Which smoothing plane

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

I know this must be a topic which has been discussed to death over and over again. Nevertheless I need some piece of advise on which smoothing plane to buy.

I have Stanley no 7, a LN no 5, and Stanley no. 4½. Im not really using the Stanley 4½. I find it a bit bulky.

I think I need an alround smoothing plane and wonder which one to buy ?

[Kees Heiden]

The #4 is the alltime most universally adopted smooting plane from Stanley. They were sold by the bucketload and old ones can be find everywhere nowadays.

[Prashun Patel]

If you have the funds, the people who own the Lie Nielsen #4 swear by it. You cannot go wrong with that. And if you do, you'll sell it pronto (to me; i want one too...)

I own an ECE primus smoother that is wonderful.

I have a Veritas small bevel up smoother and have used the larger BU smoother, and while blade changes are easier, I prefer the bevel down configuration for a smoother.

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

would a high angle frog be better ?

[Jim Koepke]

would a high angle frog be better ?

People have been doing fine with a #4 plane as a smoother for well over 150 years. It must have something going for it. My only other recommendation for a smoother would be a #3. It is a bit smaller than the #4, making it easier to push but it takes more strokes for the same size work.

With a smoother one is usually taking fine shavings for the optimum surface. A higher angle doesn't produce as nice a surface and is usually reserved for difficult woods.

jtk

[lowell holmes]

I have #3, 604, #5 1/2, 605, and 607 planes. The #3 Bailey is my go to smoother.

I might very well use my LV bevel up smoother if it's a serious project.

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

I just saw the Veritas #4 custom smoother with the PM-V11 blade. That is very interesting

[Patrick Chase]

I just saw the Veritas #4 custom smoother with the PM-V11 blade. That is very interesting

I have that plane and it's great, but...

The 4 and 4-1/2 (which you already have) are very similar in size, except that the 4-1/2 is 3/8" wider (2-3/8" blade vs 2" blade). If you find that the 4-1/2 is "bulky" because of its length then the 4 won't help - you'd want to step down to a 3 or even a 2 in that case.

Also, I wouldn't advise messing with high-angle frogs until you've spent some serious time smoothing with a common pitch plane, figuring out cap iron and mouth adjustments. If you get the LN or LV custom you can always buy the high angle frog separately and retrofit.

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

I have that plane and it's great, but...

The 4 and 4-1/2 (which you already have) are very similar in size, except that the 4-1/2 is 3/8" wider (2-3/8" blade vs 2" blade). If you find that the 4-1/2 is "bulky" because of its length then the 4 won't help - you'd want to step down to a 3 or even a 2 in that case.

Also, I wouldn't advise messing with high-angle frogs until you've spent some serious time smoothing with a common pitch plane, figuring out cap iron and mouth adjustments. If you get the LN or LV custom you can always buy the high angle frog separately and retrofit.


Its a 5 and 4½ I have. The 4½ I find bulky because of the extra with...I think :rolleyes:

That Veritas custom #4 is now on the wish list

[David Bassett]

I just saw the Veritas #4 custom smoother with the PM-V11 blade. That is very interesting

Except for price, it's hard to imagine how that could be a poor choice.

There have been several, often contentious, threads recently. You should be able to find more details than you need with a search. My take for all that is that a normal angle bevel-down plane is the best choice once you have mastered setting the chip-breaker. A higher bedding angle can help some with tear out for really difficult woods, but with poorer surfaces over all. And a low-angle bevel-up plane is the easiest to setup to get good results, but reaches it's limits sooner too. Since I don't aspire to own a gazillion planes, one like the Veritas you mention seems the best choice to me.

[Patrick Chase]

Its a 5 and 4½ I have. The 4½ I find bulky because of the extra with...I think :rolleyes:

That Veritas custom #4 is now on the wish list

What do you think of the 5? That's the same width (and blade, and mechanics) as a 4 but longer. Some people even use 5s (and 5-1/2s for that matter) as smoothers. If you're comfortable pushing that then your concern likely does boil down to width as you say.

Another way to test your preference would be to camber the blade on your 4-1/2 such that only part of it is extended at typical smoothing cut depths. That won't make the plane physically smaller, but it will reduce planing effort to the level of the 4.

[Chris Hachet]

If you have the funds, the people who own the Lie Nielsen #4 swear by it. You cannot go wrong with that. And if you do, you'll sell it pronto (to me; i want one too...)

I own an ECE Emerich smoother that is wonderful.

I have a Veritas small bevel up smoother and have used the larger BU smoother, and while blade changes are easier, I prefer the bevel down configuration for a smoother.

I concur, I use the ECE and am saving for a Lie Nielson #4 Bronze....

[Nicholas Lawrence]

The 4 1/2 is a little longer and a little heavier as well as a little bit wider. But I have one, and it makes a very nice smoother. If you have not done so already, try a little wax on the sole, that makes mine feel a lot less bulky.

My primary planes are a 7, 5, 4 1/2 (plus a No. 40). Rather than another plane to do what the 4 1/2 ought to be able to do, maybe look at filling in any other holes you might have. Maybe a router plane if you don't have one, or a rabbet plane. Lots of useful tools out there for way less than $300. I think the new Lie Nielsen shoulder planes are less than that.

[steven c newman]

#4 smooth plane at work..
329174
Cost me a whopping fifty cents.
329175
Made by Millers Falls. Sold as a Mohawk-Shelburne. Same size as the Stanley #4, T-13 I have.
I also have a few #3 sized planes. I have one #5 sized one set up as a smoother, as well.

Setting off to one side, I have a German made Dunlap #3.....it has a York Pitch frog. They got that by angling the base for the frog to sit on. Bottom on the frog is flat. Needs to be refurbbed, again. Iron is actually a metric width..

[Chris Hachet]

#4 smooth plane at work..
329174
Cost me a whopping fifty cents.
329175
Made by Millers Falls. Sold as a Mohawk-Shelburne. Same size as the Stanley #4, T-13 I have.
I also have a few #3 sized planes. I have one #5 sized one set up as a smoother, as well.

