I Need Help with Lie-Nielsen Planes

[Steven Harrison]

Two part question…
First I’m gearing up to order a Lie-Nielsen jointer, either a 7 or 8. The largest plane I have now is an older Stanley #6. I like the idea of the 8, but in practice I’m worried it’s too wide to edge joint 3/4” which is what I mainly work with, but sometimes thinner. I’m not worried about pushing the weight around. This is making me lean towards a 7 though since it seems a little more versatile since I’d like to be able to use it on 1/2” material if I needed to. Am I over-analyzing it? I’ve never used a plane larger than my 6.
Second part kind of depends on the first. I bought my first LN plane a few months ago and love it. I got a 4-1/2 and I use it way more than my Stanley #4. I feel like my #4 is too light now so I’m always reaching for the 4-1/2. I opted for the standard frog instead of a higher angle and put a slight back bevel on it when dealing with tricky grain with works for the most part. Am I missing out not having a dedicated higher angle frog? If I order a 7 then should I order a 50 or 55 degree frog and swap with the 4-1/2 or not worry about it since I use the 4-1/2 so much and it’s not just for dedicated situations? So many options!
Thanks for any help!!

[Patrick Chase]

Two part question…
First I’m gearing up to order a Lie-Nielsen jointer, either a 7 or 8. The largest plane I have now is an older Stanley #6. I like the idea of the 8, but in practice I’m worried it’s too wide to edge joint 3/4” which is what I mainly work with, but sometimes thinner. I’m not worried about pushing the weight around. This is making me lean towards a 7 though since it seems a little more versatile since I’d like to be able to use it on 1/2” material if I needed to. Am I over-analyzing it? I’ve never used a plane larger than my 6.
Second part kind of depends on the first. I bought my first LN plane a few months ago and love it. I got a 4-1/2 and I use it way more than my Stanley #4. I feel like my #4 is too light now so I’m always reaching for the 4-1/2. I opted for the standard frog instead of a higher angle and put a slight back bevel on it when dealing with tricky grain with works for the most part. Am I missing out not having a dedicated higher angle frog? If I order a 7 then should I order a 50 or 55 degree frog and swap with the 4-1/2 or not worry about it since I use the 4-1/2 so much and it’s not just for dedicated situations? So many options!
Thanks for any help!!

I have the L-N 8, and a Veritas Custom 7, and a bevel-up jointer, and an ECE jointer...

A couple thoughts:

The #8 won't buy you anything for edge-jointing. The difference in length (22" vs 24") is pretty minor, and the extra iron width is wasted in that case. It's just extra weight to no good end IMO.
Either of them will work fine on 1/2" material (I assume you mean for edge jointing there?). If you can balance either on a 1/2" then you can balance both.
The main value of the bigger plane is for jointing large panels, like tabletops. If that isn't part of your intended use, then I'd go with the 7.
I think that it would be better to focus on learning to use a close-set cap iron rather than messing with high-angle frogs. A 2-3/8" iron at 55 deg creates some pretty significant planing forces.

[Steven Harrison]

I have the L-N 8, and a Veritas Custom 7, and a bevel-up jointer, and an ECE jointer...

A couple thoughts:

The #8 won't buy you anything for edge-jointing. The difference in length (22" vs 24") is pretty minor, and the extra iron width is wasted in that case. It's just extra weight to no good end IMO.
Either of them will work fine on 1/2" material (I assume you mean for edge jointing there?). If you can balance either on a 1/2" then you can balance both.
The main value of the bigger plane is for jointing large panels, like tabletops. If that isn't part of your intended use, then I'd go with the 7.
I think that it would be better to focus on learning to use a close-set cap iron rather than messing with high-angle frogs. A 2-3/8" iron at 55 deg creates some pretty significant planing forces.



I did mean edge jointing the 1/2 inch. I have a large coffee table in the near future, a new workbench down the road, and then who knows. I'd like to be prepared for any future projects, but most of the stuff I'll be doing will be smaller. Knowing that would you still stick with a 7?
Hard to know what to do when I don't have access to any of these tools to try out. I'm happy with the results I get with the standard frog, but it's hard to know what you don't know, ya know? Thanks for the response.

[steven c newman]

I have several different sized planes......from a #5-1/2 up to the Stanley No.8.....I prefer the no.7 for boards LONGER than the plane's sole....I use a length that is shorter than the board is long. Sometimes, even a #5 will work.

