Choosing a new plane: weight vs. heft

[bill epstein]

It's the end of the month, bills are paid or about to be and with the government having generously returned some of my own money to me, I'm thinking about spending some.

I have, as one of my three planes, a Stanley #4 I may have paid as much as $60 for years ago from a home store. For much of it's life it was the cheapo I used to edge plywood and smooth pine. More recently, I set it up as a "Smoother" with cambered edges, a micro-bevel, and tiny throat, the usual. On common hardwoods,it's excellent. For wild or complex grain like Curly Maple and Bubinga, meh. Compared to my Wood River #5 1/2 Jack which only weighs about 1 lb. more, it feels like a toy.

According to the Lie-Neilsen site, their #4 Smooth weighs the same 4 1/2 lbs. I'm looking for comments on how the Lie-Nielsen, Veritas or Wood River feel in the hand in comparison to the Stanley. Besides the obvious advantages of the thicker chip breaker etc., will one of these hundreds of dollars more planes have better heft and feel while competently shearing difficult grain?

[Jason Meinholz]

Buy it and try it, if you don't like it, you can sell a near new LN for nearly the same money you paid for it. It's 'almost' free to try!

Plus, what better way to answer your question than with real hands on personal experience!!!

[Robert Hazelwood]

An extra pound of mass, or for that matter 20 pounds of mass, is not going to plane wood any differently. Pay attention to the quality of your edges, chipbreaker, and overall plane setup. No reason a Stanley 4 can't cleanly plane curly maple. Can't speak personally for Bubinga but I'm confident it can be done.

But to answer your question a LN #4 is noticeably heavier than any stanley #4 I've handled. Some later Stanley's did have thicker castings and might be closer to the LN's weight. I don't think this weight is an advantage, per se, but also haven't found it to be a hindrance. It's an excellent tool with one flaw, which is that it comes with an A2 blade that I didn't care for. I swapped it for a Hock O1 which requires a small adjustment to the slot on the LN chipbreaker.

If you really want heft order the bronze version, I think it is several ounces heavier than the ductile iron.

[ken hatch]

Bill,

While the LN is a well made plane it has a couple of faults. First is what you mentioned, it is too heavy, the iron is too thick and it is A2 which does not play nicely with Ark stones, and last they really missed the boat on the cap iron/chip breaker design. Your Stanley/Bailey plane is as good as it gets with a metal body plane. Of course, as always with anything tools and wood YMMV.

ken

[Robert Hazelwood]

What's the big issue with the LN chipbreaker? It's a different shape than the Stanley but after putting a rounded secondary bevel on the end it works great. To me it doesn't seem that different in shape to the Ward cap iron on my wooden try plane.

[Ben Ellenberger]

I use a wooden smoother, and I’m in the camp that doesn’t see the point in a heavy smoothing plane. If it is sharp and you are taking fine shavings, it shouldn’t take much force to push the plane. I can see an argument for a heavier plane that us used for rougher work, to have some momentum to help get through grain reversals or spots where the plane might want to hang up on difficult grain when you are taking a thick shaving.

[Jim Matthews]

So there are two issues to tease apart:

Do you desire a fine tool?
Is the problem driving the purchase?

I prefer wooden body planes, as there's less hazard to rust in my damp shop.

I'm finding that a standard blade and cap iron arrangement in a traditional bed angle cuts most anything - if it's *really* sharp.

That said, the gnarly stuff will always be a headache - regardless of the tool.

It was recently suggested to try shellac first.

[bill epstein]

I use a wooden smoother, and I’m in the camp that doesn’t see the point in a heavy smoothing plane. If it is sharp and you are taking fine shavings, it shouldn’t take much force to push the plane. I can see an argument for a heavier plane that us used for rougher work, to have some momentum to help get through grain reversals or spots where the plane might want to hang up on difficult grain when you are taking a thick shaving.

