jointer plane -- which one?

[Joel Goodman]

I have the low angle jack from LN (which I like a lot) and would like to get a jointer plane. My choices are the low angle jointer from LN (which now has adj mouth); the low angle jointer from LV, or an old Stanley. The LN and LV are about the same price as I can get the LN discounted (from fine tool journal). The "bedrock" style LN is out of my price range. Does anyone have experience with the LN version? The LV does offer a guide but I think I could build a jig for the LN if I needed one. I'm a little leery of an old Stanley ---if it needs to have the sole lapped that's a lot of iron. Would love some feedback from the experts -- Thanks!

[Ken Werner]

Let me begin with - I am no expert. Having said that, I do not think a perfectly flat bottom is critical on a jointer. In the interest of economy and value, I'd suggest you start with an old [Stanley, Record, Sargent, Union etc] No. 7 or 8. They are not too pricey - like $100 or less. And can do a very respectable job to get you going. You can always sell it and upgrade later. You might check with Clint Jones here and see if he's got one for you.

Good luck,
Ken

[Jack Camillo]

2 cents. If you can afford a nice, new one that'll last as long as you and much longer, why buy old and try to sell and upgrade later? Get the new one, get used to it, and put it to work for you. I'd venture to say you (or anyone) would be more than happy with either the LN or LV, both outstanding planes. Look at pictures side by side, and go with the one that looks better to you at that moment. No one can decide that for you. Only other, and best option is to wait for a show in your area where both are represented and feel them in your hands.

[John Dykes]

Using old tools adds a lot of very wonderful and unique enjoyment to my woodworking that I'm glad I was poor enough to stumble into...

I'd opt for the Stanley and $200 of other tools you might need...

Do you, would you, could you find yourself using a classic handtool that is over 100 years old and works beautifully? If that doesn't punch your buttons, and you if you have money to spend - go new.

You'll be happy either way...

- jbd

[Michael Faurot]

To date, I've not needed a jointer plane. I work at a smaller scale, so a Jack serves my purpose when needing to joint or flatten.

I all ready own the Lee Valley low angle Jack, along with some of the other blades. So when my needs change, and I do need a jointer, it'll be getting the Lee Valley bevel-up Jointer, so I can swap blades between it and my LV Jack.

If somewhere along the way, I find a rusty #7 or #8 for cheap, I'll restore it and use it too. :)

[Greg Muller]

I love my $85 #8!!!!

It ain't perfect, but it works perfectly. I would rather spend $100 on a good user and $200 on good wood. However, if you have cash to burn, get the L-N. They work great and they are pretty, too.

If I could afford to, I would own one of every plane ever made, and as much wood as it would take to get good at using them all.

Alas, I'm but a poor humble forensic accountant...

Greg

[Hank Knight]

I vote with those who recommend an old Stanley. I have a 607 and a Bailey #7. I use them interchangeably - I actually like the Bailey a little better than the Bedrock. They suit my needs just fine. I own a LN low-angle smoother and a LN low angle jack, and I'm very fond of both. I'll admit that it has crossed my mind to try one of the low angle jointers, but I'm very happy with my Stanelys and I see no need to change. The Stanelys are certainly cheaper than the thej new planes. I also agree that flattenting the sole of an old Stanley jointer is unnecessary. I'm using mine as I found them and they work just fine.

[Dan Barr]

get the old stanley no 7 or 8. I have a staley no 7 and a transitional jointer. both are great users.

I want the LN no 7 and 8 but, that will have to wait indefinitely. the two i have are fine and i actually prefer the wooden transitional jointer plane. I have to pay more attention to keeping it in tune and that helps me keep my wherewithal when jointing too. kinda keeps me more in tune with what im doing all the time.

ciao,

dan

[Joel Goodman]

Thanks for the advice. I'm glad that the consensus is that absolute flat is not needed for a jointer. I may wait till next month and if I haven't gotten an old Stanley look at both the LN and LV at the Ponoma (CA) Woodworking show.