Edge jointing is also about HOW you hold the plane......you do not hold the front knob. The thumb hooks over the edge of the plane, the index finger acts as a fence. The index finger will also tell you if you are tipping the plane to either side.

Using too long of a plane means too much work to use the plane....and too much time wasted. You have to keep the area behind the mouth level....if there is too much sole back there in mid-air, makes for a long day.
368675
On the longer boards, I tend to use my No. 7c Type 9 ...

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Steven

I have a LN Anniversary #4 1/2. This came with a 50 degree frog. Later I added a 55 degree frog. The combinatipn of high angle, wide blade and heavy body made this hard to push, and it ended up on the shelf. Years later, when I learned to set the chipbreaker up close, I added a 45 degree frog. The plane was transformed .... still heavy (and my tastes had changed by then to lighter planes) but a very useable plane.

As far as the jointer goes, I get a lighter plane. The #7 is by far preferred to the #8. Also look at the Veritas Custom #7, which is superb. Either plane will do all you want.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Steven Harrison]

I have several different sized planes......from a #5-1/2 up to the Stanley No.8.....I prefer the no.7 for boards LONGER than the plane's sole....I use a length that is shorter than the board is long. Sometimes, even a #5 will work.

Edge jointing is also about HOW you hold the plane......you do not hold the front knob. The thumb hooks over the edge of the plane, the index finger acts as a fence. The index finger will also tell you if you are tipping the plane to either side.

Using too long of a plane means too much work to use the plane....and too much time wasted. You have to keep the area behind the mouth level....if there is too much sole back there in mid-air, makes for a long day.
368675
On the longer boards, I tend to use my No. 7c Type 9 ...

So a number 7 over the 8. That's what I was looking for. I've been using my 6 with success in flattening and edge joining with what I've been doing, but with some larger projects on the horizon I really wanted to have something longer to pursue flat and true the best I could (I don't have any machines). Thanks for your help

[Steven Harrison]

Hi Steven

I have a LN Anniversary #4 1/2. This came with a 50 degree frog. Later I added a 55 degree frog. The combinatipn of high angle, wide blade and heavy body made this hard to push, and it ended up on the shelf. Years later, when I learned to set the chipbreaker up close, I added a 45 degree frog. The plane was transformed .... still heavy (and my tastes had changed by then to lighter planes) but a very useable plane.

As far as the jointer goes, I get a lighter plane. The #7 is by far preferred to the #8. Also look at the Veritas Custom #7, which is superb. Either plane will do all you want.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Hey Derek,

Thanks for your opinions on all of the above and puts me at ease about the high angle frog. Looks like a 7 is where I want to look. I had a chance to try the Veritas bench planes at The Woodworking Shows (where I actually ordered my Low Angle Jack with PM-V11 that I love) and it just didn't feel right for me. Thanks again.

[William Fretwell]

Never had a #8 but the #7 worked fine for two 7' long projects. I can't see the #8 being radically different. Just order a second frog for difficult grain

[Patrick Chase]

Hey Derek,

Thanks for your opinions on all of the above and puts me at ease about the high angle frog. Looks like a 7 is where I want to look. I had a chance to try the Veritas bench planes at The Woodworking Shows (where I actually ordered my Low Angle Jack with PM-V11 that I love) and it just didn't feel right for me. Thanks again.

Reiterating something I said above: Investigate using a close-set cap iron. Jointers are the type of plane for which doing so pays the largest dividends, because you will need to take moderately thick but still tearout-free shavings when jointing to be productive. The cap iron is my preferred method of tearout management, and I believe that to be true of Derek as well. I actually have a 42 deg frog in my #7 right now to optimize surface quality and ease of planing, and IIRC Derek was my inspiration for doing that. It produces tearout-free results in domestic hardwoods when used with a properly adjusted cap iron, even when planing against the grain.

Search for "David Weaver setting a cap iron" for a useful starting point. His document is on a "rival" forum so I can't link it without violating SMC TOS.

[Steven Harrison]

Reiterating something I said above: Investigate using a close-set cap iron. Jointers are the type of plane for which doing so pays the largest dividends, because you will need to take moderately thick but still tearout-free shavings when jointing to be productive. The cap iron is my preferred method of tearout management, and I believe that to be true of Derek as well. I actually have a 42 deg frog in my #7 right now to optimize surface quality and ease of planing, and IIRC Derek was my inspiration for doing that. It produces tearout-free results in domestic hardwoods when used with a properly adjusted cap iron, even when planing against the grain.

