Low Angle Smoother - am I doing something wrong?

[Philipp Hawlitschek]

I recently purchased the Veritas low angle smoother. The first impression was very positive, build quality is certainly top notch. It's very easy to set the iron and the mouth adjuster works a charm. General feel and usability is pretty good.
But, so far, I really struggle to get the same glassy smooth finish I can achieve with my cheapo 80's Stanley with tightly set chipbreaker. This is on softer woods, douglas fir, pine and also some maple.
I also tried a 40° microbevel (52° cutting angle) but the result was pretty much the same as with a 25° blade. I thought a lower cutting angle was better for softwoods anyway. I tried setting the mouth as close as I could. I sharpen with the veritas guide, I don't use a camber but round the corners slightly.
So, do I basically need a chipbreaker for the finest finish? Or does the LAS only shine with a really high cutting angle for really nasty woods?

Looking forward to your experiences,
Philipp

[Rob Luter]

I had the Low Angle Jack, but used it as a jointer/smoother and a shooting plane. As a smoother it worked very well. The 38* iron worked for most things and the 50* iron tackled tough grain without tear out. I usually had the mouth set very tight. On pine it would take shavings that reminded me of facial tissue. Surface quality afterwards was usually excellent. Are you sure you’re not planing against the grain?

[Jim Koepke]

Hi Phillipp and welcome to the Creek.

You do not mention how thick of a shaving you are taking. In my experience it requires the very thinnest of shavings to leave a 'shiny' surface.

It is also my experience that a bevel down plane with a chip breaker is more likely to leave the smoothest surface.

The bevel up plane works better with a high angle bevel in gnarly woods.

jtk

[Jim Matthews]

I owned and sold the Lie Nielsen version of the #62.

I had multiple blades, like Chris Becksvort's FWW article. It was great, in Cherry and local White Oak.

I had similar difficulties to yours in Poplar (kiln dried) and local White pine.

A couple passes on the back of the Iron (Charlesworth's ruler trick) improved things some.
My finest stone at the time was a Shapton 8000.

I suppose you can get a shimmering surface but the blade will require some fiddling until you get the combination of front and back bevels right.

FYI - If you have the PV11 blade - that steel is capable of holding a MUCH finer edge than my O1 version did.

I recommend contacting Veritas directly for further guidance. My guess is that you're close, already.

[Philipp Hawlitschek]

Thanks for your responses. This is the first I hear about a backbevel on bevel-up blades.
The shavings I get are very fine, the finest I ever got from any plane. But the surface is still not as smooth as from my Stanley. I sometimes get close, but not quite.
If I get some shoptime next week, I'll have a go at some harder woods. Maybe softwoods just really like a bevel-down+chipbreaker.

[Eric Danstrom]

Cutting angle is cutting angle. If you're getting good results with a 45* Bailey frog on typical American softwood then that's the correct cutting angle. Correct cutting angle is independent of bevel up or bevel down. I have BU planes and for American softwoods I use a 38* blade bevel up on a 12* bed replicating a 50* bevel down plane. For hardwoods such as cocabolo and Chechen I use a 50* blade for a 62* cutting angle. That eliminates most tearout. I can rip half thou shavings in American softwoods with a 45* Bailey and a LV/LN bu planes (using a 38* bu blade). Its all about the cutting angle, not bu/bd.

Back bevels are not without controversy but aren't normally used with bevel up planes. Back bevels are intended to allow the user to change the cutting angle on bevel down planes without changing the frog. The point of bevel up planes is that three blades, 25/38/50 allow all types of wood to be planed successfully with one plane. Using a back bevel on a BU plane seems silly but to each their own.

[J. Greg Jones]

Well, there are back bevels and there is the Charlesworth ruler trick, which only introduces a bevel that is less than 1*. On my bevel-up planes I consider the ruler trick to be an absolute necessity to remove the wear bevel. On bevel-down planes, the wear bevel is honed away when the blade is sharpened, but that’s not the case on a bevel-up plane. Unless one is willing to flatten the back of a bevel-up plane every time it is sharpened, the ruler trick is a nice alternative.

[Eric Danstrom]

This is a cutting angle thread not a sharpening thread. What you are doing is removing the wire not making a back bevel for the purpose of changing cutting angle.

[J. Greg Jones]

I agree that it’s a cutting thread, not a sharpening thread. But no, the ruler trick is not just removing the wire, it removes the wear bevel. To suggest that it is a silly step when sharpening a bevel-up blade is not accurate.

[Eric Danstrom]

Back bevel came up because it was claimed that to make a BU plane work correctly one must fine tune the back bevel and the primary cutting angle to make a BU plane work correctly based on the wood species. Then you redirected to sharpening.....

[J. Greg Jones]

Seriously? I’m not the one that brought up the ruler trick or back bevels at all, but once you stated that they are silly on a bevel-up blade, then I was compelled to offer a different perspective...

