Jointer advice/comments please

[Robert Trotter]

Hi poeple,

Thanks for all the help with choosing planes and tools for setting up my 'toolbox'. I was recomended to get a jointer especially since I plan to be dimensioning wood by hand.

So I have come to another of those "Which one?" stages.

I have come down to two planes, the LN no.7 or the Veritas LA jointer. I ruled out the LN LA jointer as it has no adjustable mouth which I thought would make it just a little less versatile.

Any comment, suggestions or advice would be greatly welcomed.

Thanks

[harry strasil]

Sorry, I can't help you, I only use woodies or transitional antiques.

[Robert Trotter]

Hi Harry, Thanks for the reply anyway:)

Was it your nice tennon router I saw on a post somewhere?
I was thinking about a 140 screw block plane for cleaning up tennon cheecks, but after seeing that I was thinking I might try and make a tennon router like yours (if it was yours:o ). But I am not sure about the blade though.

[harry strasil]

Yes, Robert, the blades are easy to make, just watch the upcoming tutoral on the hand router.

And I might have answered your jointer question in my post (I just don't get it?)

[Mark Singer]

Robert,
You have narrowed it down to 2 great planes! Both my favorites.....I own the LV low angle jointer with the fence and it is a true performer...The LN # 7 is a beauty and I have enjoyed using it at shows and friends shops. It is a conventional bevel plane The LN is probably the most precise jointer I have used of the #7 variety and the workmanship and style is outstanding...It is a tough call...I do really like the fence on the LV...it helps to insure square which keeps joined boards flat...I guess I didn't help:confused:

[Robert Trotter]

Hi Harry,

I read your other post. And I can see what you are saying about jointing boards.

Do you dimension lumber? I was under the impression that a jointer sized plane would be best here and and that is one of the reasons I am looking at the jointer plane. the other is obviously for jointing.:)

Thanks, Robert.

[harry strasil]

Robert I rarely dimension lumber completely by hand, except when out demoing, I usually take the wind or bow out of one side and then use the lunchbox tailed cousin. I generaly use the tablesaw for ripping to width also, when not out demoing.

[Mike Henderson]

I'm not Harry but I'll tell you how I was taught to prepare stock by hand.

Put the side that makes the board stable down and clamp front to back. If you clamp down you'll bend the board and it won't be straight when you unclamp it.

Use winding sticks to check for twist. Use a scrub plane to get the twist out of the board. You can use one of the winding sticks to check the front to back condition of the board and use the scrub plane to get it flat front to back. Check for twist again with the winding sticks.

You board should be flat now, but it'll have grooves in it from the scrub plane. Use a #5 or #6 to plane the board down until the scrub plane marks are gone. Then use a #4 or 4 1/2 to smooth the board, all the while using the winding sticks to check for flat and twist.

Now, joint the two side edges - you do this so that you can see your marks in the next step.

Decide how thick you want the board to be. For most stock, that'll be about 3/4 inch. Use a marking gauge and mark a line on both sides 3/4 inch (or whatever you need) down both sides (that's 3/4 inch from the surfaced face).

Clamp the board front to back with the flat (prepared) side down. Using the scrub plane again, take the board down to about 1/16 inch of your marks. Use the fore plane to remove the marks, then the smoothing plane to smooth it out. Bring it down to your marks on the sides of the board. Use the winding sticks to make sure the board is flat across, front to back, and corner to corner. Your board should now be flat and of the proper thickness.

Decide how wide you want the board and using a combination square or large marking gauge, mark the board to width. If close to the width of the stock, plane to the line. If much wider, use a rip saw to cut to width. Use a plane to remove the saw marks and take the board to the line.

Now crosscut one end and trim square with a shooting board. Measure to length, crosscut the other end and trim square on a shooting board.

You now have a piece of hand prepared stock and very sore muscles. And a real appreciation for a powered jointer and planer.

Mike

[harry strasil]

MIke, when I do dimension by hand, altho I do have a couple of scrubs, my planes are sharpened the old fashioned way with a radius to the jack and a slight radius to the fore. I usually use the jack as a scrub then the fore at a 45 to board length and finally the long jointer to finish, then repeat for the other side, except I chamfer the long edges to almost the line so its easy to see the progress I am making.

[Mike Henderson]

MIke, when I do dimension by hand, altho I do have a couple of scrubs, my planes are sharpened the old fashioned way with a radius to the jack and a slight radius to the fore. I usually use the jack as a scrub then the fore at a 45 to board length and finally the long jointer to finish, then repeat for the other side, except I chamfer the long edges to almost the line so its easy to see the progress I am making.
Harry, I certainly wasn't trying to say that the technique I described was the only way to prepare stock - it's just the way I was taught. I've seen people use a jack to scrub but I haven't tried it since I have a scrub plane and it seems to remove a lot of stock quickly. I like your idea of the chamfer and will use that next time I do stock preparation.

Not that it makes a lot of difference, but I use metal planes (mostly) while I assume you mostly use wood and transitional planes.

But like you, I avoid hand preparation of stock unless I don't have any other choice. To me, stock preparation is just hard physical labor. I'd rather use a powered jointer and planer and save my hand work for the actual building of the furniture.

