Brief Review: LV Small Double Square

[Frederick Skelly]

I've been eyeballing both the Sterling and the Vesper Dovetail Blades/Squares, but haven't been able to convince myself to pull the trigger. I made a couple of my own and still wasnt wholly satisfied. So when Jim Koepke said good things about his LV Small Double Square (http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?p=72730&cat=1,42936,42941), I gambled $50 and bought one. (At worst, I figured it's a little less than 1 dinner date. :) )

* The fit/finish is good. Stainless steel so it shouldnt need much care.
* It is REALLY small. 2 1/2" is smaller than the catalog closeup makes it look.
* I really like the locking knob at the bottom. The Vesper (https://www.vespertools.com.au/vesper-squares/precision-double-squares/) has this feature but it's closer to $180 USD ($240 AUD) for the set.
* I already have 4" and 6" double squares, so the 2 1/2" "regular" blade wont get much use. YMMV.
* But the narrow blade (3/16" wide) is really nice for the dovetails I like to cut. It works well on half inch and three-quarter inch stock - you can check some tight spaces with a 3/16" blade. The very narrow end is only 3/32" wide and 1/2" long. Wish it was 3/4" long but that probably wouldnt be feasible when the whole blade is only 2 1/2" long

I like the tool and I think I'll get used to the dimunItive size. For me, it was worth the $50. If you dont already have a small double square, the value equation changes and buying the $90 double square set from Sterling (http://www.sterlingtoolworks.com/store/#!/4-E-M-Double-Square-Set/p/50342903/category=13579459)makes more sense. If you have a compatible square, you can also buy JUST the Sterling dovetail blade (http://www.sterlingtoolworks.com/store/#!/Sterling-DTR-1-Dovetail-Ruler-Blade/p/50394580/category=22740039) for $20-30.

Fred

[glenn bradley]

A Creeker advised me that the Sterling blade would fit a PEC/LV/Woodcraft/Other 4" double square body. I went this way and the blade fits and operates great. For those of you who already have a 4" double square, this can add some value. The Lee Valley unit does look very nice and I thank you for the review. Good info like this from folks who have had their hands on things can really help folks who are in areas where getting something in your mitts can be a challenge.

[Mike Henderson]

A double square with a very narrow blade is an excellent tool for checking how "square" your tails are in hand cut dovetails. The blades of the standard double squares are too wide to fit between the tails to do that check.

I have the LV double square and the Sterling Toolworks blade (http://www.sterlingtoolworks.com/dovetail-square/). If you order just the blade from Sterling Toolworks ($25, I think) you'll need a double square body to put it into. A PEC blem or iGaging body works fine. You can get a whole double square from Sterling Toolworks, if you prefer - don't know the price.

Between the two, I prefer the Sterling Toolworks. One objection I have to the LV double square is that it only fits into the case with the standard blade in the body. So if you're going to use the case, you have to take the dovetail blade out each time you store it and then re-install it when you want to use it again. My second objection is that the narrowest part of dovetail blade is too short.

I have a bunch of those 4" double squares so I use the others for normal double square work and have a dedicated double square body for the Sterling Toolworks blade. One issue with the Sterling Toolworks blade and a double square body is that the thin part of the blade could be bent if the tool is dropped or hit by other tools. I made a small box for the Sterling Toolworks blade and double square body to protect it when it's not in use.

Beyond the case issue, the Sterling Toolworks blade and double square body is larger and fits my hand better. It's the unit I go for, rather than the LV unit.

Don't get me wrong, the LV unit works well - I just prefer the combination of the Sterling toolworks and a standard double square body.

Mike

[Here's some pictures] First, the LV square and case, and the Jim Dandy case I made for the Sterling Toolworks squares. I keep saying that one day I'll do a nice box for the Sterling Toolworks squares but you know how that is.
384827

Then, with the box open:
384826

Finally, showing the difference in size between the two.
384828

[Jim Koepke]

As Fred said, the first impression of the Veritas unit is about how small it is. Though for my short time of having one, it has proven worthy of its cost.

jtk

[Derek Cohen]

Thanks Fred. Good comments.

I have not handled or even seen the LV version in the flesh. I imagine that it is very similar in size to the one from Chris Vesper (Australia), which I have along with most of the accessory blades. This one is slightly larger than the original version by Starrett, and also better finished than the Starrett. That says a lot about the Vesper, because the Starrett is really nice! I also have a still larger version by Moore and Wright (UK), which gets the most use. The M&W is great for marking joinery, while the Vesper and Starret are great for checking the accuracy of the joinery.