Setting off to one side, I have a German made Dunlap #3.....it has a York Pitch frog. They got that by angling the base for the frog to sit on. Bottom on the frog is flat. Needs to be refurbbed, again. Iron is actually a metric width..


My vintage planes work better with repalcement Irons. I am going to tune one of my vintage Stanley #4 planes within an inch of it's life as a smoother...

[Brian Holcombe]

I'd put more time on the 4-1/2, and as Patrick suggests, camber the blade lightly.

[Patrick Chase]

I'd put more time on the 4-1/2, and as Patrick suggests, camber the blade lightly.

Emphasis on "lightly". I probably should have been clearer. To get a shaving width of 2" at a peak depth of, say, 4 mils you would want a camber radius of about 100". Obviously you can't mark that out with a protractor, so trial and error will be in order.

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

I'd put more time on the 4-1/2, and as Patrick suggests, camber the blade lightly.


I will as it is the most cost effective at the moment.

By the way, If I wanted a japanese allround smoothing plane, which should I buy ? Can the blades be sharpened in a eclipse jig as I do with my other blades ?

[Chris Hachet]

Except for price, it's hard to imagine how that could be a poor choice.

There have been several, often contentious, threads recently. You should be able to find more details than you need with a search. My take for all that is that a normal angle bevel-down plane is the best choice once you have mastered setting the chip-breaker. A higher bedding angle can help some with tear out for really difficult woods, but with poorer surfaces over all. And a low-angle bevel-up plane is the easiest to setup to get good results, but reaches it's limits sooner too. Since I don't aspire to own a gazillion planes, one like the Veritas you mention seems the best choice to me.


If you are like me and don't enjoy sharpening, the PMV-11 seems to stay sharp forever....

[Patrick Chase]

I will as it is the most cost effective at the moment.

By the way, If I wanted a japanese allround smoothing plane, which should I buy ? Can the blades be sharpened in a eclipse jig as I do with my other blades ?

Ooh, Japanese planes and sharpening guides. Nice combo move - let me know how the flamewar turns out.

[Brian Holcombe]

I will as it is the most cost effective at the moment.

By the way, If I wanted a japanese allround smoothing plane, which should I buy ? Can the blades be sharpened in a eclipse jig as I do with my other blades ?

Lasse, I would tune up that 4-1/2 before you do anything else. Getting inundated with too many new tools can actually make things more confusing. Your 4-1/2 can do everything you want, but once you have that tuned up and really doing well then consider adding a Kanna to the rotation.

To answer your question, the eclipse does not work very well for my Kanna blade, it's not too wide, but too thick and tapered. I use a Grindtec K2 to set the bevel and also to microbevel accurately.

Just so that you are aware, the Kanna is a good deal of work to setup initially, where LN, LV, ect are practically out of the box ready.

[Joe Beaulieu]

Hey Lasse,

Just my $.02. If you want to try them out, why not grab a 2nd hand #4 from one of the very good plane reconditioning guys like Patrick Leach or Don Wilwol. If you search their names you will find their sites. You can pick up a user ready #4 for very short money. You can also check EBay - there are many on there is various states of usability. Then you can see the difference between the sizes and their impact before you pull the trigger on the LV or LN planes. I have done exactly that and it has resulted in me getting deeply into the world of antique tools. To the point where I may be jeopardizing my marriage (just kidding, but SWMBO has raised an eyebrow, never a good thing). You can grab a #4, spiff it up really quickly (you typically just need to hone the blade, as you do on all new planes) and you have something that will do the job for a period. Then you can make a determination that the #4 LV is worth the green. If you buy the LV, you can then convert the Stanley into a scrubber or backup, or sharpen the blade to a different angle and make it a grain focused beast!

Good luck - its all good and a lot of fun.

Joe

[David Eisenhauer]

Two things mentioned above should not be disregarded or forgotten about if you happen to have not tried them out before. Waxing the sole of a metal plane works wonders and a Stanley #3 sized plane makes a very user friendly and highly effective smoother. The difference in my using my 4-1/2 vs using my 3 or 4 is fairly significant. That extra blade width makes a difference to push, but, as also said above, can be eased somewhat by cambering the blade.

[Patrick Chase]

Two things mentioned above should not be disregarded or forgotten about if you happen to have not tried them out before. Waxing the sole of a metal plane works wonders and a Stanley #3 sized plane makes a very user friendly and highly effective smoother. The difference in my using my 4-1/2 vs using my 3 or 4 is fairly significant. That extra blade width makes a difference to push, but, as also said above, can be eased somewhat by cambering the blade.

Like almost everybody I started with #4-sized planes for smoothing but I find myself using my #3 a lot of the time. Part of it is that I've been doing a number of boxes lately (small planes for small work and all that) but I also like the way it handles and follows the surface.

The funny thing is that my preferences are completely the opposite for roughing and jointing. I mostly use a 5 with a heavily cambered blade instead of a scrub for roughing, and an 8 for jointing. Those are both significantly harder to push than is a 4-1/2 set up for smoothing cuts.

[Alan Lightstone]

Hard to argue with a LN 4 in bronze. Certainly costs more than $0.05. Love mine. It's the one FWW judged the best smoothing plane.

That being said, if I were you, I would tune up your 4 1/2 and spend more time with it. I bet with time and a really good sharpening, you'll grow to like it. Did I mention a really good sharpening??

[Allan Speers]

I concur, I use the ECE and am saving for a Lie Nielson #4 Bronze....


I also use the ECE (love it) and several other woodies, but DREAM of saving for an LN #4 in bronze. :o

[steven c newman]

Another option from closer to the OP....Clifton planes. A No. 4 Clifton just might work?

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

yesterday a friend gave me an old no.4 Record plane. And I decided to tidy it up a bit and begin with that as my smoother plane. Are the Stanley and Record blades and chipbreaker inter changeble ? can one buy new blades, perhabs a bit thicker that will fit in my Record ?

[Chris Hachet]

yesterday a friend gave me an old no.4 Record plane. And I decided to tidy it up a bit and begin with that as my smoother plane. Are the Stanley and Record blades and chipbreaker inter changeable ? can one buy new blades, perhaps a bit thicker that will fit in my Record ?