[Pam Niedermayer]

I absolutely do not recommend any Stanley plane, much less jointers. In a 22" jointer, I've found the ECE Primus to be superior; and for a 30" jointer, the C&W. For a jointer like try plane, try the HNT Gordon.

Pam

[Jack Camillo]

I haven't laid hands on one yet, but I tell you, those ECE Primus really have my curiosity. I've simply never ran across one that I could take a few strokes with. Thanks for pointing them out.

[Joel Goodman]

Pam,

Have you tried the low angle LN or LV jointer? I have the ECE reform smoother and I like it a lot, so I should consider the ECE jointer. My smoother takes more effort to push than my LN low angle jack -- and I usually have a blade in the jack that gives me about 50 degree included angle -- same as the ECE. I assume it's the weight -- the ECE is way lighter. I feel with the ECE that I have to push down more while the low angle plane (with the hi angle blade) seems more like pushing forward. Do you find this with the ECE jointer and or the Gordon? Have you found this to be an issue? Or is the jointer heavier as it's longer so maybe the wood is an advantage?

Thanks.

[Mark Singer]

The LV Is excellent with the fence. I had the ECE and it was not as good. Although the ECE reform smoothet 711 is fantastic!

[John Dykes]

I absolutely do not recommend any Stanley plane, much less jointers.

:eek: /blink /blink

I've followed a few, rare posts where folks weren't interested in tuning up an old Stanley; but this quote seems to be a vehement warning wholly against Stanley planes. Which I find surprising and odd...

I have both LN and vintage Stanleys. And, admittedly, being limited in skill and experience (and most likely intelligence!), I've not found a vast chasm of difference between the two. I'm familiar with ECE through surfing, but have never seen, much less touched one...

Pam, your posts are scattered across the Internet in several places; some of them quite old. In my electronic travels, I always pay special attention to what you have to say. I have a considerable respect for your methods and would like to hear more about your thoughts on this...

Respectfully,
- jbd in Denver

[Johnny Kleso]

I only own two LV planes a 97 and 140 I do have dozens of Stanley Block and Bench planes..

Its nice to have two or three No5 or No6s set up with diferent blades and ready to use if one gets dull in the middle of a job..

You can also find a woody jointer plane 28" or so for abount $25-$35 and they are easy to flatten just make sure the mouth is not super wide and ends are not checked (cracked)

Even if you have the cash for a LN-LV you should look at a few Stanleys if your a big hand plane user..

[Steve Rozmiarek]

I absolutely do not recommend any Stanley plane, much less jointers. In a 22" jointer, I've found the ECE Primus to be superior; and for a 30" jointer, the C&W. For a jointer like try plane, try the HNT Gordon.

Pam

What????? Care to explain that? Pretty sure that I'm not the only one who disagrees with you in reguard to the Stanley planes.

[Peter Quadarella]

I like my Jack plane so much, I am definitely going to get a Blum Tool Co. Jointer plane.

[Pam Niedermayer]

What????? Care to explain that? Pretty sure that I'm not the only one who disagrees with you in reguard to the Stanley planes.

I'm sure that plenty of people disagree with me. So what? Should I just sit back and shut up? I think not.

I've not been happy with Stanley bench planes. I have been extremely happy with wooden planes.

Pam

[Jim Koepke]

I'm sure that plenty of people disagree with me. So what? Should I just sit back and shut up? I think not.

I've not been happy with Stanley bench planes. I have been extremely happy with wooden planes.

Pam

Just because others may disagree with you does not mean we should be prevented from learning through your experience.

I have found variations in the Stanley bench planes, but can usually get good results with them. Only recently, I bought a Sargent wooden bodied joiner plane. After a little tune up, it is a pleasure to use, and I haven't really put a good edge on the blade yet.

