The best plane no one seems to mention...Blum Plane review

[Mike Holbrook]

I was looking up some information and ran across an old thread on "premium" planes:
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?227407-If-you-could-do-just-one-premium-plane

I was struck by the fact that no one mentioned a plane type I should have mentioned myself since I actually own one. I am thinking of the planes made by Blum Tool Co. I got interested in these planes when a guy who use to post here, Orlando Gonzalez, mentioned them to me. As I understood it at the time Orlando, who had an impressive collection of nice planes sold them all and bought all Blum planes. Schwarz did a review of them years ago and our own Derek Cohen has information on them at his site as Blum sent Derek one and challenged him to review it. I think these planes are some of the most accurate, functional designs available and worthy of consideration by anyone contemplating a "premium" plane.

The reason I bring past history to the attention of my fellow SMC posters is I believe many people are missing out in a big way by not considering these planes. A careful review of Derek’s review of Blum planes reveals that Derek’s final analysis was very positive. In Derek’s case, as in mine, Derek took quite a while to complete his review, around 5 months I think. Orlando also had a false start dealing with Blum planes as have others. The “issue” that I believe prevents many from trying these planes out has to do with the learning curve in using them. The important thing to understand here IMHO (in my humble opinion) is the fact that although the Blum frog and blade adjustment system may have a few extra adjustments and move most people out of their comfort zone, there are very important positive benefits to this different system. The important realization I had using my plane was, once “the light bulb went off” and I understood the system, I actually found it as easy or easier than other systems to use and certainly more accurate. Certainly building a chipbreaker into a heavy frog reduces parts and the small, cheap blades are tons easier to sharpen. Turning a couple screws adjusts the mouth size or depth of cut to a degree of accuracy not available with other systems. No need for an adjustable mouth here, so Blum can build a tougher mouth into his planes.

Gary Blum IMHO deserves an enormous amount of credit for essentially building a better mouse trap….We tend to obsess on known quantities on these pages and shy away from the latest “improved” version. There are obvious reasons for this trend among our group of “old school” hand tool users. I’m sure a few posters are clutching their hundred year old Stanley plane to their chest and repeating their mantra to themselves already. I suspect a few LV plane fans are about to stop reading sure that their planes are easier to use and more versatile. The LN users are probably just certain that theirs are the most beautiful, classic planes available. I understand and sympathize with all these emotions, at the same time, I’m here to suggest that these planes are worthy of a fresh look as IMHO they offer a combination of benefits that is unique.

Ease of Use
This has been the stumbling block for Blum planes IMHO. IMHO this issue is a non issue and an actual and very real advantage to Blum planes for anyone willing to spend a little time “looking under the hood”. These planes use two screws to move the frog (with blade attached) up & down within the plane body. A second set of screws sets the planes mouth opening. A fifth screw/bolt locks the entire frog and blade rigidly in place. It is a very simple extremely precise system. The real issue here has to do with preconceived notions concerning adjustments for planes and how they “should” work. The other temporary issue is the frog is located in a dark hole in the plane body where it is hard to see. I say this is a temporary issue because once one grasps what is going on “under the hood” a light bulb tends to go off ending all “ease of use” issues.

I submit to my fellow readers that the Blum system provides better frog/chipbreaker control than a Stanley BedRock, and greater accuracy and blade control than any Stanley, Lee Valley or Lie Nielsen plane. Once familiar with the adjustment system I believe most would agree that it is very accurate and easy to set.

Cost
Blum planes are not cheap but, there is more to the game than the initial cost. Blades for Blum planes are $10. The “chip-breaker” is part of the frog not a separate part and does at least as good a job of supporting the small blade as Stanley plane chip breakers do of supporting their much larger blades. You want need a grinder or coarse diamond stone to “grind” Blum plane blades. The time savings and investment in sharpening gear can be substantial. Each Blum plane comes with a very durable jig to hold the blade in the correct position while the user sharpens it. No need for fancy calibrated plane blade holding jigs here. I suspect a few Blum planes with a few custom frogs and a good supply of blades could out perform a host of other types of planes & scrapers. Another bonus is there is little reason to remove any of the few moving parts from the plane. It is hard to imagine misplacing, breaking or loosing a part other than one of the $10 blades. Blum planes are made from excellent tough woods that Gary takes great pains to finish in such a way that cracks, mouth damage…are of little concern. My plane is several years old and still looks like it did the day it arrived. Mesquite has one of the lowest tendencies to absorb water, expand crack. How many places offer a plane made of Mesquite?