I have had very good luck with hock blades, think the LEE Valley PMV-11 replacement will work also. If you have a wood craft near you they often stock the Hock Replacement blades.

[Patrick Chase]

I have had very good luck with hock blades, think the LEE Valley PMV-11 replacement will work also. If you have a wood craft near you they often stock the Hock Replacement blades.

Both the LV and Hock blades will work in a Record. The nice thing about those two is that they aren't too thick, at .093" for the Hock and 0.100" for the LV (vs 0.080" for the original blade). Like Paul Sellars I'm unconvinced of the benefit of super-thick blades in Bailey-pattern or Bed Rock planes, and staying thin reduces the likelihood that you'll need to file the mouth out or anything like that.

[Allen Jordan]

I have the LN No. 4 with a 50 deg frog and No. 4 1/2 with a normal 45 deg frog. I prefer using the 50 deg No. 4, as I don't have to mess with the chipbreaker as much at the higher angle, and the smaller blade width sort of negates the higher angle pushing resistance, making both planes about the same amount of work to use.

[Allan Speers]

Ooh, Japanese planes and sharpening guides. Nice combo move - let me know how the flamewar turns out.

:p:p:p:p


Next he'll be asking us what type of workbench he should build. I'll make the popcorn. :)

[Derek Cohen]

I know this must be a topic which has been discussed to death over and over again. Nevertheless I need some piece of advise on which smoothing plane to buy.

I have Stanley no 7, a LN no 5, and Stanley no. 4½. Im not really using the Stanley 4½. I find it a bit bulky.

I think I need an alround smoothing plane and wonder which one to buy ?

Lassie, what type of work do you do mostly, and how long have you been doing it?

Regards from Cornwall

Derek

[Brian Holcombe]

To cover all basis, one needs a Roubo, a klausz, a planing beam and horses. A 4 and a Kanna, sharpening jigs and freehand ability :D

Throw an English bench in there as well.

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

Lassie, what type of work do you do mostly, and how long have you been doing it?

Regards from Cornwall

Derek


Hi Derek

Im a novice when it comes to woodworking with handtools hence the many questions. Most of my time I have been busy building or renovating houses. It is just now I have had the time to begin woodworking. Im currently making a 3 legged coffee table of a burl slab. When that is finished I plan to start building a small chest of oak for treasure hunting for my kid when he gets older. The oak I have is about 200 years old as it comes from an hold timber framed house. Its my dream to be able to just use hand tools in the future, but its a whole new world for me.

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

I get that your making fundet of me and thats ok :-) but now you mentions a Klausz bench! I googled it and wonder why its called a Klausz bench ? Because I have one exactly like the one on the pictures from google but mine is almost 90 years old.

[Jeff Bartley]

I get that your making fundet of me and thats ok :-) but now you mentions a Klausz bench! I googled it and wonder why its called a Klausz bench ? Because I have one exactly like the one on the pictures from google but mine is almost 90 years old.

How about a picture of that bench Lasse! Per your original question, I'd spend some time with the 4 1/2 and the 4 that you have, use them, learn to set the chip breaker, sharpen the blades a few times. Those planes will do great work!

[Nicholas Lawrence]

I get that your making fundet of me and thats ok :-) but now you mentions a Klausz bench! I googled it and wonder why its called a Klausz bench ? Because I have one exactly like the one on the pictures from google but mine is almost 90 years old.

He is making a joke, but it is not about you. It is more about the nature of the advice you will get on an Internet forum like this. For some reason it is always fun to spend other people's money, and there are usually two or three ways to do anything (have a look at the arguments about sharpening, with dozens of ways to do it, and many people firmly convinced that their particular stone is the "best"). So when you ask a question about which tool to get, you will get four or five different answers (several of them probably really expensive), and you may or may not want to spend that much money just to have 19 different versions of the same sharpening stone or the same plane.

The advice is free, but you have to take some of it with a grain of salt or it will end up being very expensive, and (and you might end up with a shop so full of sharpening stones that you have no room to work).

I may be mistaken, but I think the Klausz bench has that name here because of a woodworker who likes that style. I don't think he invented it or anything, but a lot of people learned about hand tools from him, and the bench style is just sort of associated with him if you are an American. Benches are a very popular topic around here, especially old ones, and I am sure everyone would enjoy pictures of yours if you want to share them.

[Brian Holcombe]

I get that your making fundet of me and thats ok :-) but now you mentions a Klausz bench! I googled it and wonder why its called a Klausz bench ? Because I have one exactly like the one on the pictures from google but mine is almost 90 years old.

Not making fun of you, but how these discussions tend to go. There is truth to it, to some degree, as well since so many of these things do work very well for the people who use them.

However you go, put some time on it before you add too many changes as often times it's the changes that drive you more crazy than just working out the details on one thing.

The Scandinavian bench that Klausz uses has been around forever, but he popularized it in the US and provided plans on how to build them, so it's often referred to as a Klausz bench.

[Chris Hachet]

Hi Derek

Im a novice when it comes to woodworking with handtools hence the many questions. Most of my time I have been busy building or renovating houses. It is just now I have had the time to begin woodworking. Im currently making a 3 legged coffee table of a burl slab. When that is finished I plan to start building a small chest of oak for treasure hunting for my kid when he gets older. The oak I have is about 200 years old as it comes from an hold timber framed house. Its my dream to be able to just use hand tools in the future, but its a whole new world for me.


In that case, get a basic vintage Stanley #4 and a stack of cheap lumber and just get used to using it and sharpening it. Turn on the radio, turn on a baseball game, and enjoy....(assuming you like baseball). Make sure you ahve a solid bench to work on, and practice getting the thing really sharp. Sharp in my mind means it can shave arm air without resistance.

Actually, you could do this with the 4 1/2 you already have.

[Chris Hachet]

Also, try a softer wood like poplar or cherry for your practice. Much easier to elarn on than Hard maple or Oak....ask me how I know this...

