This LN#3 Has to go back

Re: This LN#3 Has to go back

Arw01

>Lie Nielson will exchange your plane, no doubt about that. Sounds like one made it out under quality control radar. There is a great deal of hand work on the planes according to Rob Cosman, and the article in a recent WW magazine.

Very likely a casting shifted when pored.

Alan

Re: This LN#3 Has to go back

Steve Kubien

>I'm sure they'll replace it with no hassles. Sounds to me like you got the "one in a million" (or thereabouts). LN's reputation is too good for this to be a common occurence.

Steve Kubien

Ajax, Ontario

Re: This LN#3 Has to go back

Jim in Burlington On

>They used to say that bronze is not guaranteed to be square. I have a couple of bronze block planes and you can see how they are not uniform. They'll replace it with no questions asked.

they will replace it without question...

john jesseph

>I had the same issue with the blatant sidewall thickness discrepency on a #7 that I got from them. I returned it and they promptly replaced it. I like LN planes, but they aren't perfect. I have a bit of an issue with a couple other planes of theirs that I own.

I'm considering selling them all off and going all-woodie...

Re: they will replace it without question...

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>The LN/LV specialty and block planes are of good use, even in a basically woodie shop.

Pam

prioritizing...

john jesseph

>My adjustable mouth low angle block and low angle jack would be the last to go, for sure.

Re: Maybe the square needs to go back

Dean in Burlington

>Judy,

Bronze is a problem. Rob Cosman told me once that he never recomends or buys bronze because they can't make it as accurate as iron. It just looks pretty.

I would also make sure you check the precision of your LV double square. I have already returned one of these because it was off when checked with a Starret. Don't assume the square is perfect.

Like everyone else said LN is just like LV for returns. They will take it back no problem. The most important thing for these 2 companies is satisfied customers.

Dean.

A shooter?

Christopher Schwarz

>Judy,

As others have said, exchange the plane if it displeases you.

After I read your thread this morning I went to the shop and checked the sidewalls of my Lie-Nielsen bronze No. 3. To my eye, the sidewalls appear the same thickness. And my square (I confirmed its accuracy) shows that neither sidewall is 90° to the sole. Both sidewalls cant in a bit at the top.

But is this important? Not for me. I've never used my No. 3 on a shooting board. It's too short. Longer, heavier planes are easier to control on a shooting board during the cut. The No. 3 is designed as a small-scale smoother. Indeed, you could shoot small parts with it, and if that's your desired application then pack the plane up.

But I don't think the sidewall squareness is critical for this plane – or for other planes that never see a shooting board. (Amusingly, my scrub plane has perfectly square sidewalls.)

As to the Y-yoke issue: Does its position hinder blade adjustment? If it does, the plane must go back.

Hope this helps.

Chris

Manufacturing quality

jim reed @ Tallahassee

>is not easy. Making one high quality product is hard enough, but making thousands consistently and to very high standards is very difficult. When the less than standard product does manage to slip out, the manufacturer is pretty embarassed and more than happy to make it good. Returned defective products can be a great source for feedback and review.

LN does its best to maintain its high quality standards and I think you should give them a chance to show you what they can do. Good luck.

Re: they will replace it without question...

Steve Kubien

>Hi John,

That's basically what I've done. My iron planes are/were older Stanley's and after discovering Steve Knights planes, I haven't seen a reason to use my Stanley's. Oh sure, I've got a Veritas LA block plane but no other bench planes (although a bevel-up jack sure sounds sweet for shooting mitres and end grain).

Regards,

Steve Kubien

Ajax, Ontario

Re: Maybe the square needs to go back

Jim Brown

>They can't make bronze as accurate as iron or it "moves" over time?

I'm getting ready to buy a little bronze so I'm anxious for the clarification.

Re: Maybe the square needs to go back

Judy Gassett

>Lie-Niesen responds on Sunday.

Judy,

Good afternoon. We'd be happy to replace your No. 3 Bench Plane with one that you will be happier with. Please send your plane to POB 9 Warren ME 04864 with a brief note and your return address. No receipt is needed. We will choose another plane for you and have a shop manager double check it to be sure you will be happy with the replacement. We will also reimburse you the expense of shipping back your plane. Please let me know if you have any additional questions about the return.

Thank you

Members: Many thx for all your comments and consolation! This plane (bronze #3) is uncomfortable to hold--..I think I will go with a 4 1/2 iron smoother.. as I have a Millers Falls pre WWII "#9" (Stanley # 4)...which I learned from this board and a Footprint # 4 with corrugated sole.

That is very interesting about the qualities of bronze being mutable and hard to get square. The LV double marking square is right on in calling the LN out of square with the sole. I checked it with a PritzLaff combo sq handed down from great grandpa before WWII. I then checked both with a Union combination Square (also passed down through the family). All say the LN is out of square with the sole. That the Yoke is not midline does not affect adjustment of the plane iron.

LN responds on Sunday!

Judy Gassett

>Lie-Niesen responds on Sunday.

Judy,

Good afternoon. We'd be happy to replace your No. 3 Bench Plane with one that you will be happier with. Please send your plane to POB 9 Warren ME 04864 with a brief note and your return address. No receipt is needed. We will choose another plane for you and have a shop manager double check it to be sure you will be happy with the replacement. We will also reimburse you the expense of shipping back your plane. Please let me know if you have any additional questions about the return.

