buying a jointer plane, dilemma !

[charles mathieu]

So wishing to buy a #7 jointer plate in the near future and I'm torn between a new veritas or getting a used stanley. So far, I've got a veritas low angle jack and a type 11 stanley #4 that I completely refurbished, I changed the blade and chip breaker and spent quite some time removing all the rust and flattening the sole. Overall, I spent over 120$ canadian for the plane and parts, not that cheap by any means, especially considering all the time invested in that tool.

With that said, am I gonna have to spend a crazy amount of time lapping a long #7 sole ?

[Charles Bjorgen]

Hi Charles -- Early on in my acquisition of vintage Stanleys I may have tried lapping soles but I just can't recall now. In my current arsenal of Stanleys none was lapped. And many were purchased from that popular auction site so I took my chances. On any used plane after rust removal the first thing I do is sharpen the cutter and fit the chipbreaker. Maybe I've been lucky but no lapping has been needed lately.

[steven c newman]

I usually spend one afternoon, going from Rusty&Krusty to a working hand plane...currently have 2 No. 7s....Stanley No. 7c, Type 9, and an Ohio Tool Co. No. 0-7.....neither needed "Hours" of lapping...just them them up, sharpen the irons, and get things all lined up...and ready for work. I do not tend to over-think the process...and I gave the feeler gauges away.

418752

Did I mention I also have a Stanley No. 8, Type 7?

[charles mathieu]

I usually spend one afternoon, going from Rusty&Krusty to a working hand plane...currently have 2 No. 7s....Stanley No. 7c, Type 9, and an Ohio Tool Co. No. 0-7.....neither needed "Hours" of lapping...just them them up, sharpen the irons, and get things all lined up...and ready for work. I do not tend to over-think the process...and I gave the feeler gauges away.

418752

Did I mention I also have a Stanley No. 8, Type 7?


I thought that a tight tolerance was needed to flatten a board. So I guess those old stanleys (pre wwII) are properly flat ?

[Robert Hazelwood]

Potentially yes, you could spend a while lapping. Several times longer than a number 4 to remove the same amount of error from the sole- there is the greater surface area, and the fact that the increased surface area lowers the pressure on the abrasive causing it to cut slower, especially as the abrasive dulls. If you are buying off the internet it's always a bit of a crapshoot. It definitely won't be perfect, but it might work just fine. Or it might have an unacceptable flaw. If you go the Stanley route just use it for a while, see if you can make a nice edge joint on some 4' long boards, before getting out the straight edges.

If you decide to lap it, you need a good size lap. Something 3 or 4 feet long would be ideal. Get a roll of 80 grit PSA paper and change the paper every 5 minutes or so of lapping. You can speed it up by draw filing the high spots, or using a smaller sanding block on the high spots (you can get more pressure with a small block so it cuts faster).

[Derek Cohen]

Charles, some like the vintage Stanleys, and some like the more modern LN or Veritas versions. I sold my Stanley #7 Type 11 some years ago. It was clunky and worn.

I am spoilt as I have both the Veritas jointers. For a decade, the BU jointer was my go-to. I have made a couple of really nice wooden jointers, but always returned to the BUJ as its low centre of effort made it so easy to balance and push. It gets low and hugs the wood. I have used the LN #7, and it works very well - just as well - however I prefer the feel of the Veritas.

In more recent years, the BUJ has been largely replaced by the Veritas Custom #7. My set up uses a 40 degree frog which, used with a closed up chipbreaker, cuts anything without tear out, and the low cutting angle and long-lasting and clean-cutting PM-V11 blade gets the best of all worlds. It is a superb plane. However ... there is always a “however” :) ... the system uses a unique blade attachment set up, and this takes a little getting used to. Also, it is pricy compared to a Stanley #7.

I have an article on the different plane types here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes1.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Robert Hazelwood]

I thought that a tight tolerance was needed to flatten a board. So I guess those old stanleys (pre wwII) are properly flat ?

I'd bet they were pretty flat when new, but who knows what has happened to them since. Castings can move as stress is released, and previous owners may have done God knows what to it.