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Derek

Im a novice when it comes to woodworking with handtools hence the many questions. Most of my time I have been busy building or renovating houses. It is just now I have had the time to begin woodworking. Im currently making a 3 legged coffee table of a burl slab. When that is finished I plan to start building a small chest of oak for treasure hunting for my kid when he gets older. The oak I have is about 200 years old as it comes from an hold timber framed house. Its my dream to be able to just use hand tools in the future, but its a whole new world for me.

Hi Lasse

For a novice, with your information above, my first recommendation would be a LV LA Smoother. The reason for this is: (1) it is the easiest high performance plane to set up - no chipbreaker to fuss with (more on this later) (2) You can alter the cutting angle from low to high by either changing the bevel angle or having a second blade. The low cutting angle would be ideal for smoothing the burl slab. The high cutting angle would then make it easy to avoid tearout on the oak chest or other difficult woods. The LV LA Smoother, or LN #164, may also be used on a shooting board. Very versatile design.

You mentioned a couple of Stanley planes earlier, as I recall. The obvious match for these (in terms of ergonomics and use) is a Stanley #3 or #4. My preference is the smaller #3. These planes are the opposite of the BU planes - lots of potential, but often more easily realised when one has some experience. They have a steeper learning curve - largely to do with setting the chipbreaker close up for interlocked grain - and there are more parts to deal with. However, if you are comfortable with your current planes, it becomes a consideration.

Both these planes are narrower than your #4 1/2. I have no doubt that you wil find them more nimble in use.

On a train to London

Derek

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

He is making a joke, but it is not about you. It is more about the nature of the advice you will get on an Internet forum like this. For some reason it is always fun to spend other people's money, and there are usually two or three ways to do anything (have a look at the arguments about sharpening, with dozens of ways to do it, and many people firmly convinced that their particular stone is the "best"). So when you ask a question about which tool to get, you will get four or five different answers (several of them probably really expensive), and you may or may not want to spend that much money just to have 19 different versions of the same sharpening stone or the same plane.

The advice is free, but you have to take some of it with a grain of salt or it will end up being very expensive, and (and you might end up with a shop so full of sharpening stones that you have no room to work).

I may be mistaken, but I think the Klausz bench has that name here because of a woodworker who likes that style. I don't think he invented it or anything, but a lot of people learned about hand tools from him, and the bench style is just sort of associated with him if you are an American. Benches are a very popular topic around here, especially old ones, and I am sure everyone would enjoy pictures of yours if you want to share them.


Yes I think I get it. I wasn´t offended at all. Sometimes it its a little difficult to read between the lines when English is not my native language :)

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

Not making fun of you, but how these discussions tend to go. There is truth to it, to some degree, as well since so many of these things do work very well for the people who use them.

However you go, put some time on it before you add too many changes as often times it's the changes that drive you more crazy than just working out the details on one thing.

The Scandinavian bench that Klausz uses has been around forever, but he popularized it in the US and provided plans on how to build them, so it's often referred to as a Klausz bench.

Yes I think I get it. I wasn´t offended at all. Sometimes it its a little difficult to read between the lines when English is not my native language :)

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

Hi Lasse

For a novice, with your information above, my first recommendation would be a LV LA Smoother. The reason for this is: (1) it is the easiest high performance plane to set up - no chipbreaker to fuss with (more on this later) (2) You can alter the cutting angle from low to high by either changing the bevel angle or having a second blade. The low cutting angle would be ideal for smoothing the burl slab. The high cutting angle would then make it easy to avoid tearout on the oak chest or other difficult woods. The LV LA Smoother, or LN #164, may also be used on a shooting board. Very versatile design.

You mentioned a couple of Stanley planes earlier, as I recall. The obvious match for these (in terms of ergonomics and use) is a Stanley #3 or #4. My preference is the smaller #3. These planes are the opposite of the BU planes - lots of potential, but often more easily realised when one has some experience. They have a steeper learning curve - largely to do with setting the chipbreaker close up for interlocked grain - and there are more parts to deal with. However, if you are comfortable with your current planes, it becomes a consideration.

Both these planes are narrower than your #4 1/2. I have no doubt that you wil find them more nimble in use.

On a train to London

Derek

Thankyou for your advice. For now I will stick with the old Record #4 that I have started to refurbish. With time, im sure I will buy more planes.

By the way I have lots of use of reading your website.

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

How about a picture of that bench Lasse! Per your original question, I'd spend some time with the 4 1/2 and the 4 that you have, use them, learn to set the chip breaker, sharpen the blades a few times. Those planes will do great work!

I will post some pictures of it when I can make time for it

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

As promised 329311329312
I goy it from a friend who`s grandfather made it for his final examen of his apprenticeship as a cabinetmaker

[Jebediah Eckert]

Nice bench, your more then halfway there with that. I know when starting out it became near impossible to do much handwork (especially a plane) without a solid bench with a way to secure the work properly. It looks like you have a nice stash of boards hiding behind the bench.

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

Nice bench, your more then halfway there with that. I know when starting out it became near impossible to do much handwork (especially a plane) without a solid bench with a way to secure the work properly. It looks like you have a nice stash of boards hiding behind the bench.

It is reclaimed and resawed oak from an old timerframe house. about 200 years old. I guess it has cured by now :rolleyes:

[Chris Hachet]

Seems like you are off to a good start...and nice bench...I am jealous....

[Stewie Simpson]

Its my dream to be able to just use hand tools in the future, but its a whole new world for me.

Lasse. A little word of advise for you.

Most woodworkers on this and many other woodwork forum sites rely on a combination of hand and power tools.

Being a Neanderthal based discussion; its not always openly mentioned.

All the best with your future endeavours into woodworking.

regards Stewie;

[Chris Hachet]

Its my dream to be able to just use hand tools in the future, but its a whole new world for me.

Lasse. A little word of advise for you.

Most woodworkers on this and many other woodwork forum sites rely on a combination of hand and power tools.

Being a Neanderthal based discussion; its not always openly mentioned.

All the best with your future endeavours into woodworking.

regards Stewie;


Considering that I am in the process of ripping a larger quantity of hard maple, yes, I would echo this sentiment.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Most woodworkers on this and many other woodwork forum sites rely on a combination of hand and power tools.


