advice needed on plane purchase

Re: How do figure...

Charles

>If one's intention is to process rough sawn stock to build a project completely with hand tools then I don't know how that could be done without a long plane. How would you joint edges for panel glue ups (or how would you do it efficiently)? A long plane will flatten stock much faster and more efficiently than shorter planes. A relatively quick frog adjustment and you can smooth with a jointer.

I spend a lot of time in my hand tool only shop with a #s 6, 7, and 8 in my hands. While I use a smoother on every project, I couldn't get to that stage without the long planes. And in a pinch a long plane can smooth or a scraper could be used.

It is entirely possible to build projects with all hand tools and NOT own smoothing planes. I'd rather not even think about building something without my long planes.

Re: Disagree slightly, and digressing a bit

Greg Sloop

>One other comment...

"So since you keep promoting...promoting..the LA jack"

I'm not promoting...promoting it. I have offered it as a potential solution to several who have requested advice about getting into hand planes, often their first plane.

I asked about the capabilities of the Low angle bevel up style (further after referred to as LABU) a while back that resulted in a huge dust up in that thread and in some of the follow-ups.

I *DO* defend the LABU (low angle bevel up) style planes (not just the jack, but ALL the LABU styles) as being pretty versitile.

I hear all sorts of arguments about edge retention and the need for a chip-breaker and how the LABU will tear up the wood etc. Every single claim I've ever seen isn't based on *any* technical merit.

Many run along the lines of "well the old-timers did it that way so it must be the best. Well, no, I can't come up with any reasons myself, but I'm just sure they were right." That's pretty unconvincing.

When I and others ask for some objective technical reasoning for why a LABU plane isn't at least as versitile as an equivalent BD (bevel down) plane of equivalent cost, we're routinely dismissed as newbie whacks - or nutcases intent on doing everything with a single plane. But I'm not at all intent on telling people to only get a single plane.

That isn't the case. I'm just interested in discussing the merits of what the LABU planes can do *well* - and IMNSHO I think it's quite a bit wider swath of jobs than the BD variety. If one is looking to find a tool that is most versitile, than this is a pretty great "discovery" that will likely save some cash.

So, I've rebutted these claims that the LABU style plane is a lesser plane in comparison to the BD style. I think in general Lynn, Rob Lee and Thom Lie-Nielsen have also found that to be the case.

In summary, I don't think I've "promoted" the plane any less or any more than everyone else promotes the say, LN4.5, or old stanley's.

I've simply offered it as a good all around plane that has worked for me very well. That one shouldn't consider the angle to be fixed like in a BD plane and that that single fact makes the LABD plane very versitile and *cheaper* than the equivalent BD plane - (at least from LN and most other new sources.) When people have taken shots to denegreate the LABU planes, I've been fairly agressive in asking for *real* and demonstrated reasons for their conclusion, and I don't believe I've seen a *single* one. (Well, perhaps lateral adjust on the LN - though this is a *very* minimal issue IMHO unless you can't grind/sharpen your irons square or if you can't get the new LV or grind the tail of the LN iron a bit narrower.)

When one considers all these factors for a *new* user of handplanes, I think they make the LABU planes much more highly attractive. If one wants to branch out and sink a bunch of time and effort into getting a fleet of new/used planes, by all means do so. But for me, any tool is just a means to and end. I want to work wood and I'll use the best price:performance tool to get there in general. If that's a LABU jack or the Leigh FMT jig, so be it. I'm no hand tool purist.

I'm just not a shamelss "promoter" of the LN LA Jack as you seem to imply. I *DO* think the LABU design is superior, however.

In good humor and with no ill feelings or hostility. May your life be long, and your days happy and content,

Greg

Ne question

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>Why would you want to do everything with a plane 14" long with a 2" wide blade? Do you have more than 1 chisel? saw? brace? screwdriver? Try and cut dovetails with a 26" D8 or rip a board with a 15tpi backsaw. Try and clean out the bottom of a dado with a jack plane. Ever try a stopped rabbet or a sliding dovetail. Try sticking moulding, making a raised panel door, a window...the LA Jack is limited

You are also missing out on rabbets, dado's shoulders, filisters, panel raising, moulding, spokeshaves and rebate planes just to name a few. Your joinery is limited to what you can do with your TS, router and bisquit joiner, not that that is limited, but your missing out on alot of handskills that are fun to learn, easy and fast to perform and won't leave you deaf or mutilated.

BTW - nice table

Re: Ne question

Greg Sloop

>Did I *ever* say that's all I wanted?

HINT ... I said that I'd probably stop at 4-5 planes as they do all I think I could want. (Jointer, Jack, Smoother, Block and perhaps Rabbet)

What I have said, and I think you miss, is that I think that the LABU design covers more ground, and I can do a lot with the two I have now. (62 and 60.5)

I've managed to retain all my fingers, and I've lost hearing from a viral ear infection not power tools.

I like woodworking. I like hand tools. I like power tools too. What I like most is producing finished products and working with my hands. I use the best tool for the job.