Search for "David Weaver setting a cap iron" for a useful starting point. His document is on a "rival" forum so I can't link it without violating SMC TOS.

I will definitely check that out and thanks Patrick!

[steven c newman]

Maybe a little "Show & Tell"?

368684
The Heft & Hubris No. 8. All 10 pounds of it..
368685
I sat a No.7c beside it....bit of a difference?

Laid them on their sides..
368686
Then a No. 6c..
368687
And then, CAREFULLY, a No. 5-1/2
368688
So, which one gets the most work?
368689
That would depend ON the work itself....the No. 7 gets the most out of this mob...
As for the difference between a "c" model and a smooth sole model?
368690
These are my Stanley No. 5s.....one is a tad more cambered, but that is about the only difference I find...

[Steven Harrison]

Maybe a little "Show & Tell"?

368684
The Heft & Hubris No. 8. All 10 pounds of it..
368685
I sat a No.7c beside it....bit of a difference?

Laid them on their sides..
368686
Then a No. 6c..
368687
And then, CAREFULLY, a No. 5-1/2
368688
So, which one gets the most work?
368689
That would depend ON the work itself....the No. 7 gets the most out of this mob...
As for the difference between a "c" model and a smooth sole model?
368690
These are my Stanley No. 5s.....one is a tad more cambered, but that is about the only difference I find...

Heft and Hubris... I like that. I appreciate you taking the time to do this and it helps a lot. I was having a hard time visualizing the 7 compared to the 6 that I have. I didn't know if it would be too similar, hence the 8, but this shows the difference really well and the length is more significant than I was thinking

[Jim Koepke]

Two part question…
First I’m gearing up to order a Lie-Nielsen jointer, either a 7 or 8. The largest plane I have now is an older Stanley #6. I like the idea of the 8, but in practice I’m worried it’s too wide to edge joint 3/4” which is what I mainly work with, but sometimes thinner. I’m not worried about pushing the weight around. This is making me lean towards a 7 though since it seems a little more versatile since I’d like to be able to use it on 1/2” material if I needed to. Am I over-analyzing it? I’ve never used a plane larger than my 6.
Second part kind of depends on the first. I bought my first LN plane a few months ago and love it. I got a 4-1/2 and I use it way more than my Stanley #4. I feel like my #4 is too light now so I’m always reaching for the 4-1/2. I opted for the standard frog instead of a higher angle and put a slight back bevel on it when dealing with tricky grain with works for the most part. Am I missing out not having a dedicated higher angle frog? If I order a 7 then should I order a 50 or 55 degree frog and swap with the 4-1/2 or not worry about it since I use the 4-1/2 so much and it’s not just for dedicated situations? So many options!
Thanks for any help!!

Howdy Steven and a belated Welcome to the Creek. If you are in the Portland, OR area send me a Private Message if you would like to take a test drive of the two sizes to see if that helps you make up your mind.

The choice of the planes one uses is different for each person. If you tend to use your #6 in place of a #5 because it feels more comfortable, then a #8 might be the right plane for you.

On the other hand a #4-1/2, a #6 and a #7 all have the same size blade. This would allow for a back bevel on one to swap around if needed or have a spare blade to fit all three planes.

From my own experience, at one time a #7 seemed to be fine for me and having a #8 didn't seem necessary. Then one day while out for a ride with the wife we stopped at an antique shop. Turns out the guy was a plane collector. He had a complete no damage #8 at a price below my ability to refuse. It is a bit of an odd duck. It kind of fits in between the cracks of a type 6 and a type 7. The lateral adjuster doesn't have the patent dates on it that would be on one of that vintage.

Now it tends to get used more than my #7.

Both planes are very well suited to the job, but for some reason the added weight of the #8 just feels better in my hands.

jtk

[Todd Stock]

Record 8, Stanley and LN7, plus various woodies. LN7 is my preference; there are few times when the extra length and weight of the 8 is beneficial. With a humidity-controlled shop, the woodies are a good option as well.

[Matthew Hills]

I like my bailey #7c (with hock iron) for the tasks you've listed.

(I would even give some thought to looking for a good-condition bailey over the LN in order to save weight).

I've heard some people prefer a low-angle jointer because it has a lower mass and might be easier to keep balanced on an edge. I only have a bevel-up #5 and the bevel-down #7.

