LN 7 1/2 query?

I'd be interested.

chad pearson

>

I'm wondering...

Christopher Fitch @ Memphis

>if Tom does not end up offering this as an extra cost option on the 7 1/2.

If the demand is great enough, I would not be surprised to see it.

thoughts?

I hope not.

chad pearson

>If this is a limited production run then if you ever want to sell it I'm sure you could flip it for whatever you paid.

cp

Re: I hope not.

Christopher Fitch @ Memphis

>I'm not following your point..

;)

Re: I hope not.

Christopher Fitch @ Memphis

>Let me restate my post...

I am wondering if all this demand will cause LN to add an extra option to the 7 1/2 that would allow a buyer to add an adjustable mouth for a price, similar to how someone can add rosewood knobs or corrugations to the sole.

Re: I hope not.

Ernie Miller Topeka

>Limited production means fewer available = more value when it is sold. meaning flip it or sell for more than you paid.

Re: I hope not.

Christopher Fitch @ Memphis

>I understood that part...

:)

What I was wondering is that if Lie-Nielsen adds an extra cost option that allows a customer to buy a 7 1/2 with an adjustable mouth, how this will allow people to flip their 7 1/2's...

Re: I hope not.

Ernie Miller Topeka

>I'm sorry that #7 1/2 will be worth squat and be obsolete you won't be able to give it away. Did you see the thread earlier i the week about the #1 that sold for more than new? I'm betting you should be all right.

Why all the hostility?

Christopher Fitch @ Memphis

>I asked a simple question...

Re: I hope not.

chad pearson

>My point was just that if there was a very limited production run then you could sell it (flip) for at least what you paid...given what these things seem to sell for on Ebay. (LN collectors would likely go nuts for a production run of 20.) Me...I have not yet purchased a jointer (non-tailed at least) and would likely just use it.

Chad

Re: LN 7 1/2 query?

Greg Sloop

>I'm interested. However, I'm probably not ready to buy quite yet.

As for price. Obviously cheaper is better. I'd be more likely to purchase at the $350 or less, that way I can add an extra iron and still be competitive with the #7 (or the 8)

The low angle is great, but for at least some of my uses, I must have an extra iron or two at say 35 and/or 50 deg for an effective of ~47/~62.

I suspect many will use the plane the way I do, with a couple of different irons, and LN will probably pick up the difference that way. (i.e. Price the 7.5 nearer to cost, and expect to pick up profit on the iron or two additional likely to be sold.) BTW, LN got my order for an extra iron for my 60.5 and two plus a toothed one for my 62.

Anyway, just a couple of bits worth...

Cheers,

Greg

I missed it...

CONGER - The Irish diaspora in Munich

>... what is -- will be, a LN 7 1/2?

-g-

Re: I missed it...

Jack from Maine

>The LN 7 1/2 is a low angle jointer.

I've traded a couple emails...

Ted Owen, Pittsburgh

>with Thomas L-N, and here are some thoughts:

First, Tom says he's been planing curly Maple and some reverse grain Cherry with both the 62 and 7 1/2, regular 25 degree bevel and a 40 degree bevel. The higher bevel angle makes much more difference in tear out than the adjustable mouth. He'll keep fiddling with them.

And from one of his customers: I purchased the low angle jack plane from Axminster and am just writing to let you know how impressed I am with it, both its performance and its look and feel. I bought a spare blade with it to which I added a steep bevel and have just planed up some figured sycamore. It easily outperformed my Spiers jack plane with a toothed blade which still tore up the grain. The #62 left the surface completely smooth.

[still quoting the customer:] Personally I think all planes should be low angle. It seems to me that the traditional high angle type is a leftover from the days when all planes were tap adjusted, when it made sense to have a blade which projected above the handle. With screw adjusting blades there is no need to adopt this format as a low angle blade will always do better with difficult grain than a traditional type. How about inventing the world's first low angle thumb plane?

[still quoting the customer:]I'll probably end up getting the low angle smoother now too and ditching my old Spiers and Norris planes, beautiful though they are.

[from Ted:] No matter what, I can't imagine ditching an old Norris or Spears.

Best, Ted

Re: I've traded a couple emails...

joel

>I think the real question posed here is what was wrong with his Spiers plane.

Re: LN 7 1/2 query?

Steve Denvir

>I'm in. Sounds like a great idea.

Re: I've traded a couple emails...

Greg Sloop

>Perhaps nothing...

I have three standard irons for my 62, and it just happens I'm using a 62 on QS Sycamore too recently.

I have one iron at a total angle of about 43-45deg and another at 62 deg.

The 45 deg pushes very nicely, but leaves tons of tear out - not huge gouges mind you - but significant, even when finely set and a small mouth.

