New LV LA smoother - Why?

Because....

Eric Hedberg

>Like Lyn detailed in the thread a day or so ago (somewhere below this post) there are significant differences between the two if.. you are hard core into smoothing large surfaces by hand. The original LA smoother as you noted is very versatile and covers many chores quite competently. For most of us, it is the prudent choice which is why it's on my shelf. The new smoother version is a luxury (for the infrequent panel smoother), but is one that is now on my wish list. Eric (Plus, as anyone on this board will note you can never have too many hand planes)

Re: New LV LA smoother - Why?

Frank Mutchler in Colorado Springs

>Hi, Denis. I've wondered the same thing and have concluded that the shorter overall length of the smoother combined with the shorter distance from the mouth to the toe allow the plane to reach into dips and hollows that the jack can't access.

Theoretically, we consider the surface to be flat after planing with a jack but, practically, we know it just isn't so. (There are not degrees of 'flatness'..something either is or is not flat; just as something can only be 'unique', not very unique or really unique!)

Those are my conclusions and they are based on subjective experience...many others on this forum may have empirical data that could very well contradict what I think and that's great. It's one way I learn....you know....open mouth & stick foot in!

Hope Rob doesn't mind...I've taken the liberty of posting a comparison image from the LV site.

Re: New LV LA smoother - Why?

Frank D. in Montreal

>Hi Denis,

AS Frank indicated, your question comes down to the difference between a jack and a smoother. 4" might not seem like much, but with planes it's a world of difference. Look at the Stanley numbering system: most planes only have about 2" difference in length between them and the next number.

You can smooth with a jack but a real smoother excels for the reasons Frank gave. I think you made an excellent choice for an all-around plane if you only want to own one or two (the other being a block plane).

�claircissement !

CONGER - The Irish diaspora in Munich

>Salut Denis!

I would like to point out one of the lingual subtlties that often escapes the beginner (or at least it did me!).

The smoother is just that (it makes a 'smooooth' surface that may or may not be FLAT), and not a FLATTENER... that is the 'jointer'! That is one reason why smoothers are generally shorter than jointers.

Est-ce que tu me comprends?

-g- - who will be visiting Langevin & Forest in August - thanks for the tip!

Re: �claircissement !

Frank D. in Montreal

>Hi Conger, ton fran�ais est exc�llent! If you have some spare time and want a free beer, don't hesitate to drop me a line. If I'm in town it would be my pleasure to give you a little shop tour! (just drop me an Email)

Frank

And all this time

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>I thought �claircissement had something to do with those tasty little chocolate-covered things that I should stay away from.

Actually I thought...

CONGER - The Irish diaspora in Munich

>... it was an addiction to the tooth-rotting sweets of my youth.

;-))

Oui, je comprends, mais...

Denis Ch�nard, Orl�ans, Ont.

>What's the point of smoothing a surface that's not flat?...

Have fun at L&F... If you happen to stop by Ottawa, give me a shout and we'll go to Lee Valley...

DC

Re: Oui, je comprends, mais...

CONGER - The Irish diaspora in Munich

>Smoothing just makes the surface (mostly visible faces) smooth... and well, 'pretty'. Flat is really only required when surfaces meet, like when wood is 'jointed'. Best is of course flat and smooth!

I am planning to be in Ottawa... and even at the core of the Canadian WW mecca... and may even 'bob' in to meet the 'man' himself!

-g-

Re: Oui, je comprends, mais...

Jim in Burlington Ontario

>When your handplaning large surfaces it's very hard to get anything "flat" there's always little peaks and valleys. Personally in my mind it's so subjective because when your smoothing larger surfaces it's impossible for me to achieve a full thin shaving with longer planes. The further you have to reach over the harder it gets. So my vote goes to a shorter plane for final surfacing.

???

Denis Ch�nard, Ottawa, Ont.

>

Unconvincing Arguments

George Bustamante

>Okay, I will be the spoiler - the new plane may be better, but I do not buy the shorter length argument.

I think that longer is generally better than shorter. The argument about shorter planes "reaching in the valleys" really does not make much sense. David Charlesworth's made the observation in one of his videos that some master cabinet makers only used a number 7 unless the work was so short.

George Bustamante

Re: Unconvincing Arguments

William Duffield, on the Cohansey

>I guess it depends a lot on how flat you keep your bench top, how much your stock moves between jointing and final smoothing, and how good you are at gluing up wide panels without untoward misalignment. I think it's a lot less headache and work to get the panels and table tops smooth if you don't have to worry about flat at the same time.

Re: Unconvincing Arguments

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>I tend to agree, as long as you're willing to go to the extra work to get it as flat as required to also get it all smooth.

Think of it this way. You're smoothing that gnarly QS Lacewood panel, and let the iron get a bit too dull. In a stupid-is-me moment, you create some more serious tear out on a final pass on one corner of the panel.

With a short smoother you can rework that area down and remove the tear out.

With a long plane, you basically get to take the whole panel down to the level where you can remove that tear out.

Either method usually works.

Myself, being lazy, I prefer using a shorter plane and getting the job done quicker.

But hey, it you like hand planing so much you'd prefer to take down the whole panel - well be my guest, Popeye!

Cheers,

Greg

Re: Unconvincing Arguments

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>That is exactly right, Greg. On a big/long board, one would have to take down a lot of wood with a jointer plane to remove localized tear-out around a knot, etc. (been there, done that, got the tee shirt)

I think, perhaps, that there can occasionally be some confusion of "smoothing" and "flattening". I could swear that, in some of these discussions, folks are talking past one another.

... or a scraper...

James Watriss

>You could just use a card scraper to take down a small area of tearout, if it's small enough to plane away.

Re: ... or a scraper...

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>Though, IMHO, the card scaper is a lot more work to remove anything more than a very small amount of material - which is the crux of the whole jack vs. smoother issue.

Further, if you plan to leave the wood natural, with a wax or oil, then it's probably going to look a bit worse with a CS than planed - at least in my exp. If you're using a durable finish, this generally isn't an issue.

A scraper is certainly cheaper, and a doable solution though. It would probably be less work than the jack, though more than a smoother.

Cheers,

Greg