Just like I choose to walk to the sidewalk in front of my house and for exercise and enjoyment, but not 20 miles across town, I chose to use handtools when it pleases me, or it's the best way to solve the problem. For many wood-working tasks, it's *my* opinion that power tools are a better solution to the problem.

But I don't have a problem with you disagreeing and wanting to walk everywhere or using hand tools everywhere.

What I *do* have a problem with, is when people tell me I'm wrong without a factual basis to back it up, or because they choose to live their lives different than I.

If you prefer hand tools, that's fine. State it as a *preferance* rather than a technical superiority. The same applies to the BD vs the LABU arguments. Don't confuse personal preference with technical superiority.

Best wishes,

Greg

Re: Ne question

Greg Sloop

>Let me add one thing.

The issue about wanting 4-5 planes rather than just one was in the "lost" post. I didn't realize it wasn't in the reposted/summarized one - sorry it that may have seemed snippy.

I'm quite sure though, I've made this clear in the past as in the LN LA jointer posts, and about the 164 earlier in this thread, IIRC.

Heck, I'd love every LN plane made. But I'm not a lottery winner yet and must temper my desires.

Best,

Greg

FWIW

Rod Cole

>Greg,

For what it's worth, I get completely where you are coming from.

Not that you mentioned money, but I'll start there. I spent years broke. I remember coveting the $10 block plane at K-Mart. I started out edge jointing wood with a file, and I was good at it. :) I did not have a small shop, I had a storage bin at the back of a communal car port.

And I made furniture I am still proud of and use, that is better than 99% of the commercial furniture you can buy.

My first real plane was a yard sale pick up back when I was still a broke graduate student putting myself through school and supporting a sick girl friend, back when $5 was real money. It was an old Stanley 5C. I did a ton of work with that plane.

I had few tools in those days, but built some stuff that easily qualified as fine furniture. Having few tools certainly slowed me up, and did put some limits on what I could do. But mostly it taught me to be clever and careful, more than limit me.

I expect that there are more people who must get by with a few tools, than there are people who can buy, much less have time to learn to use, hundreds of specialty tools. That is just the reality most of us live. Fortunately I am past that now, but even now on my rather good salary every tool I buy is money I don't have saved for retirement or spent on my family.

IMHO, I think it is a disservice to beginners to suggest they need to spend a fortune on a pile of tools before they can start doing quality woodworking.

- Rod Cole

A Traditional Toolchest *LINK*

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>I wouldn't say that carpenters are wealthy by any means, but they did carry the bare necessities with them to accomplish a broad spectrum of tasks. This in turn paid the rent. I wouldn't say that there are any "extra" tools in this kit


Traditional Toolchest

BTW - that's Tom Price's tool chest

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>

Re: Ne question

Alan Hamilton

>Strange thing to me is that everyone seems to leave out the last part of the homily that is getting so much use on this thread. I learned it is:

Jack of all trades, master of none.

The whole meaning is changed when the last part is omitted. The deeper meaning is that when you do too many different things you do none of them well.

That is my objection to trying to do every bench plane job with a single tool. For each operation other than the job the tool was made to do, you are using less than optimum means--you are compromising--which usualy means less than optimum results.

Alan

Re: Ne question

Greg Sloop

>Dang it!

I never said doing everything with one tool was the cat's meow - where are you all getting this idea that I think a single plane can do everything? I've only made the point that by being careful, one can find some tools that fill a wider array of tasks than others. One should consider this multiple task *potential* fit when considering any tool, and specifically for this discussion, hand planes.

But if you have NO tools, your first purchase is most productive and valuable if it can do several things. Same is true with planes. Having a very versatile first plane is a big advantage.

Finally - the Jack of all trades, master of none.

I'm a computer consultant. I could be a super security expert � I�m very good now, but by no means am I the most technically skilled. But for my clients, it wouldn't be the best in terms of price to performance. My clients are not IBM, Chevron, NSA or the FBI. They pay and need someone with more general skills - but less specialized. That said you can assume that I'm the master of none.

However, given the clients I have, I'm the best "value." More highly technical skill and I'd be a worse value.

What I'm trying to get at here is that for some, the price to performance issue lies somewhere that it may not for others.

Again, don't mistake any single person�s ideas of best value as the only technical solution of merit. It's a preference.

That balance will fall in one place for the all hand tool shop. It will lie somewhere else for the new wood-worker and yet another for the mixed hand/power tool shop.

Best wishes,

Greg

Re: A Traditional Toolchest

Rod Cole

>That is nice and all, and I enjoyed it, but it misses the point.

I won't belabor it any farther. I think Greg made his point very well, and if anyone still does not get it, one more post won't get them any closer to understanding.

But back to Jane, get a plane or two, make sure they are of decent quality, learn to use them and have some fun. Any of the planes mentioned here will do, perhaps some a bit better than others, but really you can't go too far wrong with any of the standard planes. When you get to the point where you have a need for another plane because the one or two you started with don't do what you need on a particular project, get another.

Happy woodworking.

- Rod Cole

Re: A Traditional Toolchest

Jonathan Peck -N.Y.

