If You Have A 7-1/2, Why Would You Need An 8?

[Julie Moriarty]

I have a L-N 7-1/2 jointer. I have it tuned pretty well. But I keep seeing videos that talk about the wonders of the #8.

I don't own a power jointer. I joint all my boards by hand. Would a #8 make my life easier? If so, why?

Thanks,
Julie

[Hilton Ralphs]

I have a L-N 7-1/2 jointer. I have it tuned pretty well. But I keep seeing videos that talk about the wonders of the #8.


This must be the first time I've seen mention of a 7-1/2 jointer bench plane. As we all know, LN just copies whatever Stanley made and I don't recall a 7-1/2 from their stable.

A LN #8 is nearly a full kg heavier than a #7 so you need a few extra muscles to move that beast around.

[Stew Denton]

Julie,

What would help us on this is to know the dimensions on the plane you have. That is: 1. the length of the plane, 2. the width of the plane, 3. the width of the plane iron, and 4. the weight of the plane. If folks have that information they will understand better what you have. If folks know those figures, they can compare what you have to the #7 or #8 Stanley (or some other brand) that they have. Those figures are widely available on the net for the old Stanley #8s, so folks can then compare apples to apples with the old Stanley planes that they have experience with.

I decided to add to the above, and have also read Martins post which follows before adding this. Like Martin, I only have #7s, but I have more than one of those. Since I don't have a #8, I can only list what others have said about it, and Christopher Schwarz says that there is a game changer difference between the #7 and the #8m the #8 being a horse of a plane to push around and use, but once you get it going, it will plow through grain that will stop a #7 dead in its tracks. I would love to have a #8, but the truth is that most of the lumber I plane is not difficult to plane, and I don't work with difficult grain so for me the #7 is probably all I really need.

I can say this, though, when I was young, fairly stout, and doing carpentry and construction full time, we sometimes used sledge hammers to help set of forms, etc., that weighed less than what a Stanley #8 weighs. I have a sledge in my garage that weighs more than a Stanley #8, but ones that weigh less are pretty common. If a #7 is tiring for you to use, the #8 will be drastically more so. So, when trying to think about what a Stanley #8 plane will be like to push, pick up, and use, think "sledge hammer."

Regards,

Stew

[Martin Shupe]

The LN 7 1/2 is a low angle jointer.

To answer the first post, I have a 7 1/2, and a 7, but no 8.

If you go to a LN show, you can try an 8, but it will be harder to push.

I tried them both, and liked the 7 better.

I am not a weak man, but the 8 would wear me out.

[Julie Moriarty]

https://www.lie-nielsen.com/product/low-angle-bench-planes/low-angle-jointer?node=4167

The 7-1/2 is a low angle jointer, as Martin said. Initially I found low angle planes worked very well for me. And I thought I'd never find a use for a standard plane. But once I realized how to set up the standard plane correctly, I am finding I really love how they perform. I have a #3 and a #4 and they have become my favorites. But the #8 may just be a bit of a beast.

I guess I was just wondering if there is any noticeable difference between the two, considering how I use the 7-1/2 as mostly a jointer, as opposed to flattening a board.

[steven c newman]

Had a type 9 No.8c for a few years.....it was just too large a plane for the items I make..

24" long, with an iron that is 2-5/8" wide.....at 10 pounds, it is a load to try and push along, AND keep square to an edge.

Right now, I have three #7 jointers in the shop. There is of course, a #6c and a #5-1/2 in the till. Used based on how long a board I am working on.

The 7s I have? Two are type 9, Stanley #7c....and an Ohio Tool Co. #0-7 .......each one is set up just a hair different.

[Stew Denton]

Julie,l

Thanks for listing the link. The LN 7 1/2 is extremely similar, size wise, to the Stanley #7, but the Stanley #7 weighs nearly a pound more than your LN BU #7 1/2. Thus, going to a Stanley #7 will be a step up, in the weight you are pushing and the #8 would be real step up. I have most of the Stanley sizes going from #3 to #7,and the difference in effort show up more when going from one of the bigger sizes to the next, but the differences don't seem very much to me when going us step wise in the smaller sizes.

This is just my opinion only, and YMMV. It will be interesting to read what guys that actually have and use #8s will say. Part of the reason I don't have a #8 yet is they tend to be a bit pricy, IMHO, and the lady of the house has advised me we need to watch our pennies for a bit longer.

Stew

[Patrick Chase]

I have a L-N 7-1/2 jointer. I have it tuned pretty well. But I keep seeing videos that talk about the wonders of the #8.

I don't own a power jointer. I joint all my boards by hand. Would a #8 make my life easier? If so, why?