Left to right: Vesper, Starrett, Moor and Wright ...

https://s19.postimg.cc/ixuvafa8z/Squares2_zpsdnbjkxoi.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Simon MacGowen]

I've been eyeballing both the Sterling and the Vesper Dovetail Blades/Squares, but haven't been able to convince myself to pull the trigger. I made a couple of my own and still wasnt wholly satisfied. So when Jim Koepke said good things about his LV Small Double Square (http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?p=72730&cat=1,42936,42941), I gambled $50 and bought one. (At worst, I figured it's a little less than 1 dinner date. :) )

* But the narrow blade (3/16" wide) is really nice for the dovetails I like to cut. It works well on half inch and three-quarter inch stock - you can check some tight spaces with a 3/16" blade. The very narrow end is only 3/32" wide and 1/2" long. Wish it was 3/4" long but that probably wouldnt be feasible when the whole blade is only 2 1/2" long



Fred

You hit the nail on the head about the length, and that is where the Sterling version has an edge over the LV's. I use the LV square mostly but for the thicker stock, I have to go with the Sterling.

If one already has a spare body, the best route to go is to get the blade from Sterling. If budget is a priority or you seldom work with thick dovetails, the LV wins out easily.

Simon

[Derek Cohen]

You hit the nail on the head about the length, and that is where the Sterling version has an edge over the LV's. I use the LV square mostly but for the thicker stock, I have to go with the Sterling.

If one already has a spare body, the best route to go is to get the blade from Sterling. If budget is a priority or you seldom work with thick dovetails, the LV wins out easily.

Simon

Simon, it is relevant to note a point I alluded to but clearly needs to spelled out about the LV/Starrett/Vesper squares - they are essentially metal machinist tools, not woodworking tools. They are too small for marking out anything but joints like a dovetail. I am sure that they were not intended for much more than this. Their strength lies in checking joints for accuracy. I have a small (4") Starrett combination square. As far as I am concerned, it does not equate to the ones here and, similarly, the Sterling with a small blade also would be too large in the base to get into the small areas that these ones can. If I need a larger square for marking, then a 4" or (better) 6" double square is my preferred size .... unless you wish to run to the Vesper 4" Try Square (https://www.vespertools.com.au/vesper-squares/blackwood-infilled-try-squares/), which is simply the best designed and built square on the planet (Chris is a good mate of mine, so I am biased, but this is still true ... ). These are all machinist squares.

https://s19.postimg.cc/hb12bg8tf/Vesperat_WIA3.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Simon MacGowen]

Simon, it is relevant to note a point I alluded to but clearly needs to spelled out about the LV/Starrett/Vesper squares - they are essentially metal machinist tools, not woodworking tools. They are too small for marking out anything but joints like a dovetail.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek,

My mistake as I wasn't clear in my comment about the length (it happens when you communicate away from your desk on the road).

I was referring to the length of the narrow section of the small rule. The narrow section is great for checking small dovetail's squareness. I think the LV's has a 1" section while the Sterling has 2"(?).

Simon

[Frederick Skelly]

Derek,

My mistake as I wasn't clear in my comment about the length (it happens when you communicate away from your desk on the road).

I was referring to the length of the narrow section of the small rule. The narrow section is great for checking small dovetail's squareness. I think the LV's has a 1" section while the Sterling has 2"(?).

Simon

The LVs is 1/2" long and I wish it were 3/4".

[Simon MacGowen]

The LVs is 1/2" long and I wish it were 3/4".

The sterling's must then be 1", if not longer.

Simon

[Rob Luter]

I wish I hadn’t seen this post. I’m a sucker for cool little gadget tools. I started my career in machine tool engineering and there were many toys like this to play with!

[Simon MacGowen]

The LVs is 1/2" long and I wish it were 3/4".

That begs the question why LV did not produce one that's longer...just trying to be different from Sterling's? I seldom do dovetails on 1/2" boards; 3/4" is the norm for most woodworkers I know.

Simon

[Jim Koepke]

That begs the question why LV did not produce one that's longer...just trying to be different from Sterling's? I seldom do dovetails on 1/2" boards; 3/4" is the norm for most woodworkers I know.

Simon

Just how narrow are your pins on 3/4" stock?

jtk

[Simon MacGowen]

Just how narrow are your pins on 3/4" stock?

jtk

Jim,

The narrow section of LV's measures 1/16" x 3/32" x 1/2". If I work with a 3/4" tail that has a pin opening (narrowest part), say, 1/8" wide, I can insert the narrow rule to check the squareness of the tail's wall, but 1/4" short from the other side.

The Sterling square boasts that its narrow rule is 2 to 3 times longer than others, and that is why I bought one of its blades.

Just curious why LV makes the narrow section 1/2" long, but not longer, by cutting more steel from the body.

Simon

[Jim Koepke]

Just curious why LV makes the narrow section 1/2" long, but not longer, by cutting more steel from the body.

It might have been the cost of machining, otherwise it is a question only someone like Rob Lee could answer.

Looking at mine yesterday with this same question in mind made me think it could likely be filed of rather quickly if ever need be.

jtk

[Mike Henderson]

I just went and measured the narrow blades of both the LV and the Sterling Toolworks.

The narrow part of the LV is 3/32" thick and 1/2" long.

The narrow part of the Sterling Toolworks is 3/32" thick and 1 3/8" long.

The total blade is much longer in both cases. I didn't measure them but will if someone wants that data.

Mike

[Ted Phillips]

I've got both (I'm a sucker for small measuring/layout gadgets as well...). They are both great tools - and I really like that both of them are from family-owned-and-operated businesses. Great stuff!