My opinion on jointer planes is that they must not be even slightly concave along the length. With a plane like this you will get inconsistent shavings depending on how much pressure you place on the plane, the thinness of shavings you can take are limited, and they will always be trying to take off too much material on the beggining and end of a board, yielding an edge joint that gaps at the ends. Any sort of hump behind the mouth causes the same effect.

On the other hand, a sole that is modestly convex along the length is not an issue, and tends to counteract the natural tendency to plane an edge convex. Something like 5 thousandths convex would be nice to use for a jointer plane. Hand lapping tends to produce a convex sole, but as long as it's not extreme I think it's a feature rather than a bug.

Note that a modern plane like a LV or LN is spec'ed to something like +/- 0.0015", which is a very tight tolerance, but I'd be annoyed if I got a plane that was concave along the length by 0.0015". I think it would require extra stopped strokes to create a perfect edge joint. Convex by 0.0015 would be just fine with me.

There's also the flatness across the width to consider. Often a plane used for years and years as an edge jointer can develop a hollow across the width, and I would consider that a problem. I have an old type 6 #8 with a convexity across the width. Actually it is pretty flat for the center 2\3 of it's width but falls off at the edges. It works fine for edge jointing but face planing can have strange issues if you are trying to take a thin full width shaving. One day I will fix this, but a #8 is even harder to lap than a #7. I intend to use a combination of draw filing and hand scraping.

[charles mathieu]

Oh one thing I forgot to mention ! I don't have a power jointer nor do I plan to get one. Right now I buy s4s lumber but my goal is to get a jointer plane and a planer in order to buy rough lumber. So I'll have to joint edges with the plane as well, don't know if a fence is a must for that task but if it truly is, then maybe the veritas jointer with the fence wouldt be better suited to my needs ?

[steven c newman]

I use a very simple and easy test....involves 2 fingers. One on each end of the plane....first, retract the iron so it doesn't contact the surface of whatever you want to sit it on. Then a fingertip on each end, and try to get it to rock....then move the fingers to one side at each end, try again...then a diagonal test, both ways....if the plane passes all these tests, sharpen the iron, set the chipbreaker, install both in the plane, and just go to work making shavings....the test might take about..10 minutes to do.

Besides, the jointer plane is more for use for this sort of problem..
418778
Trying to get a tight glue joint out of this...
418779
Same two boards. I was using the Stanley #5-1/2 to smooth out the rough sawn faces...
Might keep an eye out for the Millers Falls #22, or even the ones made by Sargent....IF you can find them. $$$$

[Robert Hazelwood]

Oh one thing I forgot to mention ! I don't have a power jointer nor do I plan to get one. Right now I buy s4s lumber but my goal is to get a jointer plane and a planer in order to buy rough lumber. So I'll have to joint edges with the plane as well, don't know if a fence is a must for that task but if it truly is, then maybe the veritas jointer with the fence wouldt be better suited to my needs ?

I don't recommend a fence. It is definitely not a must. With just a little experience you will likely find it more of an encumberance than an aid.

For very thin materials, say less than 3/8" thick, you can clamp the workpiece to the bench on top of a ~3/4" piece of scrap, set the plane on its side and run the plane along the bench, using the lateral adjuster to bring it into square. Anything else you should be able to plane upright in the vise.

[steven c newman]

And, instead of gripping the front knob....just wrap your thumb up and over, right about the location of the knob, hold onto the top edge of the plane's side.....make a fist with the rest of the hand...and let your knuckles act as a fence...they will tell you very quickly IF you happen to lean the plane one way or the other...just watch out for splinters along the way...

[Jim Koepke]

a type 11 stanley #4 that I completely refurbished, I changed the blade and chip breaker and spent quite some time removing all the rust and flattening the sole. Overall, I spent over 120$ canadian for the plane and parts, not that cheap by any means, especially considering all the time invested in that tool.

With that said, am I gonna have to spend a crazy amount of time lapping a long #7 sole ?