Thanks,
Julie

The L-N 7-1/2 (https://www.lie-nielsen.com/product/low-angle-bench-planes/low-angle-jointer?node=4167) is a bevel-up plane, like the Veritas Bevel-Up Jointer. As such it lacks a cap iron and is arguably inferior to both the 7 and the 8 from a tearout-control perspective.

Other than that the 8 is 2" longer and just under 3/8" wider (blade dimension). Whether that's "good" or not depends on your strength and preferences.

[Patrick Chase]

This is just my opinion only, and YMMV. It will be interesting to read what guys that actually have and use #8s will say. Part of the reason I don't have a #8 yet is they tend to be a bit pricy, IMHO, and the lady of the house has advised me we need to watch our pennies for a bit longer.

Stew

I have a Veritas #7, a Veritas BUJ (very similar to the L-N "7-1/2"), and an L-N #8.

Between the 2 BD planes, I don't find that the 2" length difference makes any difference in the length of workpiece they can efficiently joint. The #8 is handy for jointing very wideworkpieces like glue-ups (provided you're comfortable with the weight and cutting forces - it's all "light work" compared to roughing, after all), but if I had to choose one it would be the 7, hands down.

[Jim Koepke]

Hi Julie,

If the #7-1/2 is working well for you I do not see much reason to pursue a #8. Maybe start looking for one at yard sales and such.

Your low angle jointer is likely less work to use than a bevel down jointer with a wider blade.

At one time I wasn't actually thinking of getting a #8 since the #7 seemed capable of filling my needs. Then on a visit to a collector/dealer he made me an offer on a #8 I couldn't refuse. Now it seems the #8 gets used more than the #7. Then again I have the body mass to push it around. More often my #6 is picked up for work that would be fitting for the larger planes.

jtk

[Brian Holcombe]

Personally I like a try plane over a metal jointer for face jointing. I own a BD Lie Nielsen 7 plane and David Weaver built me a wooden try plane. The try plane is much easier on me for this type of work.

In fact a combination of both a wooden double iron try plane and a wooden double iron jack plane makes for very fast work of face jointing rough lumber.

[Prashun Patel]

Julie, your bevel up to bevel down preference mirrors mine. I have a bevel up jointer though and like it. I wouldn't get hung up on the style or size though. All can be made to work well and it is ultimately a question of preference and ergonomics.

To that end, if you are evaluating, try a wooden jointer. You may like the lightness as do I. Of course they do favor the big handed since there is no front knob.

Last, if ergonomics are an issue consider the veritas custom planes. They are bevel down but can be customized to the size of your hands.

You might check out Derek Cohen's website for a good review on the different jointer styles.

[Tony Zaffuto]

Julie, as Prashun has stated his liking the LN BU jointer, I have a similar liking for it, and use it on virtually every project I work on. If I pay attention to grain direction, I have no issues with tear out. As with any tool, the more you use it, the more familiar you will become and the better your results will be!

[glenn bradley]

A few folks have hit on what I think the core question is; bevel up or bevel down. If you are not experiencing trouble with tearout and are getting a good surface result I think you are fine right where you are. As always this depends on what you are doing but, in my hybrid world the BU jointer serves me well with no issues. I don't really give it a thought. Folks who are more strictly hand tool oriented seem to prefer a wider array of tools in the arsenal. Take away my machines and I probably wood too.

[lowell holmes]

I will chime in with my 607 Bedrock with Veritas breaker and iron. I really don't use it much, but we all know you absolutely must have one of each. :rolleyes:

[Julie Moriarty]

Thanks for all the helpful and informative replies. :)

My experience with the #7-1/2 has been pretty good. At one time I preferred it to every other plane I own because it performed so well. Maybe the mass of the iron or just the overall mass of the plane helped move it through the cut better. And with an adjustable mouth, tearout wasn't a problem.

But then I picked up a #3 bronze I bought just before we moved. I have lately put in more time and effort sharpening edge tools and the #3 was razor sharp. When I ran the #3 down the edge of a board, I immediately fell in love. I only have two BD planes, the #3 and a #4 (cast iron), both L-N. The reason I stayed away from BD planes is I didn't understand how to properly tune them. My experience with the #3 led me to tune up the #4 the same way and I'm now finding the BD planes much more satisfying to work with.

And that's how my curiosity about the #8 came about.

I have, on occasion, flattened boards by hand. I start with a #62, then move to the #7-1/2 and finished with a #164, all BU planes. (I'm thinking I should switch out the #164 with a #4 and see how it goes.) But now I'm trying to decide if the #8 would make that process more pleasurable to do or if I should just work with what I have because there really wouldn't be enough of a difference to justify the cost.