If jointing a thin board, you may end up using a long-grain shooting board on your bench. I'd probably use my LV LAJ for that (same one I use with my endgrain shooting board)

Matt

[Prashun Patel]

I find even the #7 fatiguing to use for larger jobs. I suspect an 8 would be even quicker to exhaust. There hasn't been anything (even @ 8-12 feet long) that I haven't been able to do reasonably well with a #7 (I use a bevel up Veritas, so it's not totally apples-to-apples, but they are the same length.)

When jointing a tricky, long, skinny edge, you may find it beneficial to plane it straight with the #7, and then shoot it square with the piece lying flat on the bench. The LN7 would be great for that.

[Andrew Gibson]

I have a mixed bag of vintage planes that all have new irons and chip breakers (Hock and LV) I also have a LN bronze #4 with both 45* and 55* frogs. I leave it set up for High angle work when the need arises to complement my Stanley #4c and #4-1/2C.
on the long end I love my #6c for the majority of furniture sized work. The #7c comes out for long edge work. The #8c comes out for large flattening jobs such as table tops. I think the #7 and #8 can be interchanged for the most part, but I have run into a couple jobs where the #8 was the only one that would do the trick for me. My Union #7c belonged to my Great Grandfather and was my first plane and I will never part with it, however I think I would be content with a #6 and #8. All my Vintage planes are corrugated soles because the #7 was corrugated and as I collected I wanted them to match even if the brands did not.

[Robert Engel]

Steven, first, I have found I can joint quite well with a #6. That being said, there are times you really need to the long jointers.

Yes the big jointer planes can be a bit of a challenge on 3/4" thick edges. In those cases I'm planing tow boards at once clamped with opposing surfaces to cancel out the angular error. Or, on an exposed edge, I will shoot the edge using a jig.

I went through a similar experience a few years ago I needed a long jointer for a workbench flattening. Since I knew a big jointer would occupy the plane rack way more than my hands, And since I already had their #6, I opted for the WoodRiver #7. Have to say I even compared to a few other LN planes I can't barely tell the diff.

Do love my LN 4 1/2, tho. I think a high angle frog is a good idea rather than having to worry about back bevelling you can sharpen all your irons the same way

My 2¢ hope it helps :)

[Steven Harrison]

Never had a #8 but the #7 worked fine for two 7' long projects. I can't see the #8 being radically different. Just order a second frog for difficult grain

Trying to avoid ordering a second frog just because of price. I might order the 7 with a higher angle then swap it to the 4-1/2. Still taking in all of the good opinions and wisdom here

[Steven Harrison]

Howdy Steven and a belated Welcome to the Creek. If you are in the Portland, OR area send me a Private Message if you would like to take a test drive of the two sizes to see if that helps you make up your mind.

The choice of the planes one uses is different for each person. If you tend to use your #6 in place of a #5 because it feels more comfortable, then a #8 might be the right plane for you.

On the other hand a #4-1/2, a #6 and a #7 all have the same size blade. This would allow for a back bevel on one to swap around if needed or have a spare blade to fit all three planes.

From my own experience, at one time a #7 seemed to be fine for me and having a #8 didn't seem necessary. Then one day while out for a ride with the wife we stopped at an antique shop. Turns out the guy was a plane collector. He had a complete no damage #8 at a price below my ability to refuse. It is a bit of an odd duck. It kind of fits in between the cracks of a type 6 and a type 7. The lateral adjuster doesn't have the patent dates on it that would be on one of that vintage.

Now it tends to get used more than my #7.

Both planes are very well suited to the job, but for some reason the added weight of the #8 just feels better in my hands.

jtk

Hi Jim and thanks. Unfortunately I am nowhere near the Portland area or I would take you up on your offer. LN is having their Hand Tool Events and will be in Nashville in November which is about 5 hours away from me. Not sure I can get the will power to wait that long though. I usually start with a 5 with a cambered iron when dimensioning and then move to a 6 since it's the longest plane I have before using the smoother.
Seems like you lucked out with the 8. Have you ever used a high angled frog? Thanks for all of the insight

[Steven Harrison]

Record 8, Stanley and LN7, plus various woodies. LN7 is my preference; there are few times when the extra length and weight of the 8 is beneficial. With a humidity-controlled shop, the woodies are a good option as well.