If it were not for reading of the pleasures of wood on wood planing others posted here, it might not have been something I would have tried. Maybe a few more woodies will be invited into my shop. Or should I say transitionals. With some extra time on my hands soon, maybe I will try to tackle making a few of my own.

jim

[Mike Cutler]

Joel

I have the LN, #7 1/2, LA Jointer, I also have the LN #7, as well as the LN #6.
The #7 1/2 I have is the model without the adjustable mouth. I think the adjustable mouth is a cool feature, but I'm not certain how much of a benefit it really would be on a jointer plane.

The LA is a different beast than the #7, both leave a smooth surface, but the 7 1/2 seems just a little smoother. ( Could just me rationalizing the purchase of an expensive plane to myself though.:eek:,;)).
The presentation of the cutting angle of the low angle at 37 degrees, versus the 45 degree angle of the #7 gives a completely different feel to the tool. The 7 1/2 seems like a very large #164, and seems to require less effort than the #7. You will have to "get behind" either of them, but it's just a subtle difference.
If you like the low angle Jack from LN, you will be very happy with the LA Jointer.

For the record. I also have two Stanleys a #6 and a #7 They too are nice planes, but the feel of the LN is different, especially the # 7 1/2. End result is the same.

Pam
I understand and respect your opinion of the Stanley plane, but I feel it is a little generalized. It could be that the size of your hands just isn't conducive to the established design dimensions of the Stanley line of tools. Just a guess here, and no offense intended. Each individual has different sized limbs and hands, which can have a huge impact on tool usage, and selection. If it's not comfortable in your hand, it's just not going to work, no matter how much it costs.
Stanley made some exceedingly fine tools at one time, and they can be rehabbed and retrofitted with newer blades, like a Hoch, and match the abilities, and performance of any plane that LN, or LV produces.

Don't ever "sit back and shut up". It would be a big loss here.

[Derek Cohen]

Are jointers different? Is there a "best"? Should I buy bevel up or should I buy bevel down? Metal or wood? What length? What angle of attack? Should I use a straight bevel or should it be cambered?

Gad, I could write an article based on these questions :)

"My best jointer?" What does that mean? ... that one cuts better than another? ... or one is more comfortable to hold than another? .. or that it glides along the wood more easily?

Horses for courses. Horses for courses.

My most versatile jointer is the LV LA Jointer. I appreciate the fact that I can set it for a high angle of attack when needed. In this regard it planes head-and-shoulders over my Stanley #7 (a highly fettled Type 11 with thick Clifton blade). But, when the wood used is straight grained, then the Stanley works just as well. Still, I prefer the ergonomics of the low centre of gravity LV.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/LV%20planes/Levelling.jpg

Review of the LV LA Jointer in comparison with the Stanley #7: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/The%20Veritas%20Lee%20Valley%20Bevel%20Up%20Jointe r.html

If it were not for the LV's superlative performance I would probably not use it. It is a great design, with many excellent features, but at heart I am a woodie guy. I love my long 30" jointer I built, which excells on long edges.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Articles/Preparing%20boards%20without%20a%20thicknesser-jointer/6Flatteningface1.jpg

This plane just floats over the surface like a hovercraft! It is bedded at 60 degrees.so it has no difficulty with interlinked grains. And the wonderful thing about woodies is that they are easy to push even with such a high cutting angle.

I was influenced by the HNT Gordon Trying Plane when I designed the jointer. The HNT is more like a #6 in length and is a great plane for shorter lengths (although that hasn't stopped me using it on longer boards).

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Articles/HNT%20Gordon/Tryplane-Edgeplaning.jpg

Review of the HNT Gordon here: http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/Blum%20planes/BlumForeplane1.jpg

A plane that has some similarities to the HNT Gordon in feel is the Blum Try Plane. I am still getting to know this one and will have a review in the near future. It is a very nice user and handles intelinked grain pretty well at its cutting angle of 55 degrees.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/Blum%20planes/BlumForeplane1.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jesse Cloud]

I think Ken Werner nailed it early on. But having said that, you can see that personal style and preference plays a huge role here. Personally, I find my LV a joy to use.

