Which Smoothing plane do you prefer ? Lie Nielsen #4 or Veritas bevel up Smoother ?

[Michael Bulatowicz]

The bronze Ln #4 is sold out…is the bronze better than iron ?

Some like the extra weight of the bronze and the fact that it won’t rust the way iron will (though it will tarnish and leave black streaks on your work if not used often enough—this is certainly true of my son’s bronze #101). I chose the iron #4 over the bronze after trying both (as well as a low-angle jack) at a LN tool event. The iron one they had available gave more feedback than the bronze. I don’t know if this would be true of all the iron versus bronze planes they sell, but it was true of the particular planes at the tool event. Feedback is also a major reason for my preference for bevel-down planes.

To answer your original question, given a choice between those two planes my preference is for the bevel-down plane with Bailey-style adjustments. I have no direct experience with the Veritas bevel-up smoother, so my opinion isn’t based on that particular plane. I am well aware that bevel-up planes have their fans, are less expensive, and can be made to work well (including tearout mitigation at a high cutting angle) but upon trying out the low-angle jack I immediately objected to the feel. Why? It didn’t provide as much feedback. When planing, I like to feel what is happening as the wood is cut so that I can make adjustments as needed. With a bevel-down plane, I like to place at least my forefinger and sometimes also my thumb on the blade to get more information: feedback comes through in more ways and in a way that’s easier for me to read.

I also like to use the cap iron for tearout mitigation. I haven’t tried high cutting angles for this purpose because of my preference for Bailey/bedrock planes, so I can’t compare the two methods based on experience. As I recall, Derek Cohen’s test results showed a better surface finish using a bevel down plane and close-set cap iron than with a high cutting angle even though both methods worked to mitigate tearout.

I also prefer the Bailey-style adjustments. Precise adjustments (particularly on the fly) are simply easier for me than with Norris style adjusters.

[Michael Bulatowicz]

Compared with Bailey planes, the BU planes are lighter and more nimble. They offer more feedback.

Interesting; in my admittedly very brief experience with a bevel up plane, I perceived more feedback from the bevel down plane. Perhaps it is my inexperience with reading the feedback from a bevel up plane, or perhaps it’s something else.

[Tyler Bancroft]

OP, how big are your hands? Mine are large (but not huge), and I find the grip on the LN 4 to be slightly cramped. I occasionally find myself holding the tote with only two fingers. I noticed the Veritas #4 isn't on your list – any particular reason?

[Jim Koepke]

OP, how big are your hands? Mine are large (but not huge), and I find the grip on the LN 4 to be slightly cramped. I occasionally find myself holding the tote with only two fingers. I noticed the Veritas #4 isn't on your list – any particular reason?

Tyler, have you ever tried a #4-1/2?

The tote is a little larger than the tote on a #4.

jtk

[michael langman]

Interesting; in my admittedly very brief experience with a bevel up plane, I perceived more feedback from the bevel down plane. Perhaps it is my inexperience with reading the feedback from a bevel up plane, or perhaps it’s something else.

Michael, Is the iron thinner on the bevel down plane. Thus you could feel better feedback?

[Frederick Skelly]

Millers Falls No. 9, Type 4...has been MY go-to plane for quite a while. Have NEVER had any issues with chatter, either...

+1. My #9 works like a dream - love that tool. I also have a LV bevel up smoother, but seldom use it - I just dont like it as much as that old #9.

[Rob Luter]

LN. I have a Bronze #4 and an Iron #4 1/2. If the grain is really wonky I’ll use my LN 62 bevel up with a high angle grind on the iron.

[Tyler Bancroft]

Tyler, have you ever tried a #4-1/2?

The tote is a little larger than the tote on a #4.

jtk

Jim, every 4-1/2 I've seen for sale up here lately has been a corrugated version, which I'm not too wild about on a smoother. I'm hoping Lee Valley will have a manufacturing second in their sale later this month, but as I'm aiming to buy a bigger bandsaw next year, I'm trying to pinch pennies these days. The tote on the Veritas #4 does fit my hand like a glove. I know some people don't care for the Veritas totes, but I find they're proportioned perfectly for me.

[Michael Bulatowicz]

Michael, Is the iron thinner on the bevel down plane. Thus you could feel better feedback?

Interesting question, Michael.

Well, the LN #62 has a 40% thicker iron than their #4 (0.175 inches versus 0.125, according to their website). However, as long as the iron is well supported it seems to me that the thickness shouldn't much matter for feedback. A 30 degree bevel has just as much stiffness in the critical zone immediately adjacent to the cutting edge on a 0.08 blade as on a 0.250 blade (to throw some numbers out there).

I'll admit that the following is a speculative comparison of bevel down versus bevel up feedback, having not done a detailed side-by-side comparison.

In each case, bevel down and bevel up, the plane body and frog, as applicable, should support the iron firmly. At the same cutting angle, the forces on the plane should be identical (same magnitude and direction) with the exception of the cap iron's influence. Thus, the amount of feedback transferred through the plane's body to the tote should be identical from the blade, plus some from the cap iron (if it's set up to have any effect).

So, if we have roughly identical feedback from the blade via the tote, extra from the cap iron, and yet more from actually touching the iron while planing, it seems to me that a bevel down plane *should* provide more feedback than a bevel up plane. My very brief side-by-side comparison on long grain suggests that this is so, but I cannot claim to have proof.

Am I missing something?

I could perhaps compare side-by-side; the LV Shooting plane versus a #5 or #6 (i.e. a similar size bevel down plane). The comparison would of course be subjective; I have no scientific instrumentation on hand to make an objective comparison.

Anyone care to hear my thoughts should I do so?

[Derek Cohen]

I'll admit that the following is a speculative comparison of bevel down versus bevel up feedback, having not done a detailed side-by-side comparison.