A very true statement. If you rely on the cheery voices you sometimes hear on the Internet about how easy it is to prepare rough lumber by hand, you will become a little aggravated. It is harder than some people make it sound (both in terms of skill needed, and the actual work involved). An old friend who knows a lot about hand tools (but largely uses power tools as a commercial contractor), told me when I started out that I needed to remember that the old timers who made their living with hand tools did build wonderful furniture, but they also spent a lifetime acquiring the skills to do that. As a hobbyist I have no illusions that I will approach the level of skill needed to make things I see in museums purely with hand tools.

I do use hand tools only, because I simply do not have space for power tools (my motley collection of Stanley and Sargent tools also cost me much less than a tablesaw as well; you will not find this to be true if you spend much time looking at the Lee Valley or Lie Nielsen catalogs, as the cost of those tools adds up very quickly). I also like my children to be able to be around me when I work in the shop, and the quiet, lack of dust, and much lower risk of somebody losing an important part of their anatomy makes that possible with hand tools. None of the stuff I make is going to be in any museum, but my wife and children claim to like them, and I have yet to build something I am ashamed of. I look at the imperfections as a record of things I have learned.

If you want to do things completely by hand, I recommend a full sized rip saw as well as a crosscut saw, at least one good saw bench (you look like you have the space to probably make two, which would be better), a scrub plane, and a regular jack plane set up to do relatively coarse work. Your number seven makes a nice jointer or trying plane, and your number five can be set up to work well as a jack. You can get by without the scrub plane, but I find that when I need to remove a lot of stock quickly there is simply nothing like it.

If you want to build a good, cheap saw bench, Chris Schwarz published free plans a while ago that work well, and you can make the whole thing from a single 2 x 8. You obviously will need chisels and other tools as well to do the actual joinery, but what I have listed will allow you to take a rough board, and turn it into parts for whatever you want to build.

You will want to use the "coarse, intermediate, fine" approach if you are preparing rough lumber. Use the saws to break the stock down to size (I think you will find it is much easier to flatten and square multiple small boards cut from a large board than it is to flatten and square the large board and then cut it up into the smaller boards). Then use the scrub plane or jack plane to remove twist and wind, and to get close to your final thickness. Then switch over to the try or jointer to get your final dimensions. The smoother should be taking very little, simply to clean up the surface.

The two tools that made it possible for me to go from using mostly s4s lumber (and largely living with any twist, etc., that may have developed in it) to using rough boards (which are cheaper, and allow me more choice in species and dimensions) were the saw bench and the scrub plane. My sawing is much more efficient and accurate with the board held at the proper height and the saw at the proper angle, and instead of spending hours removing material with a plane set for finer cuts, the scrub plane will remove 90% of a problem areas in a matter of minutes.

[Brian Holcombe]

As promised 329311329312
I goy it from a friend who`s grandfather made it for his final examen of his apprenticeship as a cabinetmaker


That's awesome!

[David Eisenhauer]

I like that bench and all of the light in the shop. You have a very good starting place and I hope you continue to enjoy the work.

[Chris Hachet]

A very true statement. If you rely on the cheery voices you sometimes hear on the Internet about how easy it is to prepare rough lumber by hand, you will become a little aggravated. It is harder than some people make it sound (both in terms of skill needed, and the actual work involved). An old friend who knows a lot about hand tools (but largely uses power tools as a commercial contractor), told me when I started out that I needed to remember that the old timers who made their living with hand tools did build wonderful furniture, but they also spent a lifetime acquiring the skills to do that. As a hobbyist I have no illusions that I will approach the level of skill needed to make things I see in museums purely with hand tools.

I do use hand tools only, because I simply do not have space for power tools (my motley collection of Stanley and Sargent tools also cost me much less than a tablesaw as well; you will not find this to be true if you spend much time looking at the Lee Valley or Lie Nielsen catalogs, as the cost of those tools adds up very quickly). I also like my children to be able to be around me when I work in the shop, and the quiet, lack of dust, and much lower risk of somebody losing an important part of their anatomy makes that possible with hand tools. None of the stuff I make is going to be in any museum, but my wife and children claim to like them, and I have yet to build something I am ashamed of. I look at the imperfections as a record of things I have learned.

If you want to do things completely by hand, I recommend a full sized rip saw as well as a crosscut saw, at least one good saw bench (you look like you have the space to probably make two, which would be better), a scrub plane, and a regular jack plane set up to do relatively coarse work. Your number seven makes a nice jointer or trying plane, and your number five can be set up to work well as a jack. You can get by without the scrub plane, but I find that when I need to remove a lot of stock quickly there is simply nothing like it.

If you want to build a good, cheap saw bench, Chris Schwarz published free plans a while ago that work well, and you can make the whole thing from a single 2 x 8. You obviously will need chisels and other tools as well to do the actual joinery, but what I have listed will allow you to take a rough board, and turn it into parts for whatever you want to build.

You will want to use the "coarse, intermediate, fine" approach if you are preparing rough lumber. Use the saws to break the stock down to size (I think you will find it is much easier to flatten and square multiple small boards cut from a large board than it is to flatten and square the large board and then cut it up into the smaller boards). Then use the scrub plane or jack plane to remove twist and wind, and to get close to your final thickness. Then switch over to the try or jointer to get your final dimensions. The smoother should be taking very little, simply to clean up the surface.

The two tools that made it possible for me to go from using mostly s4s lumber (and largely living with any twist, etc., that may have developed in it) to using rough boards (which are cheaper, and allow me more choice in species and dimensions) were the saw bench and the scrub plane. My sawing is much more efficient and accurate with the board held at the proper height and the saw at the proper angle, and instead of spending hours removing material with a plane set for finer cuts, the scrub plane will remove 90% of a problem areas in a matter of minutes.

Having the skill to do both can come in handy. I live in a very quiet neighborhood where all of my neighbors are very respectful-if it is after nine in the evening, it will pretty much be hand tools.

