Iron L-N #4 - Happy?

[Raymond Stanley]

Hi All!

Still asking away here...soon I will post pictures of my first complete woodworking (and neander) project - my workbench...as soon as I complete the bench :)

Anyways, Xmas is rolling around and I need a smooth plane, and for a variety of reasons, I've decided on "requesting" the Lie Nielson #4. I am trying to decide between bronze and iron, and am leaning towards the iron one. I am leaning towards it because of decreased price, greater durability (i've already put several dings in my other new plane), and less obscene trails of oxidation (iron surface rust doesn't seem as bad as the black stuff from bronze) I have read many posts about the preference of bronze vs. iron (and, or course, about which smoothing plane is "best").
What I've learned is that many people prefer the bronze planes from L-N.
What I really want to know is, how many people are perfectly happy with an iron L-N, and have seen beautiful final-finish results from it? Alternatively, how many have seen perfectly wonderful finished from a restored Stanley #4 (since the iron L-N and a restored Stanley #4 are reasonably similar).

Thanks!
-Ray

[Ian Smith]

Raymond,

I've got an iron LN No. 4. It is a great plane and it is more than capable of producing the finish you desire.

[Jay Davidson]

I would bet you will get a great smooth surface from either bronze or iron, the bronze is a little heavier and IMHO the bronze looks and feels better. All my LN work perfect, even the little #3.

[Corvin Alstot]

Hi All!
Alternatively, how many have seen perfectly wonderful finished from a restored
Stanley #4 (since the iron L-N and a restored Stanley #4 are reasonably similar).-Ray

On similar straight grain woods I can get simlar performance from either my LN or an old Stanley
that has been tuned-up. Once you start working curly or wild figures in hardwoods the LN works
better. The thicker blades on the LN help a lot.

[Larry Halberstadt]

A classic Stanley #4 can be had for much less than the L-N and with a little elbow grease and a new blade will work just as well for most uses. The L-N with the high angle frog is advantageous in highly figured woods. I don't own any L-N planes, but I did aquire a free #4 from the 50s or 60s. With a new blade, it cuts just fine. I only wish now that I hadn't widened the throat so much. If you need any help in finding a used #4, let me know and I can point you to several sources.

[Bob Smalser]

Why not get the L/N 4 1/2 and put that thicker blade to better use in a dedicated smoothing plane rather than a utility plane like the #3, #4 or #5?

[Joel Moskowitz]

Why not get the L/N 4 1/2 and put that thicker blade to better use in a dedicated smoothing plane rather than a utility plane like the #3, #4 or #5?
#4 a utility plane? It's a far better and better balanced plane than the 4 1/2. and for smoothing a smaller footprint is always better. A #3 or #4 is an excellent smoother, much better and historically far far more popular than a 4 1/2 just tighten up the mouth. Pick the plane that fits your hand better. I'm a #4 guy, my teacher was a #3 guy. Wooden and infill smoothers are even shorter than the 4 and 3

[John Miliunas]

I think the iron LN 4 is just fine. However, if you do a lot of work with figured woods, I'd take the money I saved by going to iron over the bronze and equip it with the York pitch frog. Just MHO... :) :cool:

[Bob Smalser]

#4 a utility plane?

Exactly. To me it is, anyway.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/7081299/91841720.jpg

Sure, you can use any short plane as a smoother, and that's entirely your preference...all I'm providing is the benefit of my experience. I find the difference between the handier #3 and the slightly wider #4 is small. They do the same things, and are so much alike they fit in the same category of all-around performer on edges and faces. Here I use one of each only because I like one set coarse and one set fine as I work.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/4029780/49877179.jpg

If you want the best economy, balance and handiness, then forego iron entirely and try a woodie or transitional, the transitionals being the real sleepers. They remain popular with boatbuilders who work on fixed objects in odd positions where narrow, light planes are ideal. Easier to fettle, they work as well as any Stanley yet their homely looks keep them unpopular with the tool snobs, and cheap. That's a #36 razee smoother shown..the narrower #35 razee is the boatbuilder's light plane with a smaller footprint.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/4029780/49867437.jpg

Nothing out there balances and moves like a razee with the tote mounted low on the body cutaway, placing your drive hand so close to the cutting edge in a lightweight plane.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/3955069/49343804.jpg

Past the #4 to the #4 1/2, however, you have the width and are approaching the weight of the old UK smoothers everyone drools over. Whether you like that size and weight is strictly your preference, but I do pushing an iron through tough, figured woods. Add a heavy aftermarket iron and chipbreaker and you can equal that L/N in performance if not looks.