[Hank Knight]

FWIW, I own a Primus jointer. I find it very clumsy to use so it sits on my shelf and gathers dust. I'm not against woodies in principle; I own a number of them including two of the ECE Primus reform smoothers that Mark Singer likes - I like them a lot too - and I have admired Derek's long woodie ever since he first posted photos of it. But the ECE jointer is handles like a log with a blade in it.
My opinion.

Hank

[Thomas Pender]

Since I probably am closer to the early stages than most of these guys :), I can offer what worked really well for me since I first started getting into using planes. I bought the Lee Valley Bevel Up Jointer with the fence. While heavy it is lovely to use - I use it to smooth panels, true long boards too awkward for a jointer, etc. However, you have to have a capable front vise and sometimes a support stick (pre-supposes a substantial bench). Often times I can transition directly to my LV Bevel Up Smoother. (The sharper it is the better - I start evey day I intend to use it by honing the balde if I have used it to any degree.)

Another thing - I have no idea how tall you are, but bench height really makes things easier with a large plane like a jointer. I found the combination of the Noden-adjust a bench with my worktop makes me sweat less as I push the Jointer across panels, etc.

Also - you can interchange the LV irons - make sure you write the angle size on it somewhere (magic marker works). Also, I recommend you buy the hardest steel blade.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

I'm sure that plenty of people disagree with me. So what? Should I just sit back and shut up? I think not.

I've not been happy with Stanley bench planes. I have been extremely happy with wooden planes.

Pam

Sit back and shut up? Heavens no, that would make the debate very boring indeed, but you had to expect to be asked to explain after a remark like your first post.

I imagine that your experience with wooden planes is similar to mine, in that all are not created equal. Neither are all Stanley's, and to say that unequivocally all Stanley's are bad and all woodys are good is perposterous.

My experience with old Stanley planes has been a pleasent one. The newer Stanley planes on the other hand, are crap. I have an old wood jointer that I tried to come to terms with several times, and it is now relegated to shelf warming status, while most of my other wood planes work well.

[Pam Niedermayer]

My experience with old Stanley and Record planes has not been pleasant. I suspect this is because I was supposed to buy new blades for all of them, but don't know for sure. All I do know is that I tuned them up and nothing worked. Finally I bought a LN LA Jack, which worked perfectly. This was encouraging, so I got into Japanese planes which I learned how to build and I got into other woodies. These all worked perfectly out of the box. Not being one to fight the fates, I left it at that. I did keep one Stanley, a 78, put it on a shelf to remind me of my foolishness.

Pam

[Hank Knight]

This was encouraging, so I got into Japanese planes which I learned how to build and I got into other woodies. These all worked perfectly out of the box.
Pam

Pam,

I have always respected and admired your staunch advocacy for Japanese tools, especially planes, but my experieince with Japanese planes has been somewhat different. The ones I've bought have required a lot of set-up work before they can be used, including some pretty delicate fitting of the blade in the dai and scraping the proper relief on plane sole. A little error here can ruin an expensive plane. With old Stanleys, you can be pretty aggressive with your rehabilitation work without endangering the plane. I've been generally pleased with my old Stanleys over the years, but I've had mixed results with woodies, and I"ve never bought a new Japanese plane that worked "out of the box."

Hank

[Wilbur Pan]

This will really pull the thread way off topic, but....

There seems to be a lot of mystique and difficulty surrounding a Japanese plane and its setup, but I haven't found that to be the case. If you think about it, the process of fitting a blade to the dai is pretty much like fine tuning a mortise and tenon joint by paring away the sides of the mortise, except in this case the tenon is made of carbon steel and is slightly wedge shaped. All it really takes is patience.

Harrelson Stanley has a DVD that explains how to set up and use a Japanese plane that is really excellent. If you're worried about expense, used Japanese planes come up on eBay fairly regularly, which is what I started with, and surprisingly you can get some really nice results with them.

