be interested to hear of the method used by others.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

High or low, one can get used to and use almost anything. I find my woody jointer to be a bit more difficult to use for freehand jointing a square edge, but probably because I'm so used to Stanley planes. But it's not like the difference is large (it's not even large enough to see a difference in the joint, it's more of a difference in feel).

I can remove wood fast more comfortably with the woody. I remember truing edges with the LA jack feeling a little bit funny, but I'll bet it would take less than a week of dedicated use to get used to it.

[Mike Holbrook]

Thanks for the insights Derek and David. I am hoping Derek will post a review on his Blog before long. It will be interesting to read how he thinks the new BD compares to the BU for actual work. We appreciate the detailed, user centric evaluations Derek. Veritas certainly went all out on making a sleek, modern looking design. It screams new, different, improved but then I believe, as I believe Derek does, that the Veritas BU Jointer is a tough act to follow. LV was not afraid to think out of the box on this one. Instead of following the trend to make small improvements to the original Stanley design and maintain the overall look and feel these planes seem to go out of their way to be different. It looks to me like the feature set is radical enough to make these BD planes instant classics.

[David Weaver]

I think if you want to use the cap iron, there's no way to do it other than the new planes. If you don't, then there's a lot of six of one and half dozen of another sort of things going on when comparing the two planes.

[Mike Holbrook]

I hear you David. I think someone could make a good case for a woody with nothing but a blade and a wedge being the easiest to adjust. To make that argument one would have to assume several things that are tough to assume though. The blade, wedge and plane bed would need to be made very precisely and maintained that way. The user would need to have the prerequisite ability to tap tap the blade and wedge into place too. The Stanley planes attempt to replace some variables with constants but in the process create some new hopefully easier to manage variables that have to be dealt with. The same principals hold true to an even greater degree with the BU and the new BD planes. Certainly at some point in this modern world one has to ask themselves how many new variables they want to deal with in order to achieve some theoretical advantage. The crux of the matter being that all features do not turn out to be benefits to all users. Which is why I think the "smart money" is waiting to see how many of the features on the new BD planes turn out to be valuable for the way they work.

[David Weaver]

I would definitely say the wooden planes, all of them, present a little more in terms of setup and maintenance than metal planes. the speed is in the actual cut, and hopefully the speed and lack of metal bearing on a wood surface will return enough in economy of effort to make up for it.

if i gave my planes, the ones that I just made that are all very tight, to someone who didn't know how to use a double iron, they'd be frustrated anywhere they didn't have a good downgrain bit to plane. I know that because the first wooden planes I got were common pitch double irons and I was convinced that they were only capable of coarse work.

So hopefully nobody will take from my comments that the woodies are quite as easy to set up and maintain - I don't think they are. Careful orientation of the wood (and use from the same stick) should limit down the road trouble for things that I've seen as problems in more cheaply made planes - things like wedge fingers not being oriented the same as the plane body and shrinking more into the plane. But that stuff is pretty esoteric. I have an old plane from the 1830s with the original wedge that fits perfectly without every trimming - and it is a testament to to getting the wedge to match the plane body.