Add some weight and adjust the pitch, and you can do anything the spendy UK antiques can, if not with quite the same panache ;) :

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/3955069/50554540.jpg

Look up the various articles I've provided and you can do the same without spending anything for looks or snob appeal instead of function:


Courtesy of Bob Smalser

Woodworking Tool Articles

Basic Sharpening
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=12747

Spoke Shave Tune Up
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=7415

Rustproofing Tools
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=28340

Fettled a 5 1/4 Today
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=20347

Retro Lathe Tools
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=14189

Wood Chisel Survey for Beginners
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=13090

The Incredibly Versatile Sweep Brace
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=13090

A Better Coping Saw - Complete Tutorial
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=12368

Making Leather-Washered Chisel Handles
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=11538

Making Spar Planes
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=11233

Making a 50-degree Smoother
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=8136
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=8491

Rehabbing Woodies
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=8351

Tuning Card Scrapers
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=8352

Sharpening Handsaws
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=8198

Filing and Finishing Metal
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=7784

The Drawknife
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=7528

Rehabbing Old Chisels
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=5771

Rehabilitating Old Planes
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=5867

Shopmade Joiner Tools
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=5279
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=5280
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=5281

[Jake Helmboldt]

I only wish now that I hadn't widened the throat so much. If you need any help in finding a used #4, let me know and I can point you to several sources.

Larry, I intentionally opened the throat on my vintage #4 Stanley to fit the full thickness (1/8") L-N iron. As a result it is very tight and takes nice thin shavings. Put a thicker iron in that to tighten the mouth up, I think you'll like it.

JH

[Joel Moskowitz]

Bob,
If you have used a C+W smooth plane you would know that weight have very little bearing on actual performance. As for those "old UK smoothers everyone drools over" I have about 20 or 30 of them including the one I actually use, a pre-war Norris A5 in mint condition and it's ONLY flaw is it's weight (and the adjuster but that's another story). The weight makes it feel solid in the hand but its performance comes from the fit and finish of the plane and the tightness of the mouth not the weight. unlike the 4 1/2 it's blaanced beautifully. I love it dearly and it's my favorite plane but in the years before I had it I found the #4 fits my hand the best.
Some prefer a #3 and the only real problem with the Stanley transitionals of the same size (which you say some boatbuilder prefer as smoothers) is that unless you are willing to rehab them (like your photo) they typically need work. But certainly from a size and performance factor they would be almost as fine a smoother as a #3 or #4. I don't think they have the bedding quality of a well fettled 3 or 4 but on a specific plane basis certainly the performance could be excellent.
THe important thing is finding the plane that fits your hand - and for a smoother aside from a fine mouth etc, shortness and narrowness is a real virtue. THe balance on the 4 1/2 is pretty annoying and if you have to use it a whole day you find that it's just more tiring - the added length and width means you have to plane longer if the board isn't even also annoying.
Getting back to my #4 it's actually a 604. In class we got a chance to use every size of Stanley and Norris so that we could understand the difference in performance and also figure out what fit our hands. for me I was a number 4 guy right away and Maurice, my teacher was a big fan of bedrocks (this was in the mid 1980's) so I got a overpriced (for then) 604C and discovered it had been flattened with a belt sander. So I scraped the bottom to a surface plate and never looked back. Over the years I have put better blades it in, although the performance with a stock stanley blade is darn good. and a few years later I got my first Norris (in case anyone is curious now I have complete sets of Bedrocks (missing a 605 1/4) and Norrises) ). but of course most of the planes I have are for collecting and not set up for regular use.
Now while I love my A5 dearly and it is a wonderful plane to use for regular woods it's really overkill and the adjuster isn't nearly as easy to use as the Stanley so I tend to save the Norris for difficult situations or just went I want to have fun. THe weight is a detraction if I know I'm going to be planing all day - something I haven't done recently. THe balance on both are wonderful, unlike the 4 1/2. Just compare the two side by side and you will see what I mean.
I think the 50 degree fron on the LN is a wonderful idea - the disadvantege of the higher frog is of course it's harder to push so I would normally want a 45 degree frog - but the ability to change over when the going gets a lot tougher is a great idea if you are not like me. THere is very little I cannot plane with the stock frog and if the going gets tough I switch to a new sharp blade.
I fitted my shop in the 80's so all my tools I have are old. Doing it again (hopefulyl never) I would buy new and in the store shop we seem to vary between a Ray Iles A5 and a Clifton #4 and I like the ethetics of both planes over the boxier LN's.