The reason to purchase an old Stanley or any other old plane is to save money. Spending $120 Canadian ($91.20 U.S.) is a bit much. Patrick Leach is pretty much full retail. His recent listing for an SW #4c was $90 U.S.

A jointer is likely not going to need lapping unless the sole is really messed up. For jointing work one doesn't need to be able to take sub thousandths of an inch shaving.

jtk

[ken hatch]

When I need a jointer I seldom reach for either a #7 or #8. Both are too heavy and have too much surface in contact with the wood. You spend almost as much time waxing the sole as you do pushing that sucker, of course that could be because you need a break and waxing the sole is a good excuse. Instead out come the woodies to play, they are lighter and easier to push even without wax, with wax you have to hang on to keep from going into orbit.

Just a thought,

ken

[Tom Trees]

I recommend that you do not use an abrasive longer or wider than the plane is.
This will produce a convexity in the plane sole, and the longer the plane is, will compound the error.
I made a video on the subject since there was no videos of doing this procedure correctly, all producing a convex surface.
This might make a big difference if you happen to acquire a vintage which has a really thin sole and you don't wish to destroy it.
If the sole is convex across the width, then you won't be able to use the cap iron for full influence as the plane will be cutting on the edges only.

https://youtu.be/3MlE7Nz3eKg

https://youtu.be/w_ux786ODwg

You will see a self adhesive sandpaper stuck to the lapping plate, with a regular roll of paper cut down the middle.
Video was unplanned and using old abrasives. but yet it seems to cut as good as new abrasives after 10 minutes use would.
This is because the old grit gets pushed off the edges.

You can do a lot of damage very quickly if using an abrasive longer than the sole, it takes only a few strokes to make it convex.

The basic procedure is to use short strips to take the humps out first.
The videos are a bit more involved than that dealing with a higgledy piggledy sole, but you will get the jist of it.

Tom

[Bob Jones 5443]

I guess I just got lucky with the two vintage planes I bought this year on the auction site: first a 1931 Type 15 Bailey 5-1/2, and a bit later I found a 1922 Type 6a Bed Rock 607. I spent the most time taking off the rust and trying to get the 5-1/2's frog to stop rocking on the sole, and without the proper metalworking tool (an engineer's file)! Primitive.

But for the soles I was blissfully ignorant of the nuances cited here about the heartbreak of a concave sole. I just wanted to make them flat to 0.001". I bought Woodcraft's 6" x 18" granite surface plate and used wet/dry paper for both the jack and the 22" jointer. I took my time and now both are mirror-smooth and a 0.0015" shim doesn't fit between the sole and the Starrett straightedge.

I've jointed jatoba face edges, 8/4 rough ash end grain (just to show off to myself), and cherry edges and 5" wide faces with the 607 and the wood has turned out like glass, dead flat, straight, and square. I usually don't even need to switch to the smoother!

Why buy vintage? For me, I love the fact that my 607 is pushing 100 and works like a dream. I love the fact that it was a fairly rusty mess when it arrived but I caressed it back to shiny, spiffy life. [It took me considerably longer than 10 minutes, Steven.]

I'm using the original chip breaker and Stanley tool-steel iron, and have also bought a Hock blade set as a second. The plane cost me $100 less than a new L-N No. 7 (that more than paid for the Hock blade), but I would have paid the L-N price for it if I'd known it was going to work so well.

However, for the past 10 months, I haven't seen many comparable planes offered on the site that look as good as the one I snagged. Some look like they've spent the twentieth century in Davy Jones's locker, or else they're spray-painted black by a "restorer." You have to lie in wait and pounce when a promising one appears. Again, quite unlike ordering a new L-N online!

[steven c newman]

Hmm, really...all the planes I use, all still have the irons that came with them...except one, because it didn't have an iron when I bought it.

Been running a Stanley 5-1/2, Type 17 around Friday...flattening an Ash panel....still has it's OEM 2-3/8" wide iron.
418793
418788
This type 11 No. 3 came home one afternoon,,,garage sale find,,,got it for 1/2 price because the lever cap was broken..
OEM iron, BTW..
418789
2 hrs later,..well ,after supper, I think...cleaned up and sharpened up..
418790
And tried out on a scrap of Ash...
418791
And left a pile on the bench...
418792
Guess I might know a few things about rehabbing a plane....