[Hank Knight]

Wilbur,

I agree that setting up a Japanese plane is not "rocket surgery" (a wonderful mixed metaphor if ever there was one). But there is comparatively little information available on the general woodworking boards about how it's done - compared to information on rehabbing and setting up Stanleys for example, and I find the process somewhat delicate and less intuitive than working with iron planes - maybe that's just me. My post was a response to Pam's statement that her Japanese planes worked "out of the box," which I find a little misleading, expecially for someone with little or no experience looking for advice on purchasing a plane.

Hank

[Wilbur Pan]

Here's (http://traditionaltools.us/cms/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6) a great article on how to set up a Japanese plane that Wiley Horne wrote. it helped me a lot.

[Pam Niedermayer]

...My post was a response to Pam's statement that her Japanese planes worked "out of the box," which I find a little misleading, expecially for someone with little or no experience looking for advice on purchasing a plane.

Many asked for some explanation of my Stanley-hate statements. I was talking about the Japanese planes I made, actually only the dai as I buy blades. My planes work perfectly when I'm done. Of course, that statement is a tautology since they're only done when they work perfectly. :)

Actually, I took a seminar on making the planes when I purchased a Japanese plane and realized I didn't feel confident about how to tune it. I have to say this was the most valuable woodworking course I've taken. I learned many subtleties about Japanese planes that have carried over into other woodworking. Highly recommended.

So, to sum up, I've had great success with LN, LV, and new wooden planes. As far as old Japanese planes, assume you're buying the blade and plan to make a new dai.

Pam

[Hank Knight]

Pam,

Who taught your Japanese plane course and where was it? I would love to take such a course. I picked up some bits and pieces of Japanese "planeology" from Craig Stevens several years ago, but nothing in depth. I'm looking for Harrelson Stanley's DVD Wilbur spoke of.
Thanks for your reply.

Hank

[Wilbur Pan]

Hi Hank,

Sorry -- I should have just posted the whole title of the DVD. It's called "Kanna: The Japanese Hand Plane". You can find it here (http://www.japanesetools.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=90_92&products_id=5528) or here (http://www.craftsmanstudio.com/html_p/Q010004.htm).

[Doug Shepard]

Another vote for the LV BU Jointer (+ the extra higher angle blades) tho I do like LN's mouth adustment mechanism much better. But I've also got a lowly Anant #8 that works just fine. There's pics on this thread
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=57646&highlight=anant
Despite getting trashed by an awful lot of folks (who I suspect haven't used them), the plane makes shavings just like a real plane. Go figger.

[Hank Knight]

Hi Hank,

Sorry -- I should have just posted the whole title of the DVD. It's called "Kanna: The Japanese Hand Plane". You can find it here (http://www.japanesetools.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=90_92&products_id=5528) or here (http://www.craftsmanstudio.com/html_p/Q010004.htm).


Thanks Wilbur! You saved me an hour of web searching this afternoon.

Hank

[Pam Niedermayer]

Pam,

Who taught your Japanese plane course and where was it? I would love to take such a course. I picked up some bits and pieces of Japanese "planeology" from Craig Stevens several years ago, but nothing in depth. I'm looking for Harrelson Stanley's DVD Wilbur spoke of.
Thanks for your reply.

Hank

I attended an Inomoto-san seminar at Harrelson's in Pickerill (or something close), MA. For kicks you could look at some of the photos Harrelson has on his Hiraide site.

Jay van Arsdale teaches loads of courses at Lanier Jr. College somewhere near Berkeley/SF, take a look at Daiku Dojo (http://www.daikudojo.org/).

Pam

[Hank Knight]

Thanks, Pam.

[Gary Herrmann]

I've also got the LV LA jointer with 3 blades. If you want new, and the LN now has an adjustable mouth, that makes the decision harder. I don't own any LN planes at this point, but if I could get a LN for the price of a LV, I'd be sorely tempted.