To me, it isn't a question of weight or inertia in pushing through. It's hand feel; maybe "road-holding" is a more apt metaphor. The Stanley feels like it needs wider tires with a softer compound :D

In looking over what's available and some reviews, I came across the Wood River guy, Cosman?, writing that for smoothing he's as apt to pick up his 5 1/2 Jack as any #4. I think maybe I'll put a little camber on mine and possibly blow the $300 Bucks on more LPs instead.

[Ben Ellenberger]

That’s fair enough. The way it feels is probably a personal thing and I could see how some people would prefer a heavier plane.

[Rob Luter]

I prefer heft/weight. My #4 is a LN Bronze (4 1/2 pounds) and the extra mass is a plus in my book. It helps drive the plane through the cut. My old well fettled Stanley #4 was nice but felt very light duty by comparison. Wax the sole and the heavier plane still slides like ice on ice.

[steven c newman]

And, at the end of a long day of pushing planes around....
431888
That cast iron #3 Stanley is going to feel a lot better to tired, old arms......

Need more weight on the plane? Change your stance and grip, and press down a bit harder....

[Hilton Ralphs]

Bill, here's a video by Rob Cosman where he compares the #4 to the #4-1/2, both Stanley & Wood River. He even weighs them.

Check it out.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSPARIqbeZA

[Chris Fournier]

I'm in the camp that sees a heavy smoother as being very desirable. The weight is indicative of a rigid plane when it is made by a reputable manufacturer such as LN. Look at why LN planes are heavy and it makes sense - blade/frog etc. Also a heavy plane will allow you to play the momentum game with your stroke, more with a # 7 than a #3 admittedly. I was hand planning some gnarly hard maple with bark inclusions yesterday and once again my sharp LN planes got he job done with great results.

I have yet to use a stock Stanley plane that do the job as well as a LN, and I've tried!

[Tony Zaffuto]

I would put razor sharp as being most desirable for a plane. Weight? I like my #3's, but I also like/love my 5-1/2! Again sharp and wax the sole!

[steven c newman]

And, lately...all I use is a Stanley #3, Type 11.....works just fine for me...even has the original iron and chipbreaker...YMMV.

Also...have come to the conclusion that a micron thin shaving is nice and pretty, and best for showing off to friends......but will take ALL DAY LONG to get any real work done. Slower than sandpaper, too.

[Christopher Charles]

I'll largely echo what others have said- I find sharp, wax AND the handle/totes all affect feel more than weight. And i have LN bronze smoother as my go-to, so would be the last to suggest vintage is the answer...

Have fun with your dilemma!

[Jim Koepke]

Most of my bench planes are of the Stanley/Bailey variety.

Sometimes for smoothing my #6 gets used. Other times a #4-1/2 gets the job. Often times my #3 is the right one to use. There are a few other planes that also get the call when appropriate for the job. To paraphrase what Derek said in another thread, "there is no right or wrong way in woodworking."

Is weight important for gnarly cutting? If that were the case would scrub planes be among the lightest planes in the lineup?

jtk

[Rafael Herrera]

Bill, here's a video by Rob Cosman where he compares the #4 to the #4-1/2, both Stanley & Wood River. He even weighs them.

Check it out.



The no. 4 plane was made for adolescents? I highly doubt one of the most common planes made in over 100 years is a training plane for children. My coffin smoother is even smaller. There were reasons these planes had the size they have. Take these opinions with a grain of salt.

[steven c newman]

Used THIS No. 4c without any issues, today.
431956
Also known as Stanley No. 12-004, Made in England.....basically the same plane that Paul Sellers uses. Iron is even stamped as to what angle to sharpen it to...

Just follow the trail of shavings...
431957

Had to bevel an edge of a board, to match existing....YMMV.

Compared to my Stanley No. 3, type 11....this #4c weighs a ton....

[Andrew Seemann]

Bill, here's a video by Rob Cosman where he compares the #4 to the #4-1/2, both Stanley & Wood River. He even weighs them.