I work in my garage so I've ruled out the woodies. Seems like the 7 is more useful generally than the 8 for you. Good to know and thanks for the reply

[Steven Harrison]

I like my bailey #7c (with hock iron) for the tasks you've listed.

(I would even give some thought to looking for a good-condition bailey over the LN in order to save weight).

I've heard some people prefer a low-angle jointer because it has a lower mass and might be easier to keep balanced on an edge. I only have a bevel-up #5 and the bevel-down #7.

If jointing a thin board, you may end up using a long-grain shooting board on your bench. I'd probably use my LV LAJ for that (same one I use with my endgrain shooting board)

Matt

Good point on the long grain shooting board. I also have a LV LAJ and love it, but I reach for my bevel downs most of the time. The weight of a LN doesn't scare me and I would rather buy with confidence than have an ounce of doubt about a flat sole or quality. Plus I've been saving not to mention all the time I've spent slipping my wife subliminal messages to approve the purchase :)

[Steven Harrison]

I find even the #7 fatiguing to use for larger jobs. I suspect an 8 would be even quicker to exhaust. There hasn't been anything (even @ 8-12 feet long) that I haven't been able to do reasonably well with a #7 (I use a bevel up Veritas, so it's not totally apples-to-apples, but they are the same length.)

When jointing a tricky, long, skinny edge, you may find it beneficial to plane it straight with the #7, and then shoot it square with the piece lying flat on the bench. The LN7 would be great for that.

My wife jokes that I'm built like a cartoon character and I have most of my mass in my upper body. Heavy planes don't scare me, but it's very good to know how well your 7 has worked for you. Thanks for the reply

[Jim Koepke]

Hi Jim and thanks. Unfortunately I am nowhere near the Portland area or I would take you up on your offer. LN is having their Hand Tool Events and will be in Nashville in November which is about 5 hours away from me. Not sure I can get the will power to wait that long though. I usually start with a 5 with a cambered iron when dimensioning and then move to a 6 since it's the longest plane I have before using the smoother.
Seems like you lucked out with the 8. Have you ever used a high angled frog? Thanks for all of the insight

My bench planes are almost exclusively Stanley/Bailey models, so there isn't any with a high angle frog.

Not so long ago it seemed luck struck again for a #8. There was a beat up #8c with a few things missing and a broken frog. For $5 it seemed like a decent deal. To me it is my most expensive $5 plane. A replacement frog cost me ~$40. Now it is sitting waiting for me to get the motivation to put it together and give it a try. It will likely be like when there were a pair of #7s taking in the shop. One of them ended up going to someone else.

jtk

[Steven Harrison]

I have a mixed bag of vintage planes that all have new irons and chip breakers (Hock and LV) I also have a LN bronze #4 with both 45* and 55* frogs. I leave it set up for High angle work when the need arises to complement my Stanley #4c and #4-1/2C.
on the long end I love my #6c for the majority of furniture sized work. The #7c comes out for long edge work. The #8c comes out for large flattening jobs such as table tops. I think the #7 and #8 can be interchanged for the most part, but I have run into a couple jobs where the #8 was the only one that would do the trick for me. My Union #7c belonged to my Great Grandfather and was my first plane and I will never part with it, however I think I would be content with a #6 and #8. All my Vintage planes are corrugated soles because the #7 was corrugated and as I collected I wanted them to match even if the brands did not.

Great to know and thanks. I use my 4-1/2 far more than my 4. If you used your 4-1/2 a lot would you still leave you high angle frog in? I love my 6 and it's worked great for me. I'm just striving for more flat and true on some of the larger projects I have in the future.

[Steven Harrison]

My bench planes are almost exclusively Stanley/Bailey models, so there isn't any with a high angle frog.

Not so long ago it seemed luck struck again for a #8. There was a beat up #8c with a few things missing and a broken frog. For $5 it seemed like a decent deal. To me it is my most expensive $5 plane. A replacement frog cost me ~$40. Now it is sitting waiting for me to get the motivation to put it together and give it a try. It will likely be like when there were a pair of #7s taking in the shop. One of them ended up going to someone else.

jtk

I've stopped taking on project tools because of the lack of time and space, but for $5 I think I would have done the same.

[John C Cox]

I love my battleship for cleaning up and straightening the edges..

But when its time to candle the joint for gluing - its back to a finely set and very sharp #4 or #5...

[Steven Harrison]

Steven, first, I have found I can joint quite well with a #6. That being said, there are times you really need to the long jointers.