[Derek Cohen]

I recently purchased the Veritas low angle smoother. The first impression was very positive, build quality is certainly top notch. It's very easy to set the iron and the mouth adjuster works a charm. General feel and usability is pretty good.
But, so far, I really struggle to get the same glassy smooth finish I can achieve with my cheapo 80's Stanley with tightly set chipbreaker. This is on softer woods, douglas fir, pine and also some maple.
I also tried a 40° microbevel (52° cutting angle) but the result was pretty much the same as with a 25° blade. I thought a lower cutting angle was better for softwoods anyway. I tried setting the mouth as close as I could. I sharpen with the veritas guide, I don't use a camber but round the corners slightly.
So, do I basically need a chipbreaker for the finest finish? Or does the LAS only shine with a really high cutting angle for really nasty woods?

Looking forward to your experiences,
Philipp

Philipp, assuming your blade is as sharp as the Stanley, the issue may be the higher cutting angle. Straight-grained, soft woods are perfect for lower cutting angles. The lower a cutting angle that you can get away with, the clearer the surface should be.

By contrast, the higher cutting angles move towards a different chip reaction, at the expense of the ultimate surface quality. I say “ultimate” as it should still be possible to create a reflective surface on suitable hard woods.

Personally, I reserve BU planes for woods with interlocked grain by using a 50 degree bevel (62 degree cutting angle). I have the best of both worlds with a Veritas Custom #4 with a (bevel down) bed of 42 degrees, and use this with a closed down chip breaker. Your Stanley is capable of performing better as it has a lower cutting angle than the LAS, assuming no issues with the plane and its set up.

Play to the strengths of these planes. Use the LAS for interlocked grain or hard woods, and keep the Stanley for the softer woods. The Stanley has a wider range of use once the chip breaker comes into play, while the LAS is easier to set up and use.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

Back bevel came up because it was claimed that to make a BU plane work correctly one must fine tune the back bevel and the primary cutting angle to make a BU plane work correctly based on the wood species. Then you redirected to sharpening.....

None of my BU planes have a problem without a back bevel, ruler trick or whatever it is called. Keeping the blade honed has taken care of the wear bevel without having to continuously flatten the back. Perhaps if the wear bevel has grown too large to remove by honing the blade it has gone too long without sharpening.

A chip breaker set properly for the task at hand will prevent the shaving from being lifted ahead of the cutting edge on a bevel down plane. A bevel up plane only has the angle of the bevel to prevent the shaving from lifting ahead of the blade.

If someone will explain how a back bevel on a bevel down plane affects the cut, many of us would appreciate knowing.

jtk

[Warren Mickley]

Cutting angle is cutting angle. If you're getting good results with a 45* Bailey frog on typical American softwood then that's the correct cutting angle.


What in the world is typical American softwood? Red spruce? Hemlock? Tamarack? Pitch pine? Baldcyprus? Port Orford cedar? Balsam fir? Redwood?

[James Pallas]

I believe there is little difference in the finish between BU or BD planes. The BU leaves a finish that looks a little dull meaning not burnished. Its appearance is similar to that of a card scraper or a BD plane with a back bevel. I have also heard but have no direct experience with high angle BD planes leaving a slightly duller in appearance finish. This is just a theory on my part. As you plane with a BD plane with a close set chip breaker it jams the wood down just before it is cut almost like filling the wood. As you plane more that “filled” surface is burnished by the planing action and looks shinier. The reason I believe this is when you use slow drying sealer like alkyd base sanding sealer it seems to raise the grain more than on a surface planed without the chip breaker used on a BD plane or a BU plane or a card scraper.

[Derek Cohen]

I believe there is little difference in the finish between BU or BD planes. ...

When it is same cutting angles, and no chipbreaker, it comes down to bedding stability. A thicker blade helps here, as can a well-fitted wedge. All factors equal, there should be no difference in planing result between BU and BD. The orientation of the blade in a bench plane on face grain is irrelevant.

Here is the result from a Veritas BUS with a 45 degree cutting angle on Maple ...

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/The%20Veritas%20Lee%20Valley%20Bevel%20Up%20Smooth er_html_3228d83.jpg

The photo was taken about 15 years ago and the resolution was quite low. Still, you can see the reflection from the window on the surface of the wood.

Where there is a difference between the two plane types is planing end grain. The low bed of the BU plane will leave the higher bed angle of the BD plane for dust. It is not simply about cutting angle. I have tested this many, many times. Here is one.
(http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/LVShootingPlane.html)

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Prashun Patel]

I was intrigued by this. This morning I planed quarter sawn sides of a riven piece of white oak with my small bevel up smoother and my #4 bevel down. Both had a 25 degree fresh primary bevel and a fresh microbevel (whatever the Veritas MKII gives.). I sharpened to 8000.