Check it out.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSPARIqbeZA


Wow.
I'll just leave it at that, so I don't (legitimately) get in trouble with the TOS.


I'm an adult male, weigh 185lb, have hands like a linebacker, and I have never had any problems with holding a #3, much less a #4. Not really sure where he is coming from.

Sometimes I think that some of these newer generation woodworkers (Cosman, Schwarz, et al) say contrary things just be controversial and stand out. The #4 is/was the most popular smoothing plane for a reason. It outsold the #4 1/2 and #3 by quite a margin. And it wasn't because people learned to use them in school, but because it had the right combination of size, weight, and width for most of the work they did.

I have #3, #4, and #4 1/2 smoothing planes. The #4 1/2 is the heavy casting WWII model, beech handle and all. I use all three, but the #4 1/2 is the one I use the least. Yes, it is heavier and wider, but that is only an advantage in certain types of wood with certain types of grain. The #4 seems to work the best for most things, followed closely by the #3. I like the #3 if the wood is particularly hard (like some white oak I recently planed) or has a lot of grain reversals (like that same white oak).

Myself I don't think weight in a plane is its own virtue or a determiner of quality. All things equal, it just makes it heavier more tiring to use.

I've tried the LN #4 and Wood River #4. They are nice planes, but far heavier than I would want to use to take the machine marks out of a tabletop with. I much prefer my standard Bailey's smoothing planes.

[Rob Luter]

And, lately...all I use is a Stanley #3, Type 11.....works just fine for me...even has the original iron and chipbreaker...YMMV.

Also...have come to the conclusion that a micron thin shaving is nice and pretty, and best for showing off to friends......but will take ALL DAY LONG to get any real work done. Slower than sandpaper, too.

I have a nice Sweetheart era #3. I added a Hock blade. It works great for small jobs.

[Derek Cohen]

There are two issues that immediately come to mind in this topic ...

Theoretically, it makes sense to have a smaller, narrower smoother (e.g. #4 - 2" wide blade) for small parts, such as rails, and a larger, wider smoother (e.g. #4 1/2 - 2 3/8" wide blade) for panels. A wider smoother will cover a larger area and leave a more uniform surface. However I tend to use a #3 or #4 size for everything. Perhaps I have been lazy, since I do have a couple of #4 1/2-sized smoothers I could use. The question should be "why do I not use them?".

One answer is that I have come to prefer lighter planes, and the larger planes are heavier ... some are a lot heavier.

For mass, I could use a bronze LN #4 1/2 Anniversary. That is a seriously heavy plane. I must say that it is a very fine performer, especially with the chipbreakeer closed down ...

https://i.postimg.cc/qRPPq9sk/1.jpg

And if you really want a heavy smoother, consider a Marcou S15 (15 degree BU bed), which comes in at 7lb 11 oz! This is a remarkable smoother, possibly the best I have ever used. Nothing - nothing! - tears out when it is used with a high angle blade ...

https://i.postimg.cc/v8VP8MfR/IMG-3074.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/8PdtWHZt/Smoothing1.jpg

So why do I not use them all the time? Simply because they are fatiguing to use for long. I prefer, in metal planes, the Veritas Custom #4 or LN #3. These have a solid feel and are not too heavy to block feedback from the surface. The heavy, large planes tend to feel disconnected.

In wooden planes I like the HNT Gordon Smoother. Lots of feedback and, although 60 degree bed, it slices and dices with the best, and is easy to push ...

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/The%20HNT%20Gordon%20Smoother%20and%20Trying%20Pla ne_html_m3515f860.jpg


I find it interesting that the smoother is so glorified, like a sports car, it is prized about other planes and many (myself included) will seek out another just because of the glamour. Yet we use other planes more.

