Low Angle Jack...useful?

Re: Low Angle Jack...useful?

WoodburnBob

>A year or two ago I bought the low angle smoother, which is a short (9.5 inch) version of the 14 inch jack. As far as I know length is the only difference. At all bench plane tasks, it performs better than anything I've used. But tastes differ. You may think otherwise. If you got one, used it a few months, and found it lacking, you'd be able to sell it pronto on Ebay or on the WC classifieds...and probably for nearly the new price.

As to it being only a "speciality" end grain tool: I recall reading that one of the classic high volume historical cabinetmakers like Chippendale or Heppelwhite used only two planes. One was a mitre plane (a bevel-up, low-angle, tight-mouth plane analogous to the LN). The other was a shoulder plane, I believe.

If the government stepped in and limited me to only one bench plane, it would be my LN 164. About 100 infills, bedrocks and baileys would leave the property...perhaps accompanied by the sound of Rita's applause and little restrained peals of delight. But I digress. Keep in mind I'm an amateur hand plane accumulator and admirer, and have no real credentials to have an educated opinion about anything, except perhaps Rita.

Re: Low Angle Jack...useful?

Frank Mutchler in Colorado Springs

>Tommy, I don't have the #62 low angle jack but I do use the #164 low angle smoother. The two planes use different blade/iron adjusters and of course the #62 is longer but I imagine results would be similar between the two planes. I find that the low angle planes I have work best on straight grained wood and my high angle planes work best on grain that reverses, curls, etc. When neither is satisfactory I use a scraper plane.

Re: Low Angle Jack...useful?

Greg Sloop

>Ha, I'm the Swiss army plane guy here - to the rescue!! (Old insider joke - a search for swiss army plane should turn up the thread if you're interested...)

It's the only plane I have - oops, I have the LN LA adjustable mouth block too - I guess it would be the only *bench* plane I have.

I like the longer length because when I want to flatten stuff the extra length is useful. It's not as good as a jointer, but that's not my primary use for it. I use it generally, as a long smoother. That makes it less than perfect for both flattening/jointing and more of a PITA for smoothing, but does both reasonably well.

It does end grain well, with the standard 25deg iron. I then have two others setup at 35deg and ~53 deg for total angles of about 47 and 65. The 65 gets used for really wild grain stuff and the 47 is used for more standard stuff.

So, IMHO, it's a really great plane - useful for all kinds of stuff.

But, you really should consider the 62.5 from Lee Valley.

I hear the mouth is a bit farther back which makes it easier to use on small pieces and many really like the feel. I've not used one, but I'd like to try one. But, it's not likely that I'll buy two jacks before I get a smoother, jointer or rabbet plane.

Cheers,

Greg

Yes (ish)

Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)

>Thomas

I have the Stanley #62 (used with LN blade), a recent acquisition (which I wrote about a short while ago). It is simply superb on end grain and on a shooting board. It has a light, delicate feel for its size (as per #5). The LN version is significantly heavier.

I am in the process of evaluating a LV 62-1/2. This is a slighter larger and definitely heavier version, more along the lines of the LN. It has several advanced features that the Stanley does not have, such as precision blade adjustment and repeatable mouth adjustment. I have used it with both the LA blade (effective 37 degree cutting angle) and the HA blade (effective 50 degree cutting angle). This is just a fantastic plane that delivers quality performance on end grain and gnarly timbers alike. I would be tempted to say that it could be a one-plane-for-every-occasion tool if it were not quite so heavy. Not heavy in the sense that it requires great strength, but rather heavy in the sense it feels like a #5-1/2 verses a #5. I am so impressed that I am going to get its smaller sibling, the LA smoother, in the near future.

I have not tried the LN LA Jack, but have used the LN LA smoother, which I thought was equally wonderful. The LN and LV are probably very close in performance, and I would snatch up the LN if it was going for a good price.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: Low Angle Jack...useful?