[Paul Erickson]

Joel,

One issue that I haven't seen raised is the size of stock you tend to deal with. I was reminded today while working on some very thick ash why I like my #8. I find the additional width gives just a bit more flexability when dealing with thicker stock. They also allow you to edge joint two five quarter boards at once. Some day, I would like to own a LN 8 but in the mean time I am really glad for the lessons I am learning tuning my older planes. With the necessary patience and skill, either present or to be aquired in the process you will probably find that you can achieve satisfactory results. With careful watching on the bay, I was able to come up with a well tuned 8 that didn't need lapping at all. Another issue is the handles. I and others really don't like the LV profile, but this issue has been discussed at length elsewhere.

cheers, Paul

[Joel Goodman]

Thanks for all the advice. I'm planning on trying the LV and the LN at the Pomona Woodworks show -- unless I run into a great bargain before then!

[Charles Shenk]

Is the adjustable mouth on a low angle jointer plane that big of a deal? On a bevel down style smoother I can see the value of an adjustable mouth since you are using it last.

I have the old style, non adjustable LN 7 1/2, and I find that the mouth is set up perfectly for the depth of cut that I like.

My editorial: If you don't buy used, get the Lie-Neilsen since it is a US company manufacturing quality products in the United States. Too many other companies have bailed on manufacturing in this country and I think the trend sucks. :D

[dan grant]

have had #8 stanley and still have #8 LN and LV bu jointer gave the stanley away, just no comparison, not saying there are not good stanleys out there, still have a few myself, but lets face it they are a 100 yrs old most are worn out, on soft woods they are comparable but when you get into some tough stuff they are hard to work, you will replace the blade any how, so you are basically driving an old car with a new motor, save some grief buy a new plane, by the time you are done probably only cost about 25% more then an old stanley with a new blade or buy one aff ebay for 50$ add 20$ shipping and when it arives find out it has the shape of a canoe:)

[Greg Muller]

Dan,
That's why you don't buy one off the 'bay. You buy one from a local or one of the fine folks here on SMC. If it doesn't cut as well as a L-N, then it's your sharpening. If I have to push a little harder, that's okay too, I'm not a child.

FWIW- L-N and other high end plane makers produce beautiful planes that work great and I love using them. But it's like a Mercedes vs a classic Mustang, if they are tuned up they'll both get you there, one may just take a little more maintenance.

Greg

[Jim Koepke]

have had #8 stanley and still have #8 LN and LV bu jointer gave the stanley away, just no comparison, not saying there are not good stanleys out there, still have a few myself, but lets face it they are a 100 yrs old most are worn out, on soft woods they are comparable but when you get into some tough stuff they are hard to work, you will replace the blade any how, so you are basically driving an old car with a new motor, save some grief buy a new plane, by the time you are done probably only cost about 25% more then an old stanley with a new blade or buy one aff ebay for 50$ add 20$ shipping and when it arives find out it has the shape of a canoe:)

I am with Greg on some of this. I think of Stanley planes as being like the family car, a regular old Chevy or Ford. If you like the Cadillac or Lincoln, then it is going to cost a bit more. It is just like buying oats!

Many of my planes are from eBay, but it is expected that they will need some work. One of my latest needs some threads retapped.

Getting these odd size taps is a bit of a pain, but fixing old hand tools is almost as enjoyable for me as using them, ymmv.

Most of the planes will work fine with their original blade. I recently bought some Hock blades. They are nice, but they are not necessary. They do add a little improvement overall.

There are a lot of little tweeks that can be done to an old plane to make it work better. There are a lot of improvements that can be made to the design to make a plane better.

My point is, an old plane that has seen lots of use is likely to have a lot of use left. It is not likely to be an out of the box epiphany like a new LN or LV, but when it is fettled and working at its best, it is a great feeling. It is also quite pleasing to know, while those fine shavings are spilling out of the mouth, that you are the one who brought it back to life and its full potential.

jim