The second factor is the benefit of a heavy plane over a light plane. This is my observation, but I would not be surprised if others have said the same: heavier planes add more downforce, and this permits duller blades to keep cutting longer. That is not the same as saying that light planes do not cut as well. All planes - light and heavy - can cut well and possibly equally with equally sharp blades. However, I suspect that the lighter planes then need to be pushed down more as their blades dull. It is difficult to quantify this.

One last point, which is pertinent to recommendations by teachers such as David Charlesworth and Rob Cosman: both these fine gentleman (who I admire greatly for the work they do) advocate a larger plane for smoothing, generally a #5 1/2. This makes sense in the context of the work they do - they use machines to prepare boards, and the surfaces are pretty flat to begin. Thee heavier planes are probably more likely to work well since the extra mass creates more momentum, and this creates a smoother action. I do think that there is much to be said for heavier, larger planes in this context.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

Bill, here's a video by Rob Cosman where he compares the #4 to the #4-1/2, both Stanley & Wood River. He even weighs them.


My understanding is Mr. Cosman is a paid spokesperson for Wood River. It is also my understanding he also consulted with Wood River about improvements in their product. My tendency is to expect a paid spokesperson to speak well of the products they endorse and not so well of their competitors.

My Stanley/Bailey #4 planes may look like something a dog chewed on after digging it out of a junk yard. The depth adjuster may take two or three turns before it engages to retract or advance the blade. The lateral lever may have a loose rivet and rattle around when the plane is shifted from side to side.

The plane is a hundred and thirty years old. We should look so good and still perform as well when we reach that age.

At least the lateral lever on my hundred and thirty five year old #6 doesn't rattle. It never had one.

431995

It don't look so bad for its age. It set me back $10 and a bunch of spare parts:

431996

This is as found after disassembly. The old used tool shop was one of my favorite stops when going into town. Sadly they closed a few years ago.

jtk

[Jim Matthews]

My understanding is Mr. Cosman is a paid spokesperson for Woodriver.

jtk

That's an understatement.

[Tony Zaffuto]

Cosman does not hide his relationship with Woodcraft. He also hypes his own saws. He also is a distributor for PEC.

But, he also praises other brands, such as LN and LV. I only wish my skills were 50% of Rob's, and his YouTube videos remain as some of the very best. Watching them, you see that he is making them the same way Roy Underhill did his: single take, real time.

[J. Greg Jones]

Sometimes I think that some of these newer generation woodworkers (Cosman, Schwarz, et al) say contrary things just be controversial and stand out...
Cosman is a grandfather, nearly 60 years old, so at some point the term newer generation doesn’t really fit! Schwarz is also getting some gray in his beard, so he’s not far behind. :)

[steven c newman]

I turn 67 in about 2 weeks....and have worked with my hands ( and back, and legs) since I was 15. Usually, the "pinky" is laying along side the handle. IF it is on the handle, the index finger is sticking out, trying to grab onto anything it can...lateral lever, plane iron.....it forgets you can't guide a plane like you can with a hand saw.

( ring size..13-1/2 is tight)

[Tony Zaffuto]

I turn 67 in about 2 weeks....and have worked with my hands ( and back, and legs) since I was 15. Usually, the "pinky" is laying along side the handle. IF it is on the handle, the index finger is sticking out, trying to grab onto anything it can...lateral lever, plane iron.....it forgets you can't guide a plane like you can with a hand saw.

( ring size..13-1/2 is tight)

I have about six months on you-turn 68 in September. I was in my father's shop since I could walk, but didn't play around with tools till nearly I was 10 or 12! I served my apprenticeship ship from 1975 to 1979, worked the trade until 1989. Quit and started my plant, but remained a hobbyist since then. My knees ache (Fred Sandford's relative visiting: Arthur Itis) and my left index finger constantly aches).

As far as Cosman goes (to another poster) he trained professionally under Alan Peters and is a legitimate fine craftsman (and has 10 or 12 kids, so something else kept him occupied in his slow times!).