[Niels Cosman]

LN no.3
I worked with an Iron LN 4-1/2 with a high angle frog for years and it is a wonderful plane that could handle just about everything I threw at it. Then 5-6 years ago I tuned up a Stanley 603 and found that that I really liked the size and agility of the No.3 format. It offers more control and ability to deal with subtle surface variations left from milling boards by hand. Also the lower pitch is requires much less effort. The robustness and mass of a 603 however I think leaves something to be desired... So... I just recently bought a bronze LN #3 with a standard pitch frog which I think is best of both worlds (high mass+ low force).
I may experiment with a higher pitch frog, but I'll wait for 6-12 months and see if I have any trouble at standard pitch with a tightly set chipbreaker.

[Jeff Ranck]

... My preference is the smaller #3. ...

On a train to London

Derek

Hi Derek, I didn't know you had a #3. I've been thinking about a smaller smoother (#3 or #2), but the options are limited - old Stanley or LN it seems to me.

Jeff.

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

Thankyou for a thorough reply

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Derek, I didn't know you had a #3. I've been thinking about a smaller smoother (#3 or #2), but the options are limited - old Stanley or LN it seems to me.

Jeff.

Hi Jeff

I like small and short smoothers. They remove the least surface area. A blade 1 3/4" - 2" is so much easier to push and so much nimbler than a wide plane, such as a #4 1/2. Even on wide panels I prefer a small plane. A #2, however, is not going to be comfortable to hold. Even the #3 is barely passable in this regard.

If you prefer a BU plane, the LV SBUS is a terrific plane. Currently, my go-to smoothers are a LN#3 with a 45 degree frog (and a #4 handle), and a LV Custom #4 with a 42 degree frog. I also have a Stanley #3, which will do anything these two will do ... but how many smoothers can one use?

Regards from London

Derek

[Jerry Olexa]

I would reco a Bailey/stanley #4 0r #3 pre WWll....Just MHO

[Jeff Bartley]

As promised 329311329312
I goy it from a friend who`s grandfather made it for his final examen of his apprenticeship as a cabinetmaker

Thanks for sharing pics, awesome bench!

[Jeff Ranck]

... but how many smoothers can one use?

Regards from London

Derek

I'm not sure, but some of us here seem to be trying to find out. :)

Anyway, thanks for the info. I only have the "old" style LV #4 at this point, but the notion of something smaller is intriguing, particularly since I find myself using my block plane as a smoother more often than I thought I would.

Maybe I'll take a look around for a Stanley #3 to see how I like it.

[Mike Holbrook]

Rather than start a new thread asking about details concerning Smoothing planes, I thought I would post on this thread and try to keep the info. in a general thread about Smoothers.

There have been many threads about various styles & types of planes. I have been making a personal quest into bevel down planes, as in the past I have been more of a BU and wooden plane enthusiast. I hope in this thread to avoid all the frequent battles over what style plane is the best and take a harder look at BD planes, specifically BD smoothing planes. Our friend Derek has favored us with a good deal of information in this regard in his evaluations and testing of the new Veritas Custom planes. As a person who is relatively new to BD plane designs I find a dearth of information on certain aspects of these planes. I initially found this type plane hard to adjust to perform at the level I wanted. As others have posted BU planes, lacking the chip breaker and having the one blade adjuster are probably easier to get working for someone new to planes. But this isn't the point of this post. I am interested in the finer points of tuning a BD plane and which of the various frog designs, adjustment systems, types of blades & designs may be easier/harder/more accurate....

I am most interested in the often discussed advantage of being able to adjust blade depth, on the fly, using BD planes. Although this advantage is often mentioned I have had some difficulty in adjusting my old Stanley planes to work well this way. It seems that tuning a plane to do this is not as simple as saying it can be done. My experimenting so far seems to suggest that some combination of: adjusting the tension in the screws holding the frog in place, adjusting the cap iron, adjusting the top locking tension, adjusting mouth opening are all involved. Thus far I am not sure I am getting it all "right". In my efforts to accomplish this goal with older Stanley #4 & #3 planes I have also seemed to run into difficulties with small tight mouths. Adjusting some of these planes to work with more modern blades, which may be slightly thicker, has also presented a challenge, tending to sometimes cause me to forget that my original objective was to be able to adjust blade depth on the fly. Again I am not here to debate thick vs thin blades, Stanley vs Hock vs Veritas...I bought three Veritas PM-V11 blades and if possible I would like to use them.

It seems to me that this information would be essential to anyone thinking about fine tuning an old Stanley smoothing plane or buying one of the premium planes. I am pretty sure that even the premium planes can be "tuned" such that features like blade depth adjustment either work well or not at all.

[Jerry Olexa]

PS that bench is AMAZING...

[steven c newman]

May comeup to my shop sometime and try mine out? I can adjust the planes "on the fly" while in use. But, once I have a frog where I like it, I do not change that setting. Mine is more about the setting of the chipbreaker. I keep the frog tight enough so it won't move around. Adds too many complications that way. Lever cap screw is just tight enough so things will not move during the cut. The only thing I have found out about a "tight" mouth...it clogs up way too easily.

I do not go more the super thin shavings....takes too long to do any work that way. Nice to use as a show-off sort of thing, but I don't have the time to take the amount of shavings that would entail to finish a job. These are about right for me
331406
maybe too thin for a jack plane?
331407
Millers Falls No.9....full width of the board being smoothed. Two swipes, and done. this is about the same as a Stanley #4.

[Adam Cruea]

I would just ask what size projects you're doing.

I have an old 603 I refurbed with the original Stanley blade that I love. I also have a 604 that I love using, too. For that matter, my LN 4 1/2 York pitch is great, too.

It all depends on the size of the project and the needs of the lumber, though. If I want a super-light, thin shaving I'll reach for my 603. If I want a super-light, medium shaving I'll reach for the 604. If I have a wide piece, or particularly annoying grain, I'll reach for the 4 1/2. I can tell you that trying to balance that 4 1/2 on thin stock is annoying, though.

IMHO, it's good to have a well rounded set. Some will disagree and say that you can get by with a 5, 4, and 7. I won't disagree, and I won't say it's a requirement to have 9,000 different planes, either. If you feel you want or need another size, get it. If not, be content and make some shavings.