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>"Ha, I'm the Swiss army plane guy here - to the rescue!! (Old insider joke - a search for swiss army plane should turn up the thread if you're interested...(snip)..... it's not likely that I'll buy two jacks before I get a smoother, jointer or rabbet plane."

Heh????? Whazzup? More planes?????....comon'...A smoother AND and a jointer???? What gives? Beware, once you take that first step.......the slope gets werry werry slippery..__and steep

\

\

|

|

| Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!

Re: Low Angle Jack...useful?

Greg Sloop

>Jon - you get off stirring the pot? I'd thought you'd know to leave well enough alone...

I was going to lay off the "dimensioned pine bookshelves" refrain but perhaps I'll reconsider...

Further, when one says ...

I hear the mouth is a bit farther back which makes it easier to use on small pieces and many really like the feel. I've not used one, but I'd like to try one. But, it's not likely that I'll buy two jacks before I get a smoother, jointer or rabbet plane.

Notice it is ... "smoother, jointer *or* rabbet" *not* smoother, jointer AND rabbet... one of three, not all three.

That doesn't mean I'm ever gonna get a jointer, smoother or rabbet - though I've made it clear that these planes are on my wish list in earlier posts.

Never mind they'll almost certainly be LABU (low angle bevel up) which you constantly seem to miss and construe to be an argument for a single plane when the real argument/discussion is one of bevel down vs. bevel up design. The key thrust of my position is that LABU is a much more versitile design feature and allows a plane, any plane, to fill a wider array of tasks - not withstanding the "it was good enough for my daddy" arguments or those of yours about edge retention et al. that Lyn shredded long ago.

The real question here is...will the lack of any of these three rise to a high enough need priority to overcome my desire for other things - like a router lift and new router etc. I doubt it will anytime soon, and certainly I won't be getting two jacks before I fulfill some of the other needs.

Anyway... Here's to missing the point.

Cheers,

Greg

PS. Some of us view our tools in a bit more utilitarian light. We don't gush over the rare Stanley #1 or Spires infill that just sold on ebay for a gazillion dollars - not that it's a problem that you and I'm sure others do. But I'd like to be respected in my view of tools as, well, tools.

I'd like to spend as little as possible in obtaining them, along with having to "fiddle" as little as possible in getting them to work.

Finding tools that do as wide an array of tasks as possible isn't a crack addled brain sort of pursuit - at least IMHO. I'd rather have one #62 that works well and save the space than 42 Spires infills. I'm just not the kind of guy that wants to go out to the shop to caress my #8 jointer. I just want to make useful stuff with em.

Anyway, rant over...

Was meant to be....

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>.....a joke:-) Peace be with you.

Found this... *LINK*

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>...article by from PWW. It would seem that they tested it for 2+ years and found it to be a solid performer. Since I allready have a stable of planes, I've never tried buying extra blades for it, but the plane is well made and can be versatile if you do get the additional blades.


Low Angle Jack Plane PWW Article

No

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Thomas,

No, Not really useful. It works, but I couldn't call it useful for me. Its too long to be a good smoother, too short to be a good try plane, and much too expensive to be a good jack.

It really can't measure up to purpose built planes. That said, it performs well and maybe you won't mind switching blades and fiddling with it before your next operation.

Also, you don't have to have the best to have an enjoyable woodworking experience. You don't need the best to make nice stuff.

My recommendation is to purchase second hand Stanley #4, #5, and a #7 or #8. These shouldn't set you back more than $50 or so (total). Wooden versions may need a little more tuning but they are also good alternatives and similarly cheap.

Good luck

Adam

yes

Jack Guzman from Maine

>I use mine to plane dovetail corners,as a shooting board plane,to bevel the end grain edge of panels and anywhere else a low angle plane is called for (larger than a block plane can handle). It is one of my most used planes.---Jack

Re: Low Angle Jack...useful?

Chad Boehlke

>I have good luck with a old fashion cheap jack plane on cross grain. I would sharpen the blade first be for every cut. Low angles are all right, but I will use my 5.00 jack plane and plane down to the line and finish up with sanding.