Flexibility, beauty
A quick trip to Blum Tool Co. will reveal the multitude of sizes and woods Gary offers. Talk about your custom options, Gary offers a host of options: including different frog angles. One can even install a scraper frog or order a cambered frog. I find the assortment of woods and functional design to be aesthetically pleasing as well.

[Jim Koepke]

Gary Blum IMHO deserves an enormous amount of credit for essentially building a better mouse trap….We tend to obsess on known quantities on these pages and shy away from the latest “improved” version.

My driving experience would be enhanced in a Tesla. However it wouldn't help me get a bench and a lot of other things to the farmers market like a pick up truck can do.

There have been a lot of better mouse traps. In the end, do they catch more mice?

The old Stanley #4 in my shop still has blades available down at the local hardware store and one of the Borgs carries a replacement for $3.

Nothing against someone preferring a fine piece of art or a well made tool... When the job is done will anyone be able to tell whether someone used a Hotly, a Blum or their great-grandpa's old Stanley?

They do exhibit fine craftsmanship and artistry. The do look like odd ducks and most folks will stay with what they know instead of opting for something exclusive that may have problems finding parts in a few years.

jtk

[Mike Holbrook]

Jim I understand your affection for the old Stanleys, an affection I share. The point of my post was to review a "premium" plane I bought several years ago and did not use for quite a while because of some physical issues. I think it is good to appreciate the guys who push the envelope of hand tool development just like it is good to praise the classics. The point isn't whether or not the job can be done with another plane. Some people prefer certain "ease of use", beauty, different materials...factors. I don't think anyone is going to find a Stanley plane made from mesquite. I am sure we could argue the relative virtue of different woods, woods vs metal...to little avail. I don't think a Blum plane is likely to wear out in a given life time and one can buy a lifetime supply of blades with one for less than what they might pay for one new Stanley blade from LV, or the ones I see on Ebay...A popular topic on this forum has been the ease of sharpening the thinner Stanley blades, well the Blum blades are even smaller and thinner, and they come with a jig for sharpening them too...

Some people might argue that it isn't the destination but the journey that is important. If some people prefer making the journey with premium planes, good on em. If it helps you Jim, the next plane I buy will probably be a Stanley 5 1/2 that I will restore for heavy use with a cambered blade.

I have an old PU truck I haul dogs and lumber in and an old PT Cruiser that mostly hauls dogs around too. I have a client who shows up regularly in a Tesla with the German Shepherd sitting in the back seat. If I want to drive for the joy of driving I hop in the Mini Cooper S though ;-)

[Jim Koepke]

Maybe age is making me a cynic or at least has me sounding like one.

Many folks appreciate the feel of the different feedback from wooden planes or Bedrock design planes compared to planes of the Bailey design.

Having an infill or other fine premium plane from the edge of artistic tool making has occasionally crossed my mind. Bridge City Tools isn't that far from me. If it ever happens either some unexpected funds will have to come my way or a round tuit appears for me to make my own.


Jim I understand your affection for the old Stanleys

Mostly that is because they are plentiful, easy to find and the parts are not rare.

jtk

[Mike Holbrook]

"Mostly that is because they are plentiful, easy to find and the parts are not rare."

I don't know Jim, I am working hard at finding a Stanley 5 1/2 with the newer 2 3/8" blade instead of the original 2 1/4". One Ebay seller responded when asked that the blade in his is 2 5/16", hehe.

[Jim Koepke]

"Mostly that is because they are plentiful, easy to find and the parts are not rare."

I don't know Jim, I am working hard at finding a Stanley 5 1/2 with the newer 2 3/8" blade instead of the original 2 1/4". One Ebay seller responded when asked that the blade in his is 2 5/16", hehe.


Blades varied in width and some got honed on the sides by owners.

My #5-1/2 has a 2-1/4" blade and works fine. If one wants blade interchangeability with other sizes then you want one from 1939 or later.

The #5-1/2 isn't that much different than a #6. Mine doesn't get a lot of use.

jtk

[Allen Jordan]

Saw these at handworks, didn't get a chance to try them though. Very interesting designs, but looked complicated at first glance. I'll have to read Derek's review.

[Tom Vanzant]

Jim, Mike, I'm in the old iron camp. My working planes are Stanley type 9-17 and Bedrock type 5-7, most with Hock iron sets. I have one modern plane, a WoodRiver 4 1/2...heavy is good. I have two Steve Knight planes, a small coffin smoother and a 24" jointer, both Cocobolo, but they see little use. FWIW, my Stanley 5 1/2 has it's original 2 1/4" iron set.