[Jim Koepke]

But now I'm trying to decide if the #8 would make that process more pleasurable to do or if I should just work with what I have because there really wouldn't be enough of a difference to justify the cost.

Is there any chance you will be able to go to a Lie-Nielsen tool event in the future to 'test drive' a #8?

The other option would be to search out one of the larger planes, #6 through #8, at yard sales and flea markets. I don't like paying the collector market prices.

What is that old saying? All things come to those with patience. For me that seems to include reasonable prices on used tools.

jtk

[Tony Zaffuto]

Julie,

If what you are currently using, is working well, stick with it. Use your funds to try some different wood species. After a few months/years, you may feel the need to try some different tools, but first fully learn what you have (turn a deaf ear to the blog-o-sphere, as most there seem to always want to tout the latest/greatest, often ignoring the centuries of extreme craftsmanship with tools made not as finr as what you now have).

[Curt Putnam]

Another option would be to acquire a vintage Stanley # 8 from either Tablesaw Tom or from whomever and then have Tom grind it. As a see it, if you use a jointer mostly for medium or coarse work then the chipbreaker is not an important player. If you want to get into final smoothing range with a jointer then, yes, you'll want the chipbreaker to play. Using the Tom approach gets you an equally good plane for less than half the price even considering shipping both ways. The only difference is that LN is ductile cast iron and the Stanleys are not. IMO & YMWV

[Pat Barry]

But now I'm trying to decide if the #8 would make that process more pleasurable to do....
I think the answer to your question is no, it will not make the process more pleasurable, unless of course you are a masochist, in which case this beast will be perfect for you/

[Patrick Chase]

I think the answer to your question is no, it will not make the process more pleasurable, unless of course you are a masochist, in which case this beast will be perfect for you/

Depends on whether "pleasurable" includes the amount of time spent doing it. The #8 will get some (wide) jobs done faster due to its width, which counts for something IMO.

[Stewie Simpson]

Depends on whether "pleasurable" includes the amount of time spent doing it. The #8 will get some (wide) jobs done faster due to its width, which counts for something IMO.

Patrick; can you explain your logic in having a #7bd; a #7 1/2bu; and a #8bd.

From my perspective if I were looking at purchasing an LN bench plane for jointing and final flattening of long boards it would be an LN bd #6; its far more practical;with its 18" sole; a 2 3/8" iron; and a lighter weight of 7 1/2lbs.

Stewie;

[steven c newman]

Yep...they be big-
339604
I was using this #8c to finish tapering a few legs. Not fun..
339605
Used mine for a few years.....just was too big for what I do.

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick; can you explain your logic in having a #7bd; a #7 1/2bu; and a #8bd.

From my perspective if I were looking at purchasing an LN bench plane for jointing and final flattening of long boards it would be an LN bd #6; its far more practical;with its 18" sole; a 2 3/8" iron; and a lighter weight of 7 1/2lbs.

Stewie;

Who said there's any "logic" involved?

I like the 8 for big stuff, and I like the 7 for edges. If I had it to do again I probably wouldn't have the BU jointer at all. I got it back when I thought I needed the option of high edge angles for tearout control. And if I were being ruthlessly honest with myself I'd acknowledge that the 7 is adequate.

The 6 is 18" long, at which point you're starting to give up some ease of jointing long edges. You can obviously do it (see the other thread about #4...) but that's a compromise I personally don't need or want to make.

[Allen Hunt]

Since you have a 7-1/2 I would think hard before getting a no. 8. I have both the 7 and the 8. One advantage of the slightly wider blade on the no. 8 is that it may help in jointing really wide stock or in bringing a box's sides to the same height when the walls are thick. It may be that a no. 8 would span the width around the corners fully where the 7-1/2 might not if the walls were really thick. I'd guess the likelihood of that scenario occurring would be small so I would not buy the no. 8 unless you came across a need for it. I keep a normal frog on the no. 8 and a high angle frog on the no. 7, to better handle different types of wood.

[Chris Fournier]

Fit to be tied.

I have a LN #7 pre-production plane. You couldn't convince me that a #8 would be an upgrade. BD bench planes work. I used my #7 to joint a 5.5' joint today. Perfection.

[Julie Moriarty]

I think the answer to your question is no, it will not make the process more pleasurable, unless of course you are a masochist, in which case this beast will be perfect for you/

While I may have done some things in the past that caused others to call me a masochist, it was never my intention to beat myself up. I just didn't realize what I was getting myself into. That being said, there are enough guys here saying the #8 can really beat you up that I need to heed their warning. And I like Tony Z's idea of putting the money into wood. My stock is running very low.