[Jim Koepke]

I am most interested in the often discussed advantage of being able to adjust blade depth, on the fly, using BD planes. Although this advantage is often mentioned I have had some difficulty in adjusting my old Stanley planes to work well this way. It seems that tuning a plane to do this is not as simple as saying it can be done. My experimenting so far seems to suggest that some combination of: adjusting the tension in the screws holding the frog in place, adjusting the cap iron, adjusting the top locking tension, adjusting mouth opening are all involved. Thus far I am not sure I am getting it all "right". In my efforts to accomplish this goal with older Stanley #4 & #3 planes I have also seemed to run into difficulties with small tight mouths. Adjusting some of these planes to work with more modern blades, which may be slightly thicker, has also presented a challenge, tending to sometimes cause me to forget that my original objective was to be able to adjust blade depth on the fly. Again I am not here to debate thick vs thin blades, Stanley vs Hock vs Veritas...I bought three Veritas PM-V11 blades and if possible I would like to use them.



Mike,

It has been over 5 years since I posted this:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?148076-Getting-Started-With-Hand-Planes

It is archived in the Neanderthal Wisdom/FAQs.

As with so many things on the internet, new information has come to light. Especially about using the chip breaker.

The simplest way to set up a Stanley/Bailey style plane is to set the frog as suggested by Steven Newman and myself. Set it so the face of the frog is aligned with the back of the mouth. A steel rule slid down the face of the frog should not catch on the base. The frog should be as square to the mouth as the eye can see. Tighten the frog screws to hold it solid.

The lever cap screw (LCS) is the next thing to set. It needs to be loose enough that the lever doesn't "snap" to lock. If adjustment is difficult, then the LCS is likely too tight. If the plane can not hold its lateral adjustment, then it is likely too loose. When I am adjusting the LCS for the "sweet spot" it is moved in increments of 1/16 of a turn.

When a blade is fresh from sharpening and the chip breaker set and checked, the blade is backed off until it doesn't cut. Then with a piece of smooth scrap I will slowly adjust the blade until it starts taking a shaving. While doing this it is important to try both sides of the blade. It is often the blade is cutting on one side and not the other. This is where the lateral adjuster comes into play. Once there is a shaving from one side or the other the lateral lever is moved toward the side with the heavier shaving.

After awhile one will be able to judge the shavings by feeling them in the fingers. Cambered blades will have some effect on this.

To check the LCS, take shavings on just one side of the blade. If it holds the setting then the LCS is either over tightened or just right.

The same can be done with the depth adjuster if there is any backlash. Set the blade depth and then back the depth adjuster off a bit. The setting should hold for at least a few strokes.

Once all of this has been set, then you can worry about whether or not there is an advantage to adjusting the mouth.

Sometimes the best way to learn these things is from the experience gained by doing.

Super fine shavings are nice, they can be mesmerizing, in some cases they can solve some problems. Super fine shavings will indicate a sharp blade and can reveal any flaws or nicks in the edge. In most cases it just adds to the amount of work one has to do to get to a finished surface. Get the surface flat with a plane making reasonable shavings and then take the surface to super smooth with a few strokes of a fine set smoother.

Hope this helps,

jtk

[Glen Canaday]

Page 4 really sums up a lot. Good advice.

Per the first post, I prefer a 3 or even a 2 for smoothing. It might be more strokes to get across a board but the light weight makes it fun.

[mark kosse]

Lasse, I don't know your stature, but FWIW I find a #3 to be a tad to small for my hand. I wear a large glove, so not too big a hand.

[Chris Hachet]

Lasse, I don't know your stature, but FWIW I find a #3 to be a tad to small for my hand. I wear a large glove, so not too big a hand.


The #3 handle can be modified for a better fit. IIRC Derek Cohen modified his LN #3 with a #4 handle, but I could be wrong. Making your own ahndle could be done fairly simply also. But I agree, I have average sized hands and I prefer in some ways the feel of a #4.

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

I have had a no.4 for a while now and Im happy with that for the moment.

[Mike Holbrook]

Jim,

Thanks for pointing me in the direction of more specific information and trying to answer my specific dilemma of adjusting for blade depth on the fly. I have not been quite sure if tightening the frog down all the way might restrict the ability to adjust for depth, even though I can see the blade adjustment knob can move the blade via the tab in the blade. I also have a plane or two which have blades that seem to move during use. I suspect, as Jim suggests, that my main issue is the relative tightness of my LCS (lever cap screw) and the lever cap and side adjustment bar. To my mind these three parts on Stanley planes are the most common source of adjustment error. Some of the LCS's on some of my planes do not seem to fit well in the slots in the lever caps, some slip and slid around almost like they are on a sliding board. I probably need to search for some back up/repair screws as there is obviously no guarantee that the screws in my planes are original parts...There seems to be a fairly wide range of play/tension in the lever caps themselves which adds to the issue of getting the LCS adjusted correctly. The side adjustment levers can be: very hard to move at all, flap around all on their own, or anywhere between those extremes. I have a #6 with a side adjustment lever that sort of works but only stays in place as gravity dictates. I am not sure if there is a way to adjust these levers? I wound up buying a new frog for a Stanley 4 1/2 because the side adjustment was mangled beyond help.

I am going to read Jim's old posts again later and try to glean some more answers.

I think other questions above are directed to the OP but:
I have a wide variety of projects I am working on. Right now I am making a new toilet paper dispenser from a couple pieces of Cherry. I need to cover the holes in the sheet rock where the wife has continued to try to install depot paper dispensers with the plastic garbage that comes in the box. The wife and I are looking at mountain property in North GA. I plan to build rustic/traditional/colonial style furniture for that house: tables, cabinets, book shelves, chairs (older/Irish/Welsh windsor style)....I am working on a plan for an adjustable height work bench. I have chairs, sawbenches....in the works. So small all the way to very large projects.

Steve Newman mentions adjusting the LCS so that the blade does not move during use but is still adjustable "on the fly". That as they say is the rub. I agree about tight mouths not working for rough work too, the issue here being that I plan to use most of my Stanley planes for "rougher" work.

[Jim Koepke]

Steve Newman mentions adjusting the LCS so that the blade does not move during use but is still adjustable "on the fly". That as they say is the rub. I agree about tight mouths not working for rough work too, the issue here being that I plan to use most of my Stanley planes for "rougher" work.