[george wilson]

I'd agree about possibly having blades hard to find down the road. Don't forget that the parts for old Stanleys are for planes that are REALLY old!

If I wanted a replacement blade for a Blum plane,and couldn't get any,I'd offer to suggest that Dispoz-A-Blade jointer knives could be cut off to length with a cut off wheel,and that same cut off wheel would grind the necessary slots. And,you'd have a HSS blade when done. Dispoz-A-Blade blades are .040" thick,and just a little wider than the Blum blades seem to be.

That said,I still would prefer a more conventional plane with an easier to sharpen iron(without fussy jigs to enable sharpening),and irons that can be sharpened many,many times rather than a comparatively few.

[lowell holmes]

Jim, Mike, I'm in the old iron camp. My working planes are Stanley type 9-17 and Bedrock type 5-7, most with Hock iron sets. I have one modern plane, a WoodRiver 4 1/2...heavy is good. I have two Steve Knight planes, a small coffin smoother and a 24" jointer, both Cocobolo, but they see little use. FWIW, my Stanley 5 1/2 has it's original 2 1/4" iron set.

I have three Steve Knight planes, a 24" jointer and two small coffin smoothers. I don't use them much either and I don't know why. They are excellent planes.

[Warren Mickley]

I met Gary and tried out his planes at Valley Forge in 2009. I was struck by how light they were, even for wooden planes. I prefer light planes. The sharpening jig has changed radically since that time and I think for the better. I am a little fuzzy about the old one but I think you had to screw the iron to an angled block. I remember thinking that I would instead have sharpened it like a spokeshave blade: put it in a slot in a stick of wood that you can hold as if you are sharpening a plane iron.

For someone like me who has used up the two inches of life and worn out traditional plane irons, the blades seem very short. There is maybe 5/16" of real life in them. I would worry about the three screws holding the iron to the frog. My cap iron screws all show considerable wear after three and four decades of use. I can't imagine that these little Philips screws, which you would want to be fairly tight, would hold up to professional use. I also wonder how the wood supporting the frog and the adjustment screws would hold up to hard use. It seems as if it would take longer to go through a sharpening routine than a traditional double iron.

I would like to mention that Gary was a proponent of double iron use at a time when you could count such people on one hand. Other plane makers and tool mongers at the time were denying its utility. Most other plane makers today are still in the Dark Ages of the 20th century, with no clue how to use the double iron.

[george wilson]

The plane sort of seems like a wooden plane that needs to be a metal plane. I too have doubts about those little screws staying tight.

I will just say that Blum and I have very different ideas about things such as handle design.

[Gary Blum]

That's coming, George. I have no problem taking design criticism, but making an issue out of whether 3 10-32 machine screws will stay tight? I'll just say I have used the planes now for 9 years. and every time I go to sharpen that little blade, the screws are tight.

I will say that the website is right in the middle of a major makeover, so there are all new videos coming and most of the explanations aren't up yet. Got to get back to work to get ready for WIA in 2 days ( yikes ).


Gary

[Derek Cohen]

I met Gary and tried out his planes at Valley Forge in 2009. I was struck by how light they were, even for wooden planes. I prefer light planes. The sharpening jig has changed radically since that time and I think for the better. I am a little fuzzy about the old one but I think you had to screw the iron to an angled block. I remember thinking that I would instead have sharpened it like a spokeshave blade: put it in a slot in a stick of wood that you can hold as if you are sharpening a plane iron.

For someone like me who has used up the two inches of life and worn out traditional plane irons, the blades seem very short. There is maybe 5/16" of real life in them. I would worry about the three screws holding the iron to the frog. My cap iron screws all show considerable wear after three and four decades of use. I can't imagine that these little Philips screws, which you would want to be fairly tight, would hold up to professional use. I also wonder how the wood supporting the frog and the adjustment screws would hold up to hard use. It seems as if it would take longer to go through a sharpening routine than a traditional double iron.

I would like to mention that Gary was a proponent of double iron use at a time when you could count such people on one hand. Other plane makers and tool mongers at the time were denying its utility. Most other plane makers today are still in the Dark Ages of the 20th century, with no clue how to use the double iron.

The planes are indeed very light. And well balanced.

