#2 or #3

[James Phillips]

I am thinking about getting a #2 or #3. I want to upgrade my planes and have some woodriver's and a old #7 bailey. All well tuned. I have a #4, #5, and #6 in Woodriver. I thought about getting a #4, but would like something that will smooth a board without it being "#7" flat; also my WR #4 is serviceable so I thought I should add something I do not already have. Sometimes a #3 or #4 is flat enough.

With all that said, what is the recommendation?

[Jim Koepke]

My #2 gets used mostly on small pieces. My #3 gets used more often on pieces of just about any size. Usually on a big piece the #4-1/2 gets pulled off the shelf.

It really depends on your work. If you make a lot of small boxes or other items of a diminutive size, the #2 might be the better choice. Remember the #2 doesn't have a tote big enough to get your fingers around, unless your hands are also very small.

jtk

[Niels Cosman]

Personally I really like a #3 as a general smoother. I moved down from a high pitched LN 4-1/2 to a Stanley 603 a couple of years ago. I alternated between that and my wooden coffin smoother (for more difficult grain). If I was going to buy a new plane I would by a LN #3 with a higher pitch frog.
I have small hands and can use a 602 as is, The LN has a much larger depth adjuster knob and I can just get my fingers in without too much discomfort (ps any discomfort is too much discomfort!).
I always use a grip with my thumb in the tote (like a coffin smoother).
Chris Schwarz has been experimenting with using a #2 as his primary smoother and has modified his totes to use with a three-fingered grip.
http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodworking-blogs/chris-schwarz-blog/new-no-2-tote-new-finish. There 2 or 3 other blog entrees about it.

[James Phillips]

This may put me over the top for the number 3, but the #2 is still appealing, but probably not as useful


Personally I really like a #3 as a general smoother. I moved down from a high pitched LN 4-1/2 to a Stanley 603 a couple of years ago. I alternated between that and my wooden coffin smoother (for more difficult grain). If I was going to buy a new plane I would by a LN #3 with a higher pitch frog.
I have small hands and can use a 602 as is, The LN has a much larger depth adjuster knob and I can just get my fingers in without too much discomfort (ps any discomfort is too much discomfort!).
I always use a grip with my thumb in the tote (like a coffin smoother).
Chris Schwarz has been experimenting with using a #2 as his primary smoother and has modified his totes to use with a three-fingered grip.
http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodworking-blogs/chris-schwarz-blog/new-no-2-tote-new-finish. There 2 or 3 other blog entrees about it.

[Niels Cosman]

This may put me over the top for the number 3, but the #2 is still appealing, but probably not as useful


But the No.2 is soooo cute! :)

[James Phillips]

Reading the blog you mentioned has me thinking #2 now

[Niels Cosman]

Reading the blog you mentioned has me thinking #2 now

Sorry to cast doubt on the situation! Jim's comments on the scale of work are pretty apt. The scale of your work is important. I think that No.3 is much more versatile and covers a larger range of applications. Also you can get higher frogs which is really great, can't do that with a No.2

[Curt Putnam]

You do not say what you have in the way of block planes. Since a # 2 gets you into block plane size I'd suggest taking a look at the LV low angle with optional totes. Also note that a # 3 is the same length as a #4 - it's just that the blade is narrower.

[James Phillips]

The real logic is to get something that will follow slight undulations and still leave a finish ready surface; so shorter and narrower is the way to go, I think, but as you can see I am undecided.....

I have a Lie Nielson #102 block plane that is a workhorse in my shop

[bridger berdel]

The #2 and #1 sizes exist because single iron block planes don't make great smoothers. If what you want a small plane for is easing corners and scribing trim get a block plane as they are much more nimble for that type of work. If what you need is a small smoother then the low number bailey pattern planes are just the ticket.

[Frederick Skelly]

I have a WR #3, Bailey #3 and a Stanley #2. I prefer the Stanley #3 to the WR #3. (I am a serious fan of the WR planes - lotsa bang for the buck. Their #3 is quite nice but too heavy for my taste now that I have the Bailey.) I use my #3's at least as much as my #4. But honestly, they're close to interchangeable for the things I do.

I wouldnt part with my #2 for anything. I use it all the time on small parts. I love that little guy.

I guess my bottom line is this: If I already had #4, then I'd grab the #2 next. The difference in size is such that the #2 will do things your #4 wont do as easily. Whereas there's not as much difference between a #3 and a #4. So, IMO, you'll get more bang for your buck with a 2 and you can always add a 3 later.

To my knowledge, the only place to buy a new #2 is from LN. I stumbled onto my vintage #2 just before I was ready to order LN's.

Let us know what you decide.
Fred

[Derek Cohen]

I am thinking about getting a #2 or #3. I want to upgrade my planes and have some woodriver's and a old #7 bailey. All well tuned. I have a #4, #5, and #6 in Woodriver. I thought about getting a #4, but would like something that will smooth a board without it being "#7" flat; also my WR #4 is serviceable so I thought I should add something I do not already have. Sometimes a #3 or #4 is flat enough.