[Rob Luter]

.....am I gonna have to spend a crazy amount of time lapping a long #7 sole ?

Not if you get one that's reasonably flat. I'm reminded of this Patrick Leach tidbit from the Blood and Gore site:

"There are a lot of folks out there who believe that these longer planes - the #6, #7, and #8 - have to be perfectly flat in order for them to work. Good luck finding one that's perfectly flat, as they don't exist, all of which is proof enough that the old timers, who depended upon these tools for their livelihood, could make effective use of them in a non-perfect state. Thing is, you can, too."

[charles mathieu]

well screw it, I'm bidding on a type 11 stanley on ebay..the item is located in Canada so much cheaper shipping. Worst case scenario I just sell it back if I'm not happy with it

[chris carter]

Someone else already said it, but wooden jointer plane. It’s the cost of the iron plus a little bit of wood and a little bit of time. But you get a custom fit on the handle and that can be worth a lot. I absolutely hate waxing plane soles and with woodies you almost never do it. Also the weight – it’s not SO bad pushing an 800lb plane along a board; it’s getting to the end and lugging the thing back that sucks. This is not nearly the pain in the butt with a wooden jointer. Last bonus is you can make it whatever length you like. Mine is 26”, but with metal you are limited to 24”.

Of all the planes where I think wood has the biggest advantage are the jointer and the fore/scrub plane. Because those are the most tiring to use and the weight and friction savings pay off the most.

Also, flattening the sole of a Woodie is about the easiest think on the planet. A few minutes on some flat sandpaper or just hit it with another plane.

[Eric Danstrom]

I have a #7 type 19 I bought 3 decades ago and I added a Hock blade and cap within a few years. Works great. I just bought a nice used Veritas low angle jointer with a couple blades. I was surprised how well the LA jointer works esp on very hard figured wood using the 38* blade (Chechen @ 2200). My regular jointer couldn't come close. I'm new with the LA BU planes but I'm drinking the kool-aid. With three blades 25*, 38* and 50* there's almost nothing jointer-wise this plane can't handle. The overall cost for a LABU plane and three blades is about the same as a traditional plane with a single blade.

[Doug Dawson]

I'd bet they were pretty flat when new, but who knows what has happened to them since. Castings can move as stress is released, and previous owners may have done God knows what to it.

Like trying to lap it.


My opinion on jointer planes is that they must not be even slightly concave along the length.

Actually, a thou or two of concavity on a jointer is an advantage, as the plane tends to straighten out during normal use. "Perfect flatness" (whatever that is) is a waste of much of the length of the plane, on uneven terrain.

Just say, If it worked then, it should work now. Etc.

[ken hatch]

Someone else already said it, but wooden jointer plane. It’s the cost of the iron plus a little bit of wood and a little bit of time. But you get a custom fit on the handle and that can be worth a lot. I absolutely hate waxing plane soles and with woodies you almost never do it. Also the weight – it’s not SO bad pushing an 800lb plane along a board; it’s getting to the end and lugging the thing back that sucks. This is not nearly the pain in the butt with a wooden jointer. Last bonus is you can make it whatever length you like. Mine is 26”, but with metal you are limited to 24”.

Of all the planes where I think wood has the biggest advantage are the jointer and the fore/scrub plane. Because those are the most tiring to use and the weight and friction savings pay off the most.

Also, flattening the sole of a Woodie is about the easiest think on the planet. A few minutes on some flat sandpaper or just hit it with another plane.


Chris,

You are absolutely correct, Small metal body planes can be a joy to work with but once you go over a #5 or 6 wood stock planes are a better option.

ken

[steven c newman]

Have a 22" lung #81, Auburn Tool Co. everytime I use it, shavings come up and wrap around my wrist....gets a bit annoying, having to stop to remove them...
418863
Actually, I did have a second one, for a while..
418864
They weighed almost the same as my Stanley No. 7c, Type 9.....