Mike

[Robert Trotter]

Thanks Mike for the run down on one way of dimensioning stock. And once again Harry you have given a little tip tha may come in handy. (shamfer the side)

My workshop is more of a small garden shed and I will have no room to put a thickness planer or jointer even if I wanted to. So neccesity dictates hand preparation.

So Mike going by your method then a jointer plane may not be needed:confused:

My original thoughts were of just having an LA jack as my largest plane. Switching out different blades for different application. Ex jack work, semi-scrub work and smoothing. And then use a #4 smoother to finish off with. But a few of the kind locals here suggested that a jointer was in order to reduce the workload and effort needed to be put in.

Going by my thoughts about project at the moment, the maximum length of my stock would be in 6 feet or 7 feet range.

What is suggested to be the largest plane? For jointing and stock preparation.

(and Harry, I will look into making up a shooting board as you suggested but I will have to think about it so that it can be stored in the limited space.)

Thanks ...Hmmm...What else:cool:

[Jerry Palmer]

Don't know that a jointer size plane will reduce the workload and effort in foursquaring. What the jointer length plane does is aid in getting that final flat surface, whether it be on an edge or on a face. Harry's "jointer" shooting board is an excellent idea and takes much of the driving of the plane out of the hands of the user when edge jointing. I use the term "driving" because hand planes, unlike thier tailed cousins, have to be driven. It is not a simple matter of running the tool over the board as one would run the board over the tailed jointer or through the tailed planer, in order to obtain the coplanar surfaces one is striving for.

The idea is to use the plane to take down the high areas while not removing wood from the low ones. First step is to find the high areas. Harry's shooting board basically does that for you, rather it establishes a straight line to which you bring the edge of the board and anything on the good side of that line is prevented from being cut by the fence guiding the plane.

For face jointing (which generally does not have to be near as accurately done as an edge which will be glued to another edge to made a wide piece or etc) the ideal is to start off determining the high places, mark them as needed and then use a shorter plane, be it a scrub or even a smoother sized plane or a jack to begin removing them. Since this initial work is diagonal or even straight across the grain, length of the plane is mainly only relevant to the mass of the tool you're pushing through the wood. I won't go into the two sides of that coin.

Once you've removed the bulk of the high places you need to remove the grooves across the board left by that rankly set highly radiused blade by using a plane oriented across those grooves and more or less in line with the grain of the wood. A shorter plane again will make quicker work initially of this as it will not span quite so far, but again you need to drive the plane by identifying the highest places on the board and work them down first. As you begin to be able to take fairly long uninterrupted shaving over the length of the board, a longer plane will help to give you a truer surface with less guidance on your part by spanning over the less high places between two places within its length, only removing the very tallest places. But you still must drive it, especially as you get nearer that very flat surface you are striving for. Otherwise you can end up taking wood from some lower place, especially as you work longer boards, and any low area you remove wood from will require that much more thickness to be lost as every other area of the board will have to be lowered to that level.

While you could get away with your longest plane being a try or fore plane, a longer jointer will help in the final steps. Heck, you could joint a face with a little smooth, but longer planes help you get there quicker and with as little effort as possible.

[Andrew Homan]

While you could get away with your longest plane being a try or fore plane, a longer jointer will help in the final steps. Heck, you could joint a face with a little smooth, but longer planes help you get there quicker and with as little effort as possible.

Hear hear.

[Robert Trotter]

Thanks a lot everyone. Lots of advice and information to digest. This post and Harry's have been really helpful.

I will be gathering all this great advice and sticking it into a little notebook I think. I should end up with a really great woodwoorking tips books.Thanks:)

OK back to including a jointer (longer plane:) ) into my list.

Are there any reason for choosing either the Veritas LA jointer or the LN #7 over the other. Or is it just a matter of what I thinks looks and feels good to me. (The feeling part is a bit tough as I can't:( )

I am not too worried about the $100 extra for the LN if it would be a better plane. This would be my one and only jointer sized plane and it will have to last a lifetime. So the "best" option is what I am after (if there is such a thing:rolleyes: )

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Robert

I believe that the choice of the Veritas BUJ or the LN #7 is really going to end up a personal decision for you. On one level their performances could be equal and then the choice is simply about preference for a style of plane. The LN is a "traditional" type while the Veritas is "innovative" and - amazingly - this difference seems to create rivalries among respective followers. One takes ones life in ones hand just to comment these days! :) More seriously, there are real differences in "feel", with the BD plane offering a higher centre of effort, and the BU plane offers a lower centre of effort.

Since I predominantly work with woods that have a high percentage of interlinked grain, I prefer a jointer that can use switch to a high cutting angle. One can do this on the LN (just add a backbevel), but it is easier on the Veritas (swapping a blade is easier when minus the chipbreaker). If I were working less demanding wood grain, or did not view the issue of tearout as significantly as I do, then my Stanley #7 (with aftermaket blade and chipbreaker) does a very satisfactory job.

I own and use the BUJ, have used the LN but have not compared them against each other. I suggest that you do so for yourself.