With all that said, what is the recommendation?

Hi James

While it is reasonable to view the use of a wider smoother, such as a #4 1/2 size, for a panel, my own preference is for a #3 size for most smoothing tasks, with a #4 size for the wider panels.

Comfort in use is important, which rules out a #2 for me instantly. Even a #3 has a smaller handle, especially evident in the LN version, and more so than the Stanley (if mine are representative). I really like my LN #3 (and Stanley #3), and have managed to modify a #4 handle to fit it with the 45 degree frog (the LN #3 works unmodified with the #4 handle with 50- or 55-degree frogs).

You have to ask what it is about the #3 size plane that is appealing. For a start, it is not just shorter; it is also narrower (1 3/4" wide blade). This makes for a nimble plane, which offers more feedback. At the other end of the spectrum is a #4 1/2, which is longer, heavier and wider (2 3/8").

If you plan to use a higher angle frog, then a narrower blade becomes increasingly desirable in my book. I purchased a 55-degree frog for the LN #4 1/2 I have (Anniversary model, which comes with a 50 degree frog), but found it too much work, plus it was not pitched high enough for our local interlocked hardwoods. This was pre-chipbreaker time for me. (Anyone wanting to trade a nearly new 55 degree frog for a 45 degree LN frog?). I similarly moved from a #3 with a 55 degree frog (purchased together) to a 50-degree frog, and eventually (because I was more proficient with the chipbreaker) to a 45 degree frog (the 50- and 55 degree frogs are for sale).

Another #3 size plane to consider is the LV Small BU Smoother, especially if you have large hands. A very sweet plane.

I am not sure whether there is enough of a difference in dropping down from a #4 to a #3, although the latter remains my personal choice.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kevin Hampshire]

James, I have a LN iron #2 that gets very little use. It sits next to an iron #4 that also gets little use. I tend to gravitate towards my 4 1/2, 5 ½ and 7 for most of what I like do but I’m heavy on small tables, seating benches, and case work made from North American hardwoods. When I want a smaller BD plane, I find that I bypass the #4 for a WR#3 that I bought on a lark. The #3 just seems like the right size for anything that I want to do with a smaller plane.

My LN #2 doesn’t get used much because It’s too hard for me to get a comfortable grip on it and I literally always feel like I’m about to drop it. The #2 is one of the only planes that I generally don’t allow visitors to fool around with because I fear they’ll not keep a good grip on it and it will end up hitting the concrete.

My WR#3 is the exact opposite. It’s probably one of the very few tools that I would consider loaning outside of my shop. My thought for that is it's ease of use, very reasonable price and I can replace it.

Now, both LN and WR planes offer a pretty generous test drive period. Why not buy both of them and see what you think. Who knows, you may even keep both though my personal vote is heavy in favor of the #3.

KH

[Kenny Meinzinger]

Hi James, I have both a 2 and a 3. I use the 3 a lot. I think it's a great size and prefer it to my #4. The 2 I use hardly ever, and when I have I'm simply trying to justify owning it. However, it sure looks nice in my wall cabinet.

[Kees Heiden]

Another idea is the wooden coffin smoother. The standard one is 8" long, like the Stanley #3 but with a wider iron. That size is about ideal. You also have the 6" size which I think is a bit too light.

Finding one is another matter though. The old ones often have all kinds of kinks and wrinckles, like splits and huge wide mouths. You could commision Steve Voigt to make you one, he is as far as I know the only one making that type of plane today.

[ken hatch]

Another idea is the wooden coffin smoother. The standard one is 8" long, like the Stanley #3 but with a wider iron. That size is about ideal. You also have the 6" size which I think is a bit too light.

Finding one is another matter though. The old ones often have all kinds of kinks and wrinckles, like splits and huge wide mouths. You could commision Steve Voigt to make you one, he is as far as I know the only one making that type of plane today.

+1 on what Kees said if you are looking for a small nimble smoother. I have several small wood stock planes, ranging from a PhillyPlane coffin smoother to a ECE coffin smoother plus Krenov style shop made ones, that I use on small projects. All are much more nimble and lighter than my #3s (I do not have a #2). BTW, one of 'em is a like new older ECE coffin smoother that has a double iron as do the shop made ones. The shop made planes and the coffin smoothers, because they have no tote, become an extension of your hand in use. For larger panels, where you might want the use of a tote, a ECE "horned" smoother is really nice and in size fits between the Philly coffin and the ECE double iron coffin plane. As an example of size, the PhillyPlane coffin smoother is 156mm(6 1/4")X55mm(2 1/4") with a 40mm(1 5/8") iron. The largest of the bunch is the ECE double iron coffin smoother at 189mm(7 1/2")X68mm(2 3/4") with a 50mm(2") iron.

ken

[Frederick Skelly]

Odd. I must have small hands or use an odd grip. I never have trouble holding my #2. My WR #1, takes a bit of finesse to hold but not the #2.