I can't tell the difference in the two surfaces. My fingers can't tell and my eyes couldn't tell in raking light with or without a spritz of mineral spirits. I applied a waterbased top coat and both surfaces had equivalent (to my fingers) raised grain. I've heard people who say a planed surface eliminates grain raising. That's never been the case for me.

The jamming of the wood down / burnishing is new news to me.

[Charles Guest]

I was intrigued by this. This morning I planed quarter sawn sides of a riven piece of white oak with my small bevel up smoother and my #4 bevel down. Both had a 25 degree fresh primary bevel and a fresh microbevel (whatever the Veritas MKII gives.). I sharpened to 8000.


I can't tell the difference in the two surfaces. My fingers can't tell and my eyes couldn't tell in raking light with or without a spritz of mineral spirits. I applied a waterbased top coat and both surfaces had equivalent (to my fingers) raised grain. I've heard people who say a planed surface eliminates grain raising. That's never been the case for me.

The jamming of the wood down / burnishing is new news to me.

I haven't raised the grain with a water-based finish since 1972 ;-)

[glenn bradley]

This also got me curious. It is of no help to tell someone experiencing a problem that the problem isn't there. That is not what I am trying to do. Rather I am just trying to show what I experience. I went out just now, grabbed a piece of scrap out of the bin and my Veritas BU Smoother off the till and took a swipe. This piece of material has a reversing grain about 1/3 from the end and the shaving is not quite thin enough to read through.

430843 . 430846

This is the 25 degree A2 iron. I do not back bevel. The throat is open about 1/32". This does not solve your problem. It deos add credence to what some others are saying; the results are achievable with this plane without any extra effort.

[Josko Catipovic]

I have a sort of a similar question: I have a set of '80-s Record bench planes; I know them, and they know me, that is, I'm very comfortable with what I can achieve with them. Would I gain anything in planing performance by 'upgrading to a set of LV/LN planes? I did back-to-back tests only twice: my #7 vs LV BU #7, and had problems with tearout on the LV. The other time my #4 vs LV BD #4, and it was sort of, 6 of one, 1/2 doz of the other.
I've taken decent care of my planes. Frogs are bedded down right, gap is where I want it, they're flat, etc. I 'upgraded' a couple blades to PMV-11, but didn't see much of a difference.

So, would my planing performance improve if I replaced the Records with fancier brands? Would I be able to tackle a wider range of woods?

[Jim Koepke]

I have a sort of a similar question: I have a set of '80-s Record bench planes; I know them, and they know me, that is, I'm very comfortable with what I can achieve with them. Would I gain anything in planing performance by 'upgrading to a set of LV/LN planes? I did back-to-back tests only twice: my #7 vs LV BU #7, and had problems with tearout on the LV. The other time my #9 vs LV BD #9, and it was sort of, 6 of one, 1/2 doz of the other.
I've taken decent care of my planes. Frogs are bedded down right, gap is where I want it, they're flat, etc. I 'upgraded' a couple blades to PMV-11, but didn't see much of a difference.

So, would my planing performance improve if I replaced the Records with fancier brands? Would I be able to tackle a wider range of woods?

The only real 'performance' improvement would likely be in the depth adjustment or other design improvements. Some of my Stanley/Bailey planes take a couple revolutions or more of the depth adjuster to change engagement from advancing to retracting a blade. The LV/LN planes are built with tighter tolerances. The lateral adjusters on LN/LV planes are likely not going to be loose.

The difference most seen by swapping a blade to PMv-11 is the blade being able to maintain its edge though more work. My Hock 01 blades perform amazingly well. My Stanley branded blades perform as well but tend to need honing more often. They do seem to wear different than the Hock blades. The Hock blades tend to not chip as much.

The difference between planing performance of a well tuned and maintained Record planes versus LV/LN planes will not be discernible. The feel in one's hands may be different. The esthetics of using a finely finished tool may affect the user's senses in a positive manner. In the same way as using a century old refurbished tool can also be a satisfying experience.

jtk

[Philipp Hawlitschek]

Thanks for all your feedback.
Today I got a few hours of shoptime and did a bit of further testing. I had some scraps of straight grained oak and there's no discernable difference between the two planes there. On white pine I can get about the same shimmering surface, but it's easier with the bevel down. On Douglas fir I can't get a shiny surface with the bevel up. It's smooth but it looks a bit "mushy". On end grain the bevel up works really well, even with the 40° microbevel. I have to take into account that the bevel-down plane has been in my hands for years and the bevel up only for a few days. GUess I need a second blade as well and follow Dereks advise to play to the strengths of each plane.
Cheers,
Philipp

[Prashun Patel]

For giggles-sake, try planing your doug fir the other direction with both planes. Do you still detect a difference? The bevel down is better at resisting tear out against the grain, which might be what that mush is.