Yes the big jointer planes can be a bit of a challenge on 3/4" thick edges. In those cases I'm planing tow boards at once clamped with opposing surfaces to cancel out the angular error. Or, on an exposed edge, I will shoot the edge using a jig.

I went through a similar experience a few years ago I needed a long jointer for a workbench flattening. Since I knew a big jointer would occupy the plane rack way more than my hands, And since I already had their #6, I opted for the WoodRiver #7. Have to say I even compared to a few other LN planes I can't barely tell the diff.

Do love my LN 4 1/2, tho. I think a high angle frog is a good idea rather than having to worry about back bevelling you can sharpen all your irons the same way

My 2¢ hope it helps :)

It does help. Being self taught it's forums like this where I've learned and gained some wisdom. I was considering the Woodriver, but I believe they recently moved from A2 steel on their irons to something else. Might not make a huge difference, but for the money I want more. Good to know your opinion on the frog too. Thanks for the reply Robert

[Patrick Chase]

If you're committed to cutting angle as a means of mitigating tearout, then you might want to consider a bevel-up jointer instead. For example the L-N 7-1/2 or the Veritas Bevel Up Jointer.

The big advantage there is that you can have multiple blades prepared with different secondary bevel angles, and swap them in as required by the work. It's a far more convenient way to adjust cutting angle than either high-angle frogs or back-beveling.

Of course the downside is that as you improve you won't have the ability to exploit Cap Iron Magic (tm).

[Steven Harrison]

If you're committed to cutting angle as a means of mitigating tearout, then you might want to consider a bevel-up jointer instead. For example the L-N 7-1/2 or the Veritas Bevel Up Jointer.

The big advantage there is that you can have multiple blades prepared with different secondary bevel angles, and swap them in as required by the work. It's a far more convenient way to adjust cutting angle than either high-angle frogs or back-beveling.

Of course the downside is that as you improve you won't have the ability to exploit Cap Iron Magic (tm).

Ah the ol Cap Iron Magic (tm) is invaluable. I really don't have a problem with tear out most of the time and nothing that a card or cabinet scraper can't take care of. Just wondering if I could improve the process even further with a higher angle. The bevel up planes just don't feel the same. I love my low angle jack, but I reach for the bevel down most of the time.

[Patrick Chase]

I work in my garage so I've ruled out the woodies. Seems like the 7 is more useful generally than the 8 for you. Good to know and thanks for the reply

I think this may reflect an incorrect impression about the stability of woodies. I also work in my garage, and it simply isn't an issue with my ECE jointer. Adequately seasoned, properly built woodies are more stable than you might think.

[Steven Harrison]

I think this may reflect an incorrect impression about the stability of woodies. I also work in my garage, and it simply isn't an issue with my ECE jointer. Adequately seasoned, properly built woodies are more stable than you might think.

Interesting, and good to know. I don't have much experience with them, but was told they can be temperamental. Maybe it was because they were planes that were homemade.

[Patrick Chase]

Interesting, and good to know. I don't have much experience with them, but was told they can be temperamental. Maybe it was because they were planes that were homemade.

They certainly can if the wood isn't properly seasoned, or is cut improperly (pith down the middle of the body, that sort of thing), etc. Any or all of those could be true of a plane made by somebody lacking in experience.

It's probably worth noting that over the course of history the vast majority of fine hand-tool woodworking was done in uncontrolled environments with wooden planes. They can't be *that* susceptible :-).

[Allen Jordan]

I have the LN 7 1/2 low angle jointer and it is amazing for edge jointing.

[Steven Harrison]

They certainly can if the wood isn't properly seasoned, or is cut improperly (pith down the middle of the body, that sort of thing), etc. Any or all of those could be true of a plane made by somebody lacking in experience.

It's probably worth noting that over the course of history the vast majority of fine hand-tool woodworking was done in uncontrolled environments with wooden planes. They can't be *that* susceptible :-).

Nothing like a daily dose of common sense

[Patrick Chase]

I've heard some people prefer a low-angle jointer because it has a lower mass and might be easier to keep balanced on an edge. I only have a bevel-up #5 and the bevel-down #7.


This one is way subjective, as you might imagine. FWIW I initially preferred bevel-down planes because they felt more balanced. I now prefer planes with higher center-of-gravity because they feel more sensitive, i.e. the plane feels more obviously unbalanced if it's tipped one way or the other. I don't think that either impression has much to do with my actual results, though :-)

[Jim Koepke]

LN is having their Hand Tool Events and will be in Nashville in November which is about 5 hours away from me. Not sure I can get the will power to wait that long though.