"Add some weight and adjust the pitch, and you can do anything the spendy UK antiques can, if not with quite the same panache "
not if the shavings you are getting out of the plane in the photo are typical of what that plane you show can do. Bob, I get a sense from your posts that you have never had the opportunity to play with mint condition old infills and most of your tools have been extensively rehabbed. Not that there is anything wrong with it but should you find yourself in the Big Apple stop by and I will be happy to let you play with some of my stuff.

joel

I should mention one more thing. a lot of people do like the 4 1/2 as a smooth plane. I obviously do not. It's pretty obvious I think to anyone who has ever set up a smoothing plane that almost any plane can be used as a smoother - it's really a case of what's optimum the that person's situation. Therefore the most important guide in getting a smooth plane is trying out as many as possible to see what fits you and your work style. if you mill wood by machine and only use a plane for final smoothing and the wood is essentilly flat the length and width of a 4 1/2 will be far less a problem, and of course you won't use it as long so wieght and balance is less of an issue. For me, I mill wood by hand and my flat boards are definailly less flat than they would be if you put them in a planer so a classic sided smooth plane is much more useful to me. Stanley considered all their planes 1-4 1/2 as "smooth planes".

[Bob Smalser]

If I was going from the froe to the scrub plane to a smoother, I'd begin with a #3 or #4, too. But I'd probably finish with a 4 1/2, not that's of any real importance.

But I make things for money, and I also make things for me. The tools are merely a means to get there from here. I get a lot more done with my sawmill than my froe, if you get my drift.

There's another "neander" value here that may even be a greater blasphemy than spending more money than you have to buying prestige tools. I don't buy what I can make and I prefer to do the job myself and gain the skill, even if it means accepting a job that's less than perfect.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/3297171/207245129.jpg

My brick pointing is terrible, but it's important to me that I did it myself, and the interior brick and chimney will be better now that I've overcome the learning curve.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/3075040/31637402.jpg

And of course, all the lumber...including doors and cabinets...comes from trees growing on the same land and selected, harvested and milled by the builder.

Do I expect beginning woodworkers to follow the same footsteps? Not in the same level of detail, but acquiring self-reliance, resourcefulness and perseverance as values will gain them more woodworking skills faster than buying it, relying on training wheels or hiring it out. They certainly worked for countless generations before this overly-affluent one, including the old-fashioned boatbuilders who taught me.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/4959362/210220941.jpg

And shavings? I can make any silly shaving you like, even with the crude, shop-made boatbuilder planes. But planes that will smooth hard, figure wood need to power through a wide shaving, too. Especially if you're starting point is the froe. ;)

[Paul Comi]

Why not get the L/N 4 1/2 and put that thicker blade to better use in a dedicated smoothing plane rather than a utility plane like the #3, #4 or #5?
Ever since I got a 4 1/2, I rarely use my #4. I value the additional width of the plane and find the 4 1/2 to be one of the most versatile planes I have.