Thank you

Members: Many thx for all your comments and consolation! This plane (bronze #3) is uncomfortable to hold--..I think I will go with a 4 1/2 iron smoother.. as I have a Millers Falls pre WWII "#9" (Stanley # 4)...which I learned from this board and a Footprint # 4 with corrugated sole.

That is very interesting about the qualities of bronze being mutable and hard to get square. The LV double marking square is right on in calling the LN out of square with the sole. I checked it with a PritzLaff combo sq handed down from great grandpa before WWII. I then checked both with a Union combination Square (also passed down through the family). All say the LN is out of square with the sole. That the Yoke is not midline does not affect adjustment of the plane iron.

Also...

HC Sakman

>Proper set is needed for the cap iron, so the adjustment mechanism works well. (I don't know how much you know..it's easy to overlook, so I thought I mention it.)

Chico...

Re: This LN#3 Has to go back

HC Sakman

>Squareness of the sidewalls (of a #3 bench plane) is not that crucial unless they are grossly off square.

Chico...

Re: Maybe the square needs to go back

paul womack

>Don't assume the square is perfect.

Heh. Regardless of the accuracy of the square, if the 2 cheeks read differently, at least one of them must be wrong.

This would be true, even if you used a sliding bevel.

BugBear

Re: This LN#3 Has to go back

Todd Hughes

>This reminds me of the time I went to a big tool show with an older friend of mine that was an experanced wood worker and an advanced Stanley collector for years having many Mint examples of older planes. He had read about LN planes of course but had never seen one in the flesh so to speak so was curious to check the ones out that a fellow had there selling. I think he might have been a Factory rep. but am not certain, he certainly had a large line of planes out. Anyway after looking at them my friend was really shocked at their poor finish and told me he couldn't believe that these were the tools he had read so much hype about. Sure they might work OK but closer to the quality of a Shelton then an older Stanley he thought.....Have to admit about what I thought as well....Todd

excellent point

mike recchione

>Also - you don't need a Starrett or other precision square to check a square. Use a piece of wood whose edge is straight, and mark a line on the face with the square. Flip the square over and mark a second line on top of the first. If the lines are right on top of one another, the square is fine. If they're not, it's off.

LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

Dean Lapinel

>Wow Todd,

Owning both vintage bedrocks and plenty of LN planes I love them both but I certainly don't think the fit and finish is inferior to the older stanleys.

This makes me curious however, and (having an open mind) I was hoping you'd ask your friend specifically what he didn't like so I can look at my set again.

Dean

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

Todd Hughes

>Specificaly that LN planes were painted with what looked to be regular spray type paint instead of being jappaned and also the handles were a generic hard wood. Tradtionaly both signs of a lower quality and poorly finished bargin priced plane. I believe that now LN offers a type of rosewood as a higher priced option.The castings seem to me to be rougher then an old Stanley but to give LN the benifit of the doubt this may just the LN poor finish though my friend was convinced it was from thier castings process and he had done some pattern making as a young man so he might be right.I think the large part of people getting all excited over LN is because of thier limited exposer to older mint condition Stanleys and other planes, instead the compare a new condition LN to a rusted well used no.5 Stanley they found in a bucket at the flea market, so of course the LN will appear to be the nicer made plane.My friend [and me] knows what an old Stanley looked like when new so the LN shortcomings over the tools they ape are more apparent.This is not just with modern plane copies. I was at a gun builders show befor where a guy had a double flint shotgun he had made. People were all excited over it and it was sort of a nice looking gun I guess.When I told him I had an original he asked if i could bring it in so he could take a photo of his next to it. Next day I brought in my original excellent condition Double Flint Manton and his gun looked like a boat oar next to it. Wisely he never did take that photo!

Please notice I am not talking about how a LN plane performs , by all accounts they perform very well, which is of no surprise with such a simple tool like a plane. Instead I am only talking about thier finish and apperance when compared to what old Stanleys looked like when in a simular condition ....Todd

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

>THe LN planes used to be painted but are now pwder coated which I believe is more durable then jappanning.

Also, the addition of 1/8" thick blades and thicker (0.140" for the 4 1/2) plus the heavier chip breaker makes the plane perform better then my old Bedrock's and SPier's. However, mynostalgic planes do have a place in my shop and get used regularly. They just don't leave the finish my LN leaves on changing grains and more complex woods.

Dan Clermont

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

paul womack

>The castings seem to me to be rougher then an old Stanley

That japanning would cover pretty much anything - perhaps that's part of the reason for using it!

BugBear

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>I don't know about the early LN's; but the standard wood used on them for the last 4 or 5 years is cherry, not no name. Rosewood is still an option.

Pam

Re: LN planes-inferior to old stanley?

Todd Stock

>I've never had an issue with the cherry handles, and prefer them to rosewood in terms of comfort (mostly shape, but the older lightly finished cherry handles are my favorite). The Stanley handles were pretty much utility grade rosewood anyway, so other than that warm feeling that comes from owning pre-CITEs ban wood, I don't see LN's use of local materials as inherently lower in quality.

Most guitar makers have finally gotten over this sort of unhealthy fascination with scarce exotics and now recognize that just about any domestic hardwood can make an excellent instrument. There are still folks willing to pay $1000 for a back/side set of Brazilian Rosewood, but few think that the guitar made with that wood will necessarily sound 'better' than instruments made with other woods.

As to japanning, I doubt it's more durable than modern surface coatings. Def what I'd use in a restoration of a tool originally finished that way, but not a better choice unless you are truly executing a slavish copy - warts and all. I'm reasonable certain that LN or LV could replicate the old Stanleys, but then we'd have to put up with the shortcomings of these tools.