>Rod, believe me I get it. Let's just say that I'm not the one who bought a $300- jack plane, then said that I can't afford a bunch of planes and I don't have the time to fix up a bunch of old ones....got it

perhaps a bit cranky

Rod Cole

>That last post may have been a bit crankly, if so I appologize.

It is just a pet peeve of mine when people suggest to a begginer that they need a full blown set up (hand or power, you see it on the other side often too), such as one might need to be a full on professional, just to get started and make a few pieces of nice furniture.

A pro must work fast, and for that you need just the right tool for each job. A pro must be able to tackle any job that comes their way, that means having a lot of tools. A pro does this stuff day in and day out for years; they have plenty of time to master a ton of tools.

A hobbiest need not be in a hurry. A hobbiest can design pieces to fit their skill level and set of tools. A hobbiest is often better off being a master of a few good tools, rather than a hack at each of hundreds of specialty tools they have used once or twice only.

Does a pro need a ton of tools. Maybe. Does Jane need to go out and buy a wall full of planes, no.

- Rod

Re: A Traditional Toolchest

Rod Cole

>Well fair enough.

- Rod

Re: A Traditional Toolchest

Greg Sloop

>You have a "nice" way of manipulating what people say.

But the horse died long ago and I tire of beating it.

Cheers,

Greg

Pros and their tools

Bill Tindall, E. TN

>I have been in a great many professional shops and the thing that always strikes me is how few tools they have. The professionals, as defined by those making a living from their trade, seem to me to have a few versatile tools that they have mastered to perform a great variety of tasks. Does not the rareness of specialized old hand tools confirm that most shops got by without them? And that includes low angle bevel up hand planes(tongue in cheek =(:) (the "=" replicates my normal hair orientation)

Re: Pros and their tools

Greg Sloop

>Oh, I know that the LABU design is odd.

The real question is why? Why wasn't it used? Why wasn't it pushed as a design etc.

I don't think anyone here really knows those answers, but they're interesting to ponder.

Again, the horse long since died. *grin*

Best,

Greg

Re: Pros and their tools

joel

>Of course. But it's not just a matter of functionality - it's a matter of cost. Also most people buy their tools at the beginning of their career when they don't have a lot of money, so that has an effect.

finally - escpecially in the case of beeel up smoothers there have been a lot of changes in manufactering so that at least some of the changes on tool preference might be attributable to better made tools of the same design. I don't entirely believe that but it is a valid point.

Finally I think there has been a change of attitute in written manuals and books that are so popular. You look at an old woodworking book and the person will be laying out his scrib lines just like now - but with a chisel not a specail purpose scriber. You can burnish a scraper easily with the back of a gouge - better or worse? but certainly it is one less tool to keep track of, fine a place in the toolbox for, and spend money on. These days instructors and printed materials are more likely to discuss very specialized tools for the purpose.

I have certainly found that over the years as my skill has gotten better I use fewer and fewer tools, and more classical tools. much easier to find tools in the tool box if you don't have that many of them (I store my tool collection in a different place than my tools I actually use - so I don't have the urge to sharpen everything)

Re: Pros and their tools

Joe Rogers,Northern Virginia

>Joel...About this urge to sharpen everything...Care to drop by my little shop in Virginia if you get down this way???:-)JR

Re: Pros and their tools

Rod Cole

>Good points all.

And it means I already have pro shop, I just need to master that master the tool part. :)

- Rod

Adam's Shop?

Don Thompson, Cutler Ridge, South of Miami FL

>One hundred molding planes! If you get a chance, I sure would like to see a set of shop-tour pix.

Re: Adam's Shop?

Cameron

>Phew, it's getting hot in here.... :-)

Greg wrote: "Oh, I know that the LABU design is odd. The real question is why? Why wasn't it used? Why wasn't it pushed as a design etc. I don't think anyone here really knows those answers, but they're interesting to ponder."

There are quite a few reasons actually. One of them is tradition. Historically, as people here know, most planes were made with the bevel down using a thick iron bedded at anywhere between 40 and 60 degrees. That's because this worked. The principles were sound and the results were, more or less, predictible.

Other reasons for bevel down planes:

Easier to cut the mouth as the tolerances don't need to be as finely "tuned" (ie files, floats etc. have more room to work in).

The edge of the mouth won't be as "brittle" in both wood and metal planes (later on) as it would be on a low angle, bevel up plane. It's easier to make better quality low angle bevel up planes nowadays though because a lot of the casting techniques and the materials used are better.

And, most contentious of all, it's completely unnecessary as a well designed, well tuned and sharp bevel down plane can do anything - and I do mean anything - that a bevel up plane can do. And do it to the same degree.

That doesn't mean that I'm not gonna own a whole truckload of both types of planes though, cause I do!

It should also be noted that planemakers through the ages both follow as well as set the fashion as far as tools go. Stanley always found a new "niche market" and produced planes to fill the void - whether anyone bought them or not! Other planemakers did the same, and the world is full of planes that hardly ever got used as a result (as well as the majority of ones that did get used on a daily basis).

I think the various planemakers who frequent this board would agree that finding new markets and creating great new planes is a very exciting pursuit.