[Joel Moskowitz]

Bob,
I wish you wouldn't disparage people who are uninterested in making their own tools and prefer to have professionals do it for them. It's great to want to be a jack-of-all-trades but it's not for everyone. I have certainly never built my own house (I have designed one but that's different) and I have no personal interest in doing it. I can respect your urge for self-sufficency that's great but it's not a universal truth and historically furniture making was about specialization.
I learned by studying with a great teacher, then practice and building stuff. I bought tools because at least initially I was interested in cabinetmaking, not toolmaking (although funny enough professionally that's actually what I am - a toolmaker - my first job was with Black and Decker) None of the great historical furnituremakers made their own tools, There is tons of documentation on how apprentices learned and how much a kit of tools cost. Toolmaking, since almost the beginning was a separate craft and in the big cities where tools were available people bought tools. Even today I can't think of any shop in my area that would rather make a tool instead of buying it. It's just not worth the time and unless you spend a lot of time at it in most cases you cannot make a tool of the quality you can buy (you can come close sometimes).

[James Mittlefehldt]

As it happens my final smoother is a Veritas 4 1/2 which I like very much. However my jointer is an Ohio Tool 07, so I use a mix of old and new whatever works best for me.

Basically it comes down to whatever you are comfortable with, and whatever works in your situation. I can appreciate what Bob says as My father in law in a spell of unemployment did some fiting out for a guy, who had plenty of cash but no time, on his sailboat. He, my f-i-l said on a boat nothing is square or straight it seemed and he had to custom fit all the wood he installed.

I have a question for you Joel, what do you mean by the balance of the 4 1/2 being off, I don't quite understand that, or the context. Or is that inn regards to how it fits your hand. I would love to play with your NOrris sometime but I have never been to New YOrk City and am unlikely to get there in the near future sigh.

[Joel Moskowitz]

james,
First of all I mean the Stanley 4 1/2 not the LV which has such a different geometry that I don't know where the center of gravity of it is. On the Stanley the handle is positioned further back in relationship to the frog than it is on the 4. consequenty the tool is a little nose heavy and when you pick it up it drags a bit so it takes more work to keep from dinging the piece. It's also a harder plane to hold square than a 4. Not obvious points unless you get a chance to compare all the tool models but these are difference that help make smooth planing easier and more intuitive.

I don't know where the balance point is on the LV plane but I'm willing to bet that Terry and Co. took a long hard look when designing the plane and fixed stuff like that.

I hope you understand the basic premise I am putting forth. which is that any plane can be set up as a smoother, short and light is the historical route but most important and the best way to get the right plane for you is to try them all out back to back and see what fits your hand and style of work. And that's one of the main reasons trying to study in a formal class is so useful.

[Bob Smalser]

Bob,
I wish you wouldn't disparage people...

...historically furniture making was about specialization.

.... It's just not worth the time and unless you spend a lot of time at it in most cases you cannot make a tool of the quality you can buy (you can come close sometimes).

If I'm disparaging anything, it's the incongruity of the entire "neander" movement that focuses on acquiring tools rather than making things with them. That wasn't the way of our forebearers at all. Neither was specialization anywhere but among the relatively wealthy in urban centers, and this was a rural country before WWII. For every well-equipped urban furniture specialist there were a dozen country joiners doing it all and making do...and making or modifying many of their own tools as they needed them.

That hasn't changed as much as you think. Find a source of good spar planes, backing-out planes and accurate copies of Drew caulking mallets and the boatbuilding world has customers for you world-wide, because currently they have to make their own. I've been well-paid lately teaching them how to do it, but I'd rather send them to you than continuously turn down requests to make these tools for them.

[Raymond Stanley]

Wow!
Thanks for all the useful info guys. Its drifted a bit from my original quesiton, but it is all useful information.

Bob, I certainly always value your information and guidance (I've read many of your posts), and will continue to do so. I have and will continue to hold a great deal of respect towards you. However, if I understand what you are saying correctly, I think that you are making some some assumptions about my reasons for getting a new plane, which are simply not true for me:
1) They are pretty
2) I feel I am better because I can afford a new tool ("snobbery")
3) I want to spend my energy focusing on tool aquisition rather than woodworking.