In my review, back in 2008, I recommended that the blades be honed with the Veritas Small Blade Holder, which was permanently set up in an old Veritas Mk I guide. Sharpening the blades this way became the fastest process one could imagine ... far, far faster than freehanding a Stanley blade ... including removing and replacing the blade in the plane.

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/Blumplanereview-SmootherandForePlanes_html_m617e5b7c.jpg

Back then I was not aware of the part played by a close set chipbreaker, but now I can appreciate that this is actually a built in feature of the Blum frog (even though this was not intended - true, Gary?). The frog = chipbreaker, and this can be set close to the edge of the blade. Worth an experiment or two ..

With regard the apparent short blade life, one must also take into account the low cost of replacement ($10 back in 2008). Keep a bunch on hand.

My review is at: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/Blumplanereview-SmootherandForePlanes.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Mike Holbrook]

Having had and used one for a while now I feel relatively confident that the blade isn't moving. Three large screws about 3/4" apart on a 2 1/4" blade seems secure to me. There is only about 3/8" of distance on either side of the center screw. The blades are small, which I think has been a concern with other reviewers. With the blade locked into the heavy duty frog/chipbreaker though the whole unit is very strong. There are 5 screws in a V pattern holding the frog/chipbreaker in place. It seems to me to be a very secure system for holding a blade in an exact position within the mouth of a plane body.

I agree that the blades are more like razor blades but this is by design. I think the idea is to have a smaller easier to sharpen/maintain blade that is easy & cheap to replace. The machining of the surface/chipbreaker, built into the frog is unique. The surface and edge of the "chipbreaker" looks like a blade itself and I think anyone seeing one in person could see that it is precisely machined more like a more modern Veritas or LN chipbreaker but even finer. There is also a "cap iron" over the actual blade that the three clamping screws are actually set in. The combination of the surface built into the frog, the blade itself and the thick "cap iron" makes a very heavy duty edge rivaling the thickest solid blades in old single iron wood planes. It is almost like there are fine cap irons on both sides of the blade. The only down side here is making a major camber in the edge of this plane's blade would require a cambered frog as well.

I ordered two blades with my plane and will probably order a couple more to be safe and I will still have spent less $ than I would have paid for a single Veritas PM-V11 blade & chipbreaker.

I do think these planes lean towards making fine shavings vs hogging off large chunks. Many people want to see planes make extra fine shavings. I thought about asking Gary to make me a cambered frog so I can try mine at chores more typical of a traditional fore plane but it seems to me these chores are more why I have old Stanley #5, #5 1/4, #6...planes. I bought mine (17") more for a long smoother to level and smooth all at once. I tend to like longer planes for medium to large pieces.

The handle isn't my favorite. It seems to be somewhere between a Veritas and Stanley and probably a little over sized for my medium sized hands. I think Gary has ham fists. Still it is very serviceable. I see a good number of D handles on Gary's new site, which may work better for some people.

Ahh Derek jumped in. I believe Gary took Derek's critique of his sharpening system to heart. Blum planes are now delivered with a jig that I believe does what Derek set up his old Mk I to do. As Derek mentions if you believe in setting chip breakers close to the edge of your plane blade this system provides two very well machined supporting surfaces to back up the blade.

Did I hear a hint of metal planes to come?

[george wilson]

Gary,I have not used one of your planes,and the screws might be just fine. But,when Warren says something,it is worth listening to is all. He seems concerned about the screws. But,I think a lot depends upon how good the steel in them is,and the metal they screw into.

I have no idea what the specifications of your screws are,but the strongest screws are probably those made for holding carbide inserts in place while they cut metal. They can be had in flat head form,but will have Allen sockets in them,or Torx,which will stand plenty of tightening. Most machine suppliers like MSC sell replacement screws for carbide tooling.

[Warren Mickley]

I had two concerns about the screws. One is the screws that hold the blade in place are Phillips head screws that have to be tightened and loosened for every sharpening. My experience with Phillips screws is that the slots in the heads wear and are frustrating. The other concern is screws or bolts holding the frog in place. They are only as strong as the wood tissue supporting them and I wondered if they would loosen with heavy use. Maybe my concerns are unfounded. I have used only five planes for my career, all brought into service between 1973 and 1983, and probably most planes are not given such a heavy workload.