As usual, Kees and Ken both raise good thoughts - a coffin smoother or small Krenov. LV sells a HW kit for a Krenov and I built one in a #3 size. It's a nice tool and cost me a total of maybe $70, including the maple.

Fred

[Rob Luter]

I'd like a #2, but just to have one. I really don't need a smoother smaller than a #3 for the work I do. In addition, I have big mitts and the #3 is about as small as I can comfortable grip. If the need arises, I have a couple nice old high angle block planes with adjustable mouths that work just fine for that sort of thing.

[James Phillips]

I see a lot of people that have #2's that do not use them. If anyone wants to part with one, let me know. I have small hands so I think it would work for me

James

[David farmer]

Close cap iron settings have really changed how I work for the better. A one handed plane like a 102 or block is the size that would most benefit from less cutting resistance. I wish there were more options from plane makers for a double iron, one handed plane.

[Jim Koepke]

I wish there were more options from plane makers for a double iron, one handed plane.

It seems there are a few makers making a #1 bench plane. It has a double iron and is a good size for one handed use.

Lie-Nielsen makes one as does Wood River.

It may be just right for your needs.

jtk

[David farmer]

I guess I never took a #1 seriously. I would like to have one in my hand to try. It's hard to imagine it would be a comfortable one hand grip. I was envisioning a squirrel tail type w/ a double iron.

[Jim Koepke]

I guess I never took a #1 seriously. I would like to have one in my hand to try. It's hard to imagine it would be a comfortable one hand grip. I was envisioning a squirrel tail type w/ a double iron.

David,

If you are in the Pacific Northwest you would be welcome to come by and give mine a test drive.

Here is one way to hold it one handed:

325415

Yes, it does look a bit strange, but it actually is comfortable and offers good control.

There may be someone near to you who has a different maker's #1.

I think WoodCraft carries them. There may also be a Lie-Nielsen tool event near you in the future where you could test drive one.

jtk

[Niels Cosman]

I guess I never took a #1 seriously. I would like to have one in my hand to try. It's hard to imagine it would be a comfortable one hand grip. I was envisioning a squirrel tail type w/ a double iron.
OOooooh!
I'm thinking this could be a great opportunity for a little design pet project. Without too much imagination I could see designing a couple of different retro-fits for no.1's and no.2's.
The most straightforward would simply be an extension bracket that could be bolted to the existing tote mounting points upon which you could reattach the existing tote.
On other end of the spectrum, if you wanted one hand use, I could see a fitting a no.1 with a large loop-handle (i.e. a clothes iron or push block).

[John Kananis]

OOooooh!
I'm thinking this could be a great opportunity for a little design pet project. Without too much imagination I could see designing a couple of different retro-fits for no.1's and no.2's.
The most straightforward would simply be an extension bracket that could be bolted to the existing tote mounting points upon which you could reattach the existing tote.
On other end of the spectrum, if you wanted one hand use, I could see a fitting a no.1 with a large loop-handle (i.e. a clothes iron or push block).


Sort of what you're saying (I think) -

http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.aspx?p=41715&cat=1,41182,41189,41715

[David farmer]

Thanks Jim, that's a generous offer. I'm in Durango Colorado so a bit of an outpost. I repair stringed instruments and there is a lot of trimming and shaping of small flexible pieces.Work holding is frequently done w/ the left hand.
I have to thought of modifying existing planes or even making some to fit my desires but have never seen a source for very small cap and iron sets. Making those is a bit deeper than I want to go(fall?).
I'm just surprised that there are not options for double irons that fit tucked under the right hand in a block plane type grip. If you google "violin palm plane" you'll see the numerous small planes involved.
I think the issue w/a #1 is the length of the cutter/advancing mechanism. It puts your hand so far away from where the cutting is going on. I'd still like to try one some time. Anyone have a source (other than custom made) for cap and iron sets less than say 1 1/4"?

Sorry for the hijack James. Probably should be a separate thread.
I see your on the front range and looking at you first big snow dump. Enjoy!

[Niels Cosman]

Sort of what you're saying (I think) -

http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.aspx?p=41715&cat=1,41182,41189,41715

Sort of like exactly!

[Steve Voigt]

Close cap iron settings have really changed how I work for the better. A one handed plane like a 102 or block is the size that would most benefit from less cutting resistance. I wish there were more options from plane makers for a double iron, one handed plane.



I'm just surprised that there are not options for double irons that fit tucked under the right hand in a block plane type grip. If you google "violin palm plane" you'll see the numerous small planes involved.



Like these? ;)

325439

325441

325443
325444

325445

325446

[David farmer]

Gorgeous Steve.
How big are they?
Did you make the caps and irons?

[Steve Voigt]

Thanks David,

They are 5 1/2" long with 1 1/4" irons. I think I might make them 5" if I make more. They are somewhat similar in shape to Conrad Sauer's K4, which is only 4 1/2".

The irons are Hock. I used the stock chipbreaker but if I did it again, I'd make my own, as I do for other planes.

[Frederick Skelly]

Beautiful Steve! I always enjoy seeing your work.
Fred

[Pat Zabrocki]

I love my LN #3