There is usually free shipping at these events, so the savings on shipping might be an incentive to try and get by with your #6 until then.


Originally Posted by Matthew Hills

I've heard some people prefer a low-angle jointer because it has a lower mass and might be easier to keep balanced on an edge. I only have a bevel-up #5 and the bevel-down #7.


This one is way subjective, as you might imagine. FWIW I initially preferred bevel-down planes because they felt more balanced. I now prefer planes with higher center-of-gravity because they feel more sensitive, i.e. the plane feels more obviously unbalanced if it's tipped one way or the other. I don't think that either impression has much to do with my actual results, though :-)

This gets into the realm of an individual's own 'feel' of a tool. To me it is very important a tool feels right in my hand. An uncomfortable feeling tool is fettled to make it feel better or it may sit unused.

The wood one works is another important factor. Some woods need a high angle approach. Some woods are rather behaved and can be controlled with sharp edges and a close set chip breaker.

jtk

[Steven Harrison]

There is usually free shipping at these events, so the savings on shipping might be an incentive to try and get by with your #6 until then.


jtk

I've thought about waiting. It would be a 10 hour round trip plus food at some point which will probably all cost more than the shipping charges that I would be saving. Depending on when I'm getting ready to order I may wait if it's close enough, but we'll see.

[Steven Harrison]

Well I ended up with the #8. It was delivered today and I'm pretty disappointed. The lever on the lever cap doesn't function without A LOT of force. The shipping box was fine, but the Lie-Nielsen box was messed up so I'm not sure if it was damaged in transit. I ordered it from Craftsman Studio so I'm waiting to hear back from them to see if I need to contact Lie-Nielsen directly

[Robert Hazelwood]

Are you trying to work the lever with the lever cap removed from the plane and it's still tight? If so that's a problem, but if it works freely off the plane, then you can loosen the mounting screws a bit and you should be able to adjust the lever force.

[steven c newman]

Per that too tight lever cap: L-N always cranks the bolt down as tight as it will go, to prevent things from shifting around while in transit. Loosen the bolt a 1/2 turn, and try again....may need a full turn.

[Steven Harrison]

Are you trying to work the lever with the lever cap removed from the plane and it's still tight? If so that's a problem, but if it works freely off the plane, then you can loosen the mounting screws a bit and you should be able to adjust the lever force.

I thought it was just the mounting screw, but when it's removed it still doesn't work.

[Jim Koepke]

I thought it was just the mounting screw, but when it's removed it still doesn't work.

My mistake. My impression was you were having trouble with the lateral lever. Not sure why since after reading the post again.

jtk

[Steven Harrison]

Here's some pictures. Scott from Craftsman Studio contacted me last night and is going to get a replacement sent. The lever looks like it's bent to one side which is causing it to bind 370110370109

[Pat Barry]

I am not familiar with LN toold, but it looks like the radius ( roundover) is missing from the lever. Someone with a similar plane could comment or post a picture of theirs.

[Patrick Chase]

L-N's levers are always pretty stiff, but they shouldn't bind. As you say, throw it back.

I personally prefer LV's tensioning scheme, but that's just a subjective thing. I have examples of both and they all work (and should work) fine.

[Jerry Olexa]

I would take a #7 over an 8 for jointing, general use.Easier to handle, plenty of weight...IMHO

[Kurtis Johnson]

Howdy Steven and a belated Welcome to the Creek. If you are in the Portland, OR area send me a Private Message if you would like to take a test drive of the two sizes to see if that helps you make up your mind.
This made me smile. Nice offer.

[Kurtis Johnson]

I think this may reflect an incorrect impression about the stability of woodies. I also work in my garage, and it simply isn't an issue with my ECE jointer. Adequately seasoned, properly built woodies are more stable than you might think.
I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt this is universally true geographically. I think he concern is more for areas of the country that see extreme fluctuations in temperature and humidity like four season midwest. I don't like to saturate old woodies with BLO either, and that might be the only salvation for a woodie in my uncontrolled garage. But I'm experimenting with it.

[Jim Koepke]

This made me smile. Nice offer.

Thanks for the smile Kurtis.