Lastly, have a read through my review of the BUJ. This may throw out questions or provide some answers as it was contrasted with my Stanley #7:

http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/dCohen/LVBevelUpJointer/index.asp

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Alan DuBoff]

I generaly use the tablesaw for ripping to width also, when not out demoing.Nothing to be ashamed of, I read not long ago that the BEST woodworkers have table saws. I would say you're in good company if there's any truth to that statement! ;)

[Eddie Darby]

When it comes to jointing Mass is a friend.....so I would go with the Lie-Nielsen #8 jointer and not the #7, if you are still considering a jointer plane. When I was looking at upgrading my #7 Stanley jointer, and had a chance to go to the Lie-Nielsen booth, the reply I got was why go with a #7 when you can go with a much better #8.
The web-page listed below goes into the weight question: Here is the section from the bottom of the page dealing with Jointers.

========================================
"#7C Jointer, 22"L, 2 3/8"W, 8 1/8lbs, 1898-1964.

The corrugated version of the #7 (http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan1.htm#num7).
#8 Jointer, 24"L, 2 5/8"W, 9 3/4lbs, 1869-1961.

http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/8.jpg
The jointer for those who are into bull work. This is a heavy animal, but once you learn planing, it's a great one to use. Its weight works to your advantage - a plane in motion wants to stay in motion - when running into a change in grain or a knot. "

===========================================
http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan1.htm#num7

[Maurice Metzger]

To me, stock preparation is just hard physical labor. I'd rather use a powered jointer and planer and save my hand work for the actual building of the furniture.
Mike

Mike, just thinking, after spending some time on the east coast this summer feeding cupped lumber to a powered jointer and thickness planer in an un-airconditioned garage, I'd say that was no joy either. I felt like I was shoveling coal into the boiler of an old steamship.

Now that I'm back home in California (but without a banjo on my knee), conditions are much better for doing either kind of stock prep. Doing it by hand is physical labor, but it's not that hard. The main drawback is that due to my beginner skill level it's slow. I think that's the main temptation to using powered tools, and if I find I can't progress quickly enough I might go that route. I would like to see more furniture than a couple of tables made by my hand before I die...

Maurice

[James Owen]

Hi poeple,

Thanks for all the help with choosing planes and tools for setting up my 'toolbox'. I was recomended to get a jointer especially since I plan to be dimensioning wood by hand.

So I have come to another of those "Which one?" stages.

I have come down to two planes, the LN no.7 or the Veritas LA jointer. I ruled out the LN LA jointer as it has no adjustable mouth which I thought would make it just a little less versatile.

Any comment, suggestions or advice would be greatly welcomed.

Thanks

Robert,

This will probably raise a few hackles, but I'm not a fan the the BU-plane-for-everything school of thought. I consider block planes to be relatively specialised planes, ones that excel at certain -- but relatively limited -- planing operations. Others will certainly disagree with me on that, and that's fine with me.

My recommendation would be to go with the LN. However, which length depends on what you're going to be doing. Although the general rule of thumb is "longer is better" for jointing and flattening, there are certain practical limitations.

As an example, if most of your work is going to be, say, small boxes, a #5-1/2 or a #6 might be more practical and more convenient to use than a #7 or #8. OTOH, if you're making chairs and tables, or highboys, then you probably want an #7, #8 or even something like a 34-inch-long wooden jointer. And, for edge jointing with a metal plane, a #7 or a #8 is the way to go.

Although both the #7 and the #8 are in my plane arsenal, I reach for the #8 most of the time; it just seems to jump into my hand.... Something about the heft and the long toe that just make it more fun to use.

At any rate, both of the planes you are considering are fine, high quality planes, so you won't go wrong with either.

Good luck, and have fun making shavings!

James

[Derek Cohen]

I'm not a fan the the BU-plane-for-everything school of thought.

James, I was not aware that there was such a school of thought. Is this an alternative to the psychoanalytic school of thought, or perhaps the Jungian? Everybody these days is a psychologist. :)

OK, you know I am teasing.

I think the same way, that is, I usually only use one blade per BU plane, with the exception of the LA Jack, which uses two blades (one for the shooting board and one for general use).

In the BU Jointer I use a high angle blade since much of the wood I plane would just tear out with a standard angle. That is one of the big andvantages of this type of plane - not that I will use many blades on it, but that I can use the cutting angle of choice.

Regards from the Perth School of Thought

Derek

[Geoff Irvine]

Robert, It may be worth your while getting either Chris Schwarz's DVD "Coarse, medium & fine" and/or Rob Cosman's "Rough to ready". These describe dimensioning stock by hand and help to explain the choice of planes involved. I personally prefer the one by Chris Schwarz as it reflects what I was taught years ago but, if you can, get both. At least you would have it on hand for future refernce. Hope this helps.

[Robert Trotter]

Robert, It may be worth your while getting either Chris Schwarz's DVD "Coarse, medium & fine" and/or Rob Cosman's "Rough to ready". These describe dimensioning stock by hand and help to explain the choice of planes involved. I personally prefer the one by Chris Schwarz as it reflects what I was taught years ago but, if you can, get both. At least you would have it on hand for future refernce. Hope this helps.


Thanks Geoff for the info.