It's great for removing a lot of material, but it won't leave a decent surface at all.

Switching to the 60 deg makes a world of difference. (I even had it ground at 50 and that still left a small amount of tear-out too!)

60 may be too high, as it's really a bugger to push - at least for my 135 pounds - but I'm going to finish this project before I try 50 - <60 deg.

So, I can see even a york pitch plane having serious problems in that wood.

YMMV.

Cheers,

Greg

Nope, that's not the question

Alice Frampton, UK

>The real question is; if he's buying from Axminster there's a good chance he's in the UK in which case how much is he selling them for? ;~)

Cheers, Alf

Re: I've traded a couple emails...

joel

>if you are getting tons of tearout something is wrong. I can routinely plane difficult woods with a stock Stanley - regular blade etc. very sharp and very fine cuts (but of course unless everything is working right the cut will be crnaky). An infill just makes it a lot easier. If there is lots of tearout something is wrong.

Even if the LA plane is working perfectly since other regular planes can also plane perfectly it says more about having a plane in good condition and well fitted than the design of the plane.

Re: I've traded a couple emails...

Greg Sloop

>Well, I don't think it's just my lack of skill on the Sycamore - or the fit and finish of the plane. What I'm getting at is *angle*.

45-50 deg, IMHO is NOT high enough on really tough woods. Even really sharp irons and extremely small mouths are not enough.

So, normal or york pitch, IMHO will not be sufficient to do difficult stuff like the QS Sycamore I've been doing and leave a perfect surface - at least not with any ease. Perhaps with tons of fussing one could get an acceptable surface at 50 deg, but frankly I don't have that kind of patience.

I don't know exactly what kind of "difficult" wood you're doing, but with QS Lacewood and QS Sycamore I know from my personal exp what makes the difference.

In short, the big difference, as TLN pointed out, is the effective cutting angle. With too low an angle, it can be really difficult if not impossible to get a really clean tear-out-free surface. The more wild the grain the higher the angle. On QS Sycamore, IMHO, that is _at least_ 55 deg. So, a standard or york pitch Spiers could plausably do a poor job or less than desireable one at those angles.

Cheers,

Greg

Re: I've traded a couple emails...

joel

>I'm not saying it's lack of skill at all and I agree that A higher angle blade will plane more difficult woods easier than a lower angle blade, but be harder to push - all things being equal - but my point is that things rarely are equal indivvual planes are highly variable - espcecially antiques.

If even one 45 degree plane can plane a (in your case) a sycamore surface well then we know that the only important criteria isn't just blade angle. The exception to a rule invalidates the rule.

As for what kind of difficult woods I have been planing at the LI wood show two weeks ago an exotic lumber company tried to find a wood I could not plane with my, demo, not incredily sharp, Ray Iles infill. by not plane we mean not leave a pretty good surface. We tried a 1/2 dozen woods. I remembe snakewood as one of the, but frankly I don't remember the rest - all exotics, a few burls, mostly exotic turning stock. Since we both we working the show at the same time after a 1/2 dozen samples we gave up trying to find something that wouldn't plane.

You see I'm not saying the LA planes don't work I'm simply saying in this case the fact that the Spiers was a problem says more about the condition of the Spiers than anything else.

Re: I've traded a couple emails...

Greg Sloop

>I think my point *is* that I don't think any 45 deg angle could do QS Sycamore with a perfect surface.

There is, BTW a huge difference with QS vs. flat sawn Sycamore.

And to check, I'm holding the board at an extreme angle and looking across the board in the shadows to see any grain lift, tiny tearout etc.

Perhaps someone else can test this with an excellent 45 deg plane, but in my exp, my 47 deg setup doesn't come close. Even 52 still left small tears. And I'm using a very nice LN 62. Blades sharpened to about 1.5 micron (8000 Norton Water stones.)

Again, I'm not claiming to be the expert here, but IMHO, I'd like to hear from someone who's done QS Sycamore at 45 and gotten a flawless surface. It's my opinion that it's not likely to happen. Thus my conclusion that the Spires may not have been badly tuned/sharpened/setup, but that it just didn't have enough angle to perform.

Cheers,

Greg

Re: I've traded a couple emails...

joel

>That's a fair point and it's always possible that my standards are just low. but there is a simple test - could I ask you to plane up a small piece of QS sycamore to your standard and send it to me with an extra piece. I'll do my bit and send them back. This way we will both have the same reference. It won't be the first time I've been wrong.

Re: I've traded a couple emails...

Greg Sloop

>Hey, I'll try. But I'm a total procrastinator, so it might be a while.

Let me see though.

More later.

Thanks,

Greg