Having my shop open to others has so far allowed me to meet some very nice people. Funny story about this is someone who isn't a member of SMC was reading posts and saw one of mine with the same welcome offer and looked me up in the phone book. He lives across the river in Oregon. We have gotten together a few times.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt this is universally true geographically. I think he concern is more for areas of the country that see extreme fluctuations in temperature and humidity like four season midwest. I don't like to saturate old woodies with BLO either, and that might be the only salvation for a woodie in my uncontrolled garage. But I'm experimenting with it.

Hopefully somebody like Steve will come along and give a more authoritative opinion than I can. I'm a user who's starting to build wooden planes, whereas he has a lot of experience. With that said...

As with everything made of wood it's a question of the orientation, species and quality of the blank, and the degree to which the plane design "self compensates" for inevitable variation. You can't stop wood from moving, but you can design the plane such that movement doesn't compromise functionally important properties such as bedding, wedging, and sole flatness.

The ideal is for the blank to be even- and straight-grained and sawn such that the pith was dead center above the top of the plane, with the fibers oriented directly lengthwise or slightly tilting towards the sole from the toe to the heel (the latter to avoid short grain in the mouth). You also want a species that will equalize relatively quickly to minimize nonuniform expansion and resulting internal stresses. This last objective is helped by a prominent ray structure. More on that here (http://www.planemaker.com/articles_beech.html).

If you build a plane from wood selected and sawn for those attributes, then the plane can be made functionally robust to natural expansion and shrinkage of the wood. Note that saturating a woodie with BLO is arguably self-defeating, because it slows equalization and causes nonuniform expansion (see the Larry Clark article I linked above as well).

As I pointed out earlier, 18th century pre-metal-plane American woodworking was largely done in regions with significant climate variations and no A/C, and yet they somehow produced excellent work.

Of course the catch is that building a plane the way I've described is expensive and work intensive. A log doesn't yield very many 16/4 blanks with the geometry and attributes I listed above, and the last set of Beech blanks I bought (from Horizon) consequently cost $20/bdft shipped ($70 per 32" x 4" 16/4 blank). The gluelines in laminates act as moisture barriers and lead to differential expansion, internal stresses, and potentially warping, so you have to use traditional mortised construction which further adds to cost.

[steven c newman]

One other problem from too tight of a lever cap bolt....owners would use a screwdriver to pry up on the lever, from the side....if they are lucky, it will merely bend the lever a bit...have seen broken levers and cracked pivot holes come through the Rehab Shop....and these were cast iron lever caps. Non-cast iron may bend enough to really foul things up.....just a thought...

[Steven Harrison]

Well... I received another bad lever cap. I'm still waiting to use the plane. The lever on the second one wasn't ground right so the cam action didn't work. LN told me the new cap would ship last Wednesday and it didn't. I emailed them Friday and never heard back. So I called yesterday and they shipped it. What a frustrating experience.

[Hasin Haroon]

That's a pity Steven. I have a few LN planes but I got to pick through them in their showroom, didn't even think to check if everything was in working condition as I assumed they would be perfect (and they were). Surprised the second one was faulty too, I would imagine they'd check it before sending it out.

[Steven Harrison]

That's a pity Steven. I have a few LN planes but I got to pick through them in their showroom, didn't even think to check if everything was in working condition as I assumed they would be perfect (and they were). Surprised the second one was faulty too, I would imagine they'd check it before sending it out.

They told me they checked it, but I don't think they checked it in a plane. Pretty disappointed with them. I've had the plane for almost four weeks. That a lot of money to spend on a paperweight.

[Hasin Haroon]

They told me they checked it, but I don't think they checked it in a plane. Pretty disappointed with them. I've had the plane for almost four weeks. That a lot of money to spend on a paperweight.

I agree. I'm sure the next one will be perfect though, hang in there.
On a separate note, if you don't have a bench brush, consider adding the LN brush to the order (i'm sure they'll cover shipping costs after all these issues). It's great to brush off your bench but also brush the dust off your tools before putting them away.

[Steven Harrison]

I agree. I'm sure the next one will be perfect though, hang in there.
On a separate note, if you don't have a bench brush, consider adding the LN brush to the order (i'm sure they'll cover shipping costs after all these issues). It's great to brush off your bench but also brush the dust off your tools before putting them away.

I already have a bench brush, but it did cross my mind to add something and try to get them to cover shipping. The new cap should be here tomorrow. I've decided that I'm not going to be giving them anymore business for awhile.