A tight mouth comes into play more on a plane using a blade without a chip breaker. Especially when doing rough work the frog can be set for a wide open mouth.

The later lever caps (type 16 and later) have a "kidney" hole for the Lever Cap Screw. This was to prevent the lever from cap moving when the blade was adjusted to take a lighter shaving.

jtk

[steven c newman]

On how tight or loose I make the lever cap: I use the thunb and finger rule. If I can move the lever cap around with just the thumb and a finger, I'll tighten things down about a 1/4 turn. If I can't adust the depth with just the thumb and finger, I'll loosen the lever cap that same 1/4 turn. The goal being just a thumb OR a finger to adjust.

I really do not adjust a frog's setting on a plane. I set it once, coplanar with the ramp behind the mouth's opening. I then lock the frog in place.

Chipbreaker? On your computer keyboard, look at the letter "I". that black vertical line? That is usually the distance the two parts are spaced from each other. As long as I can see a silver line between the chipbreaker, and the edge of the iron. IF there is any camber involved, then the line is measured at just the corners.

Now, about the only time I will actually use a tight mouth?
331421
I have several adjustable mouth block planes. Both the 9-1/2 size, and this Millers Falls #56B low angle block. That is about it.

[Glen Canaday]

I also wear large or x-large gloves, but I don't have hams. I can use the tote on the #3 just fine, but I use a 3-finger pistol grip. The index finger just rides the side of the cutter assembly, the middle works the adjuster knob as necessary. If you hold them like this most will fit even a huge hand.

Stanley #2s seem to be the cutoff for most people, but I collect Millers Falls so I have two #7s, which fit great big hands surprisingly well with the same grip.

[Stanley Covington]

I agree with Patrick and Brian. If you need to smooth boards, then the 4-1/2 is extremely useful. I love my LN 4-1/2 and have no use for a 4. Dump the A-2 blade and get the O2 plain high carbon blade.

Stan

[John Schtrumpf]

I also wear large or x-large gloves, but I don't have hams. I can use the tote on the #3 just fine, but I use a 3-finger pistol grip. The index finger just rides the side of the cutter assembly, the middle works the adjuster knob as necessary. If you hold them like this most will fit even a huge hand. ...
My problem is I started with bevel up planes, so the pistol grip just doesn't work for me. I ended up getting a Kunz+ #3:

[Mike Holbrook]

The Veritas Custom planes offer three different sizes and two different types of handle for size 4, 4 1/2, 5, 5 1/2, 7 planes. A large handle in either style should fit large hands measuring over 4" across.

[Pat Barry]

I bought the LV BUS plane a couple years ago and have been super happy with it as a smoother, however, if I had it to do over again, knowing what I now know, I would go for the SBUS instead as I think a smaller plane is much easier to handle. Noting wrong with the BUS, its just a tad bit heavy with a wider footprint than I need. It works very well on tabletops, etc where there is a larger surface to smooth. The PMV11 blade has been great. Holds and edge very well and cuts super clean.

[Chris Hachet]

I bought the LV BUS plane a couple years ago and have been super happy with it as a smoother, however, if I had it to do over again, knowing what I now know, I would go for the SBUS instead as I think a smaller plane is much easier to handle. Noting wrong with the BUS, its just a tad bit heavy with a wider footprint than I need. It works very well on tabletops, etc where there is a larger surface to smooth. The PMV11 blade has been great. Holds and edge very well and cuts super clean.

I generally prefer bevel down planes but have considered the Small Bevel Up smoother just for small parts and trimming.

.....and yes, PMV 11 is awesome in holding an edge.

[Mike Holbrook]

I have and use the Veritas BUS plane as my main smoother too. I have been thinking about buying one of the new custom #4 planes to get something a little smaller that I can adjust blade depth with on the fly. LV is now offering a custom Norris adjuster with extra fine threads, especially for those very precise adjustments. I am still interested in the small BU smoother though, especially after I just discovered how easy it is to hollow grind BU blades with my CBN wheel. I can come fairly close to adjusting depth on the fly with my BU planes as the two set screws on the sides of the iron keep them from moving to either side when I lighten up on the pressure cap. The custom planes offer the option of using a cap iron or not and with the ability to order a frog at any height.....LV isn't making decision making easy are they! I am liking all the PM-V11 plane blades sharpened with 30 degree hollow grinds. Very easy to maintain with minimal sharpening gear by hand.

I was trying to figure out how thick the blades on the new LV Custom planes are? I am not finding that information at the LV web site nor have I found it on any of the reviews. Derek did testing with the #4 custom & no chip breaker which might suggest they are fairly thick. I am guessing the blades are not as thick as the BU blades but thicker than the PM-V11 blades they make for Stanley type planes.

[Derek Cohen]

Derek did testing with the #4 custom & no chip breaker which might suggest they are fairly thick.

Mike, all the testing was with the chipbreaker.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Mike Holbrook]

Derek, I must have misinterpreted the information below from the test? At least you know someone is studying your hard work.

(2 and 3) #4 Custom Veritas with 50-degree frog, both with set- and un-set chipbreaker.
(4 and 5) #4 Stanley Bedrock (45 degree frog), using a custom M4 blade, both with set- and un-set Veritas chipbreaker (http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/LeeValleyChipbreaker.html).



Below: Custom Veritas with 50-degree frog and configured chipbreaker …
Below: Custom Veritas with 50 degree frog and unconfigured chipbreaker …

[Derek Cohen]

Mike, I may have misunderstood your comment. My correction reflected your reference to the results with the 42 degree frog in the Custom #4 in the other thread. That was used with the chipbreaker.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Mike Holbrook]

I am frequently guilty of trying to follow too many trains of thought in a single post. My reference to the 42 degree frog had to do with another direction I was following in regard to 30 degree hollow grinds in BU plane blades.

I am still wondering how thick the PM-V11 blades are in the new custom Veritas planes? I am also wondering how hard/easy/precise the custom planes are to adjust for depth on the fly compared to Stanley or LN planes?