[Patrick Chase]

I guess I'll finally bite on this thread...

I have the Vesper double square, the LV small double square, and a Starrett 13C (6" double square, but accepts the same blades as their mid-sized combos and can go to 24", though I have no idea why anybody would do that).

The Vesper is tops in every respect.

In terms of workmanship the Vesper is tops. Everything feels silky smooth both in routine use and when swapping out blades etc. All surfaces and edges are impeccably polished and smooth. The Starrett is next best though a fair ways back from the Vester, while the LV is the roughest-handling and feeling of the lot as shipped (though still very good compared to, say, Empire). With that said, the LV is easy to improve - most of the roughness comes from burrs on the blade corners, and that can be fixed either through use/break-in or a couple seconds with emery paper.

For accuracy the Vesper is phenomenal, matching my Starrett master square (itself spec'ed perpedicular to +/- 0.0001" over its 6" length) to within 0.0005" over its 6" length. The actual error is smaller than that, but 0.0005" is my smallest shim gauge. IMO that's a truly astounding level of angular accuracy for a small-baseline double square like this. After fixing the aforementioned corner roughness the LV is also pretty good, at 0.0005" error over 2.5" (it was out by over 0.001" depending on head position along the straightedge before deburring). The Starrett comes in at 0.0015" error over 6", which equates to a similar angular error to the LV. As with the workmanship they're all quite good relative to cheaper options. To keep things in perspective, some solid (try and machinists') squares are only spec'ed to 0.001" per inch of length. The LV and Starrett squares are about 4x better than that, and the Vesper is >12x better. They're all massive overkill for woodworking.

In other words, the LV is very good for the money. As others have noted the lack of a long blade option is unfortunate, but other than that it's a solid little tool.

[Simon MacGowen]

Good details here. Anyone has the Sterling's and the technical ability to supplement this comparison with one on the Sterling square?

Simon

[Hilton Ralphs]

I have the Vesper double square, the LV small double square, and a Starrett 13C (6" double square, but accepts the same blades as their mid-sized combos and can go to 24", though I have no idea why anybody would do that).


Which double square are you referring to Patrick?

385139

OR


385140

[Patrick Chase]

Which double square are you referring to Patrick?

385139

OR


385140

The small steel one with the 2.5" blade. I've never tried the cast iron one that you linked as I already have a Starrett 13C.

[Patrick Chase]

I guess I'll finally bite on this thread...

I have the Vesper double square, the LV small double square, and a Starrett 13C (6" double square, but accepts the same blades as their mid-sized combos and can go to 24", though I have no idea why anybody would do that).

The Vesper is tops in every respect.

In terms of workmanship the Vesper is tops. Everything feels silky smooth both in routine use and when swapping out blades etc. All surfaces and edges are impeccably polished and smooth. The Starrett is next best though a fair ways back from the Vester, while the LV is the roughest-handling and feeling of the lot as shipped (though still very good compared to, say, Empire). With that said, the LV is easy to improve - most of the roughness comes from burrs on the blade corners, and that can be fixed either through use/break-in or a couple seconds with emery paper.

For accuracy the Vesper is phenomenal, matching my Starrett master square (itself spec'ed perpedicular to +/- 0.0001" over its 6" length) to within 0.0005" over its 6" length. The actual error is smaller than that, but 0.0005" is my smallest shim gauge. IMO that's a truly astounding level of angular accuracy for a small-baseline double square like this. After fixing the aforementioned corner roughness the LV is also pretty good, at 0.0005" error over 2.5" (it was out by over 0.001" depending on head position along the straightedge before deburring). The Starrett comes in at 0.0015" error over 6", which equates to a similar angular error to the LV. As with the workmanship they're all quite good relative to cheaper options. To keep things in perspective, some solid (try and machinists') squares are only spec'ed to 0.001" per inch of length. The LV and Starrett squares are about 4x better than that, and the Vesper is >12x better. They're all massive overkill for woodworking.

In other words, the LV is very good for the money. As others have noted the lack of a long blade option is unfortunate, but other than that it's a solid little tool.


[replying to Hilton asking which LV square my above-quoted comments pertained to] The small steel one with the 2.5" blade. I've never tried the cast iron one that you linked as I already have a Starrett 13C.

Being as I am an absolute sucker for precision measuring/marking devices, I also picked up one of the cast-iron LV double squares that Hilton referenced, with the 6" blade.

It's a bit smoother in operation than the stainless steel LV, and handles similarly to the Starrett 13C (which is a compliment IMO).

My sample is out of square by 1.5 mils over 6", easily beating (by 4X) its 1 mil per inch perpendicularity spec. This puts it in the same league as the Starrett 13C and the LV stainless double square, and still overkill for most woodworking uses.

It's not a Vesper (which is >3X as accurate despite having a slimmer head and shorter baseline), but it's a good value for the price.

I would bet a fair bit of money that the iron square is a customized PEC.

[lowell holmes]

I have the cast iron square and it is a great little square.