I choose new tools in some but not all cases becuase:
1) I live in a condominium, so dipping things into phosphoric acid, sanding large amounts of metal down, and the likes are bad for our carpets, respitory system, etc. Woodworking alone is already pushing the limits of my wife's mess tolerance.
2) I want to spend my time working wood, not tools. I am a graduate student and have very little free time. Fiddling with tools is much less enjoyable to me than creating things in wood.
3) It is going to be a gift, so asking them to scout out an used plane would not be suitable.

I don't mean to open up the old vs. new debate - there are many heated posts that have already covered this. My original intent was just to make sure that Iron wasn't going to be unsatisfactory - for some this was probably a silly question. But I just wanted to here things from people's personal experience.

So, I'm getting a new plane, and it seems that an Iron L-N #4 will be just fine. I did pick up a 4.5 and it didn't quite seem to feel just right. Plus, again, the added cost.

[John Miliunas]

Raymond, personally, I think the LN #4 is a very fine choice! But, if I may be a bit redundant and, if you do figured woods, I'd seriously consider the York pitch frog for it! Even stuff like BE Maple comes out glass smooth! :) Oh, and a hearty pre-acquisition "congrats"! :D :cool:

[Raymond Stanley]

Thanks John! Already sent the think to my family, so I'm gonna stick with the regular frong. I'm very new to all of this...still building my first project - a workbench, so I don't exactly what kind of lumbers I work with yet. After the bench, Gonna do a gift box first I think then a bin that our dog food container will fit in, so that it is disguised as fine furniture (If I can make fine furniture).

[John Miliunas]

Thanks John! Already sent the think to my family, so I'm gonna stick with the regular frong. I'm very new to all of this...still building my first project - a workbench, so I don't exactly what kind of lumbers I work with yet. After the bench, Gonna do a gift box first I think then a bin that our dog food container will fit in, so that it is disguised as fine furniture (If I can make fine furniture).

Okley, dokley! Hey, you'll have THE most important part in-hand! :D If you find that you end up working with some gnarly grain patterns, you can always pick up a York pitch frog later on. :) :cool:

[James Mittlefehldt]

james,
First of all I mean the Stanley 4 1/2 not the LV which has such a different geometry that I don't know where the center of gravity of it is. On the Stanley the handle is positioned further back in relationship to the frog than it is on the 4. consequenty the tool is a little nose heavy and when you pick it up it drags a bit so it takes more work to keep from dinging the piece. It's also a harder plane to hold square than a 4. Not obvious points unless you get a chance to compare all the tool models but these are difference that help make smooth planing easier and more intuitive.

I don't know where the balance point is on the LV plane but I'm willing to bet that Terry and Co. took a long hard look when designing the plane and fixed stuff like that.

I hope you understand the basic premise I am putting forth. which is that any plane can be set up as a smoother, short and light is the historical route but most important and the best way to get the right plane for you is to try them all out back to back and see what fits your hand and style of work. And that's one of the main reasons trying to study in a formal class is so useful.

I did understand the basic premise Joel and thanks for the reply. I just had never worked with a 4 1/2 and did not understand what you meant about the balance. Come to that I have an Ohio Tool 4 1/4 their equivalent to the Bailey 4 1/2 I should take it for a test spin with your thoughts in mind and see how it goes. once again thanks for answering.

As to the basic premise of anything can be tuned and used as a smoother I have used the Veritas low angle block plane for smoothing small surfaces, just the thing at the time.

As to Bob disparging well I don't quite see it that way. He has a lot of knowledge and as a boatbuilder has had to adapt and modify stuff to his purposes.I suspect that over the years much of what he does has become second nature to him.

However I like others here am not a metal worker and really,I only want to do what has to be done to make a tool functional I prefer to work wood not metal. I find Jake Darval's tinkering intersting but frankly I don't see the need to do it here where I am, as an example.

[Jason Tuinstra]

Great information everyone. I've been looking at a #4 as well and wondering which one to get. Thanks for the clarification and the advice on the york pitch frog as well. Good stuff.