[Eric Danstrom]

...The bevel down is better at resisting tear out against the grain....
Interesting. I have come to understand than the actual orientation of the bevel doesn't have any effect on the cut. Rather it's all about matching the cutting edge angle to the wood species that is to be planed. And that matches my results.

Years ago I was attempting to edge glue some 24" Chechen planks (2250 Janka hardness) with a Bailey #7 with a well sharpened Hock O1 blade. It was a disaster. The tearout was in such large chunks I couldn't imagine the glue joint wood be reliable. A 45* cutting angle on 2250 janks hardness will deliver that result every time.

Fast forward to last month when I set out to duplicate Derek C's results. Drop a 50* blade into a 12* BU jointer and I can plane Chechen plank edges with a glassy surface perfect for gluing. Change out to a 38* blade, which with a 12* bed, has almost the same cutting angle as a Bailey and I have the same chunky tearout.

The Bailey 45* cutting angle and the Norris 50* cutting angles were designed in to match up to the woods most users were seeing in the local market and plane without tearout (less than 1000 janka). Those tend to be relatively softer woods as per the Janka hardness scale compared to Chechen and the Aussie Jarrah (1860 janka hardness).

As I understand it, it's all about matching the cutting angle to the wood species. The harder the wood, the steeper the angle required to prevent tearout.

[Graham Haydon]

Josko, keep those Records and use them. If you want "nicer gear I would completly get it but it wont help your woodworking.

Alan Peters made world class furniture with a Record #7

To the OP. If the grain is mild there will be no difference in surface quality.

[Prashun Patel]

I was implying my BD resists tearout vs my BU because it has a close set chip breaker, and my BU bevel angle isn't particularly high.

[Robert Hazelwood]

I don't do much work with a bevel up plane but I've noticed that woods like Douglas fir and SYP require a sharper edge to get a pristine surface, at least the second growth stuff I can get a hold of. Sharper than you can get away with for something like cherry, oak, or maple. With a slightly less than perfectly sharp edge, what happens with Doug Fir or SYP is that the dark growth rings take a nice polish but the light rings are left a bit fuzzy, which makes sense because the dark rings are quite hard and the light rings are like balsa. To get a really clean cut on the soft rings requires a freshly sharpened blade, and you need to keep sharpening every few minutes because the hard rings wear the blade about as fast as a hardwood. So these woods are the worst of both worlds in some ways, though I still like them. Just more work to finish plane.

Incidentally, I've left some cleanly planed Doug fir outdoors long enough to get dark grey and weathered, but the surface was still smooth with no grain raising. It was obviously smoother than the surfaces which came off a planer which had gotten fairly rough from exposure. I was impressed.

To the OP, I can't think of anything that would make the BU and BD plane perform differently, if the cutting angles are about the same, except for a difference in sharpness or that one is generating tearout. I assume you'd know if you were getting tearout, so for me Occam's razor suggests one blade is getting sharper than the other.

[Rob Luter]

I'm working on a project that uses Curly Red Oak for some of the parts. To say this has difficult grain is an understatement. There is no grain direction, It goes in every direction. My LN 4 1/2 struggled a bit and required the lightest of cuts. I did an experiment last night just for laughs. I sharpened the A2 iron of my LN 62 Low Angle Jack to 35* and added a scant backbevel. Resulting cutting angle was about 49*. I closed the mouth up very tight. It produced Oak tissues you could read through and left a very smooth surface. Tuning to the wood helps.

[Charles Guest]

I'm working on a project that uses Curly Red Oak for some of the parts. To say this has difficult grain is an understatement. There is no grain direction, It goes in every direction. My LN 4 1/2 struggled a bit and required the lightest of cuts. I did an experiment last night just for laughs. I sharpened the A2 iron of my LN 62 Low Angle Jack to 35* and added a scant backbevel. Resulting cutting angle was about 49*. I closed the mouth up very tight. It produced Oak tissues you could read through and left a very smooth surface. Tuning to the wood helps.

A higher angle and a tight mouth? Blasphemy. The cap iron gang has their torches lit, nooses tied and ready. They're on their way. Run.

[steven c newman]

431227

Now..whatever gave you that idea.....

[Rob Luter]

A higher angle and a tight mouth? Blasphemy. The cap iron gang has their torches lit, nooses tied and ready. They're on their way. Run.

I've had good success with a tight mouth and a tuned up cap iron on bevel down planes too. I just happened to have a spare bevel up blade for my #62 and didn't want to monkey with my #4 1/2. Plus, I have a pitchfork and know how to use it :D

[Charles Guest]

I've had good success with a tight mouth and a tuned up cap iron on bevel down planes too. I just happened to have a spare bevel up blade for my #62 and didn't want to monkey with my #4 1/2. Plus, I have a pitchfork and know how to use it :D

;) Keep it ready!