In each case, bevel down and bevel up, the plane body and frog, as applicable, should support the iron firmly. At the same cutting angle, the forces on the plane should be identical (same magnitude and direction) with the exception of the cap iron's influence. Thus, the amount of feedback transferred through the plane's body to the tote should be identical from the blade, plus some from the cap iron (if it's set up to have any effect).

So, if we have roughly identical feedback from the blade via the tote, extra from the cap iron, and yet more from actually touching the iron while planing, it seems to me that a bevel down plane *should* provide more feedback than a bevel up plane. My very brief side-by-side comparison on long grain suggests that this is so, but I cannot claim to have proof.

Am I missing something?

Michael, your logical - imagined - assessment does not match my experience, which is many years actually using BD and BU planes alongside one another. Without going into this in much detail - there are a number of articles I wrote on ergonomics available on my website - it is not simply about BU vs BD, but about associated factors these planes incorporate.

It should also be noted that Veritas and a LN bevel up planes have different handles, and these could affect the angle the plane is pushed, and this will affect feedback (a more vertical handle will change the dynamics and feedback). However, a Bailey-pattern handle will create a similar experience if pushed forward from low down. Pushing down from high up changes the result. Pushing from high up also means that the hand is further away from the wood.

When planing interlocked wood, a BU plane needs to be used with a high cutting angle to prevent tearout. The move to a scraping-type cut creates more resistance. This is countered by taking fine shavings, however the point is that the BU plane is more sensitive to planing resistance.

Keep in mind that we need to be comparing like-for-like, for example smoothers of a particular size. Compare the mass of a LN #4 with a LN # 164 and you will find that the BU plane is lighter (the Veritas LA Smoother is lighter still). Lighter facilitates more feedback.

Add high angle frogs into the equation, and the dynamics change again. Logically, the cutting angles may be the same, however in practice a LN #4 with a 55 degree frog feels so different from a Veritas LA Smoother with a 43 degree secondary bevel. So, what about high angle planes, such as the Malaysian-inspired 60-degree HNT Gordon? Again, how you hold them is the key. This plane demands that one push forward rather than down. The centre of effort is low. Lowering the centre of effort is a central factor in increasing feedback.

Many of these factors only become apparent when the two types of planes are used alongside one another for some time. A cursory trial will automatically bias one towards the familiar. Use a plane enough anyway, and familiarity is going to make one sensitive to that planes feedback.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Michael Bulatowicz]

Hi Derek,

Thanks for sharing your experience.

I’ll remark on a few points, and bring up an additional point for possible consideration.

Yes, I pointed out that I was speculating and also that I may simply be more accustomed to reading the feedback from a BD plane.

Lighter equals more feedback, all else being equal. Indeed, as Sir Isaac Newton pointed out F=ma. All else is, of course, never equal.

Your experience comparing BU and BD planes is not something I have attempted to argue about or dispute. I can say without a doubt that you perceive more feedback from BU planes. I would be curious to see more opinions on the matter. As is often mentioned, YMMV.

Feedback is, for me, at least as much about sensitivity to the available information as it is about the volume of information available and the paths of transmission. I can say without any doubt that my fingertips, particularly my forefinger and thumb, are much more sensitive than my palm. I can also say that with a BD plane much of the feedback I perceive does not come through the tote (although much does).

With my brief trial of the LN #62, I felt cut off from important feedback I get through direct contact with the blade on a BD plane. Would I feel differently given a great deal more experience with a BU plane, learning to read the dissimilar feedback experienced by my dominant hand through only the tote? I don’t know, hence my comment about perhaps simply being more accustomed to reading the feedback from a BD plane.

That said, I haven’t felt limited in any way by my BD planes, and unless convinced otherwise likely won’t pursue a great deal of experience with BU planes in search of a widely informed opinion on the comparison. I’m happy to pay close attention to the feedback coming through just the tote on, for example, my #6 versus the LV shooting plane (the closest thing I have to a BU bench plane) when planing long grain and end grain and let you know what I think, if you’re interested in my opinion on the matter.

I’m also happy to continue the discussion and hopefully learn more in the process, though I hope this won’t stray too far from the OP’s question.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Michael

Just to clarify: I was replying to the differences between BU and BD. This takes the discussion to a higher-than-needed technical level. The bottom line is that both the plane types work very well, and a buyer should not be concerned that they have made a poor choice. Further to this, I do believe that few woodworkers probably work with wood types that are so difficult that the plane differences become a matter of life and death. My understanding of most North American woods - I am very familiar with White Oak, Cherry, Black Walnut, and Hard Maple - is that they work quite easily. They are all reasonably straight grained and quite different from the interlocked woods in Western Australia, which I use more often. When you get to that level, high cutting angles and closed down chipbreakers become very important. Since mastering the closed chipbreaker, that has become my preference in a handplane. Nevertheless, I used high angles for decades and still go to them on occasions. They still work, just not at the nth degree of the closed chipbreaker. Most will not need to know this.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[James Pallas]

I’m a BU user. It always seems to me that it is difficult to compare. The operation of the planes is very different to me. They both can achieve similar results. I think the big difference is the center of effort in use as Derek has explained so well in many posts. That COE is my main reason for BU use. The other reason is the easier blade changes. I will often change blades several times in the course of work. I have gotten use to the Norris adjuster and no longer find difficulties with it. To me it’s a bit like trying to compare western saws to Japanese saws. They both saw but are very different in use.
Jim

[Stephen Rosenthal]

I don’t think I’ve seen the word “feedback” used as much since the time I attended a Jimi Hendrix concert.

[Tom Trees]

I don’t think I’ve seen the word “feedback” used as much since the time I attended a Jimi Hendrix concert.

Brilliant Stephen
https://youtu.be/TeVlsRubPWY