[Gary Blum]

Just spent a good deal of valuable time replying to this thread, went to hit 'Post Quick Reply' and a page came up saying I need to log in! Post apparently gone. Does this happen to anyone else? That's frustrating

[Steve Voigt]

Just spent a good deal of valuable time replying to this thread, went to hit 'Post Quick Reply' and a page came up saying I need to log in! Post apparently gone. Does this happen to anyone else? That's frustrating

Make sure when you log in that you have the "remember me" (or something to that effect) box checked, and it shouldn't happen. But yeah, stuff like that happens and it stinks. I try to remember to copy long replies, so if I lose them, I can just paste them back in again.

[Gary Blum]

Thanks, Steve. BTW, congrats on your new planemaking venture. Everything looks great.

Gary

[Jim Koepke]

I had two concerns about the screws. One is the screws that hold the blade in place are Phillips head screws that have to be tightened and loosened for every sharpening. My experience with Phillips screws is that the slots in the heads wear and are frustrating. The other concern is screws or bolts holding the frog in place. They are only as strong as the wood tissue supporting them and I wondered if they would loosen with heavy use. Maybe my concerns are unfounded. I have used only five planes for my career, all brought into service between 1973 and 1983, and probably most planes are not given such a heavy workload.

There is a lot to be said for the simplicity of a body, a blade and a wedge such as most of my wooden bodied planes incorporate.

The more parts or complexity in a design, the more room for problems.

jtk

[Steve Voigt]

Thanks Gary!
I would still love to see your reply, if you can stomach writing it again. I'm guessing that after a number of years of making and using these planes, you have a pretty good idea of whether they'll hold up, etc.

[Barry Dima]

Just spent a good deal of valuable time replying to this thread, went to hit 'Post Quick Reply' and a page came up saying I need to log in! Post apparently gone. Does this happen to anyone else? That's frustrating

Hi Gary,

This happened to me plenty on another forum I used to frequent and which uses the same coding or framework as this one. I use the "remember me" function, which Steve notes, but when even that goes awry, sometimes simply hitting Back once or twice on your browser will get you back to your reply. Maybe this has something to do with my browser and cookie functions, but it works across several machines.

(Don't mind me on these other rails over here, y'all.)

[Gary Blum]

I'll try again. Thanks for the extra info, Brian.

I did experiment with slotted screws for the back up iron. It is just too easy to slip off of them and run the screwdriver into the blade. The screws are 10-32 x 3/8, so they are available in any good hardware store. I am fairly careful with them and have not had to replace even the ones on my original planes, after 8 years. I appreciate the mention of the torx or allen screws, George. The main reason I haven't done that is just that the phillips is something everyone will have handy by their bench.

Derek, I did have in mind setting the chipbreaker close. Just not THAT close! I'm like almost everyone ( besides Warren), in that I thought close was about 1/64 or so. Happily , with the positive prssure from my back up iron, I'm able to get it really close now where it is most effective. I put about a 112° micro bevel on the front edge of the chipbreaker. Total included angle that is.

My frog has 2 10-32 studs which are connected to the adjusting nuts at the top of the plane. They engage at least 1/2" in those threads. The top brass plate is routed in, but it still sets over the outer cheeks and there is about 1/2" of wood under it. I have never noticed any weakness in this setup or any wear. The frog is also held by the large bolt thru the plane body tightened by the big brass knob. I always just let the frog rest back against the wood bed, rather than close the mouth opening. Using the chipbreak gap adjustment makes the mouth opening not very important, in my opinion. That is also just one less thing for a beginner to worry about.

Gary

[Mike Holbrook]

I think I see Warren's concern. I am not normally a fan of Phillips head screws either, although the ones in my plane have deep recesses that look much better than what I am use to seeing. The two screws that adjust blade height are actually set deeply into the 5/8" thick solid steel frog. It looks like they are locked in position by allen screws. From the frog these two screws thread into metal threads set into the wood. Thumb screw/nuts at the top of the threaded area move the screws up & down. Both thumb screws abut a brass plate set into the top of the plane. The mouth adjustment screws have flat ends that push directly on the metal side of the frog. These two screws also run in metal threads. There is a large T slot in the side of the frog. The large locking knob tightens a nut attached to the end of a heavy screw. The nut rides within the T slot in the frog, securing the entire frog in place. The answer to Warren's concern is, none of the screws run in wood threads and the entire frog is locked in position against the four positioning screws by a nut pulling against a T slot in 5/8" thick solid metal.

Looking at the side of the frog, I see that there is a groove cut into the middle of the top of the "chipbreaker" that the blade rests on. The screws that hold the blade on are set into this groove. The screws must bend/stretch the metal in the plane blade enough to keep it from sliding around on the surface of the frog's chipbreaker.