Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge
Whose make of shoulder plane
arw01
>My recent bench build and shown me the value and merit of a shoulder plane.
However, I cannot decide which maker, I've only handled the Stanley 92.
Clifton, Veritas, and Lie-Nielson are all within a stones throw of each other..
Any realy word experience..
Alan
Re: Whose make of shoulder plane
Bruce, a MN Galoot
>I don't have a lot of experience with a variety of shoulder planes. However, the Veritas medium has been a godsend for the kind of work I do. Fit, finish, feel, the whole shebang are great. Any problems, and you've got the best customer service department in woodworkingdom behind the product.
No connection, just a highly satisfied customer.
Bruce
Re: Whose make of shoulder plane
David Hay @ Denver
>I have the Clifton 410, which I bought several years ago. It's been quite handy in a lot of situations and I like it pretty well. However, that being said, I think if I was in the market today for a shoulder plane, I'd be looking at one of the Lee Valley planes.
David
Re: Whose make of shoulder plane
Jim in Burlington On
>I've used LN's but decided to buy LV's they are alot easier to get a grip on IMO. Never been anything but very happy with all 3 that LV make.
Re: Whose make of shoulder plane
Joe Rogers, Northern Virginia
>Got three. L-N large,LV medium and the Clifton 3110. Over all the LV is the most comfortable, but all do different things. I am not disapointed in any WRT quality. Got the Clifton first because of the versility and plan to use it mostly as a bullnose now that the other two have arrived. JR
Re: Whose make of shoulder plane
Gary Miller
>I've got the LV medium, and for a large shoulder I bought the Gordon 1.25" shoulder. I am very pleased w/ both of them. The Gordon's high angle and different grip w/ less weight than the LV large comes in very handy on tenon cheeks.
Gary
Re: Whose make of shoulder plane
arw01
>Good responses so far, I had forgotten that the LV and perhaps the LN cannot be used as a bullnose, which WOULD he handy sometimes.
Alan
They've been making them for 104 years now so . .
Ed Snow
>If a product has been in production unchanged for 104 years they ought to be pretty good. Well, that is exactly waht stanley has been doing.
The stanley 93 is still the cats meow in my opinion. I have used the lee valley, the record, the lie nielsen large, and the clifton. I like the 93 the best.
It is the cheapest and with a hock replacement iron it would be even better than it is with the stock iron. I still have the stock in mine and I think it is just fine.
Veritas
ydb1md
>I can't speak to the L-N or the Clifton but I can say that I love my Veritas large shoulder plane and I'm waiting for a reason to buy the medium. It's not as attractive as the L-Ns or the Cliftons but when you need to find a way to grip it, I can't imagine a more versatile shoulder plane. I've used it right handed, left handed, used it with one knob, two knobs and no knobs. It's about as versatile as versatile gets. Say what you will about a plane with a hole through the middle of it, it works! :)
I compared three shoulder planes ... *LINK*
Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)
>... in a review of the Veritas Medium. The other two were the Stanley #92 and the HNT Gordon 3/4".
The short answer is that the Veritas Medium is the superior plane, with the HNT Gordon coming in second. As much as I loved my Stanley #92, it was clear that it was only the third contender.
Link below.
Note that I also have the Stanley #93, and that this is essentially the same plane, with the same faults/virtues, as the #92. I also have a large 1 1/4" infill, and this is my favourite of all - just for its comfort, heft and simplicity.
Regards from Perth
Re: 104 years of lost opportunity for improvement
William Duffield, on the Cohansey
>I have to disagree. I've used the Stanley #93, and I hate it. It is the most uncomfortable serious shoulder plane I've ever used. New ones have very serious quality control problems, in that the noses often don't line up with the tails and the sides often are not perpendicular to the sole. The steel of the blades is inferior to either L-N's or LV's. Compared to the L-N and LV, the iron of the bodies is fatally flawed, as it is cast, not ductile. The same materials problems doom the Preston and Record large shoulder planes. (I don't know whether Clifton uses ductile iron for their castings.)
When I bought my L-N large shoulder plane, the LV did not yet exist. While I can find no fault with it, other than some easily fettled sharp edges, which L-N has since corrected, I have since tried the LV large shoulder plane. It is clearly superior, having enchanced functional, ergonomic and economic features.
I also have a LV bullnose shoulder plane. No other bullnose plane in the world comes close in functionality and economy to this plane.
I haven't used the L-N medium shoulder plane, and have very little experience with the LV, but by interpolation, I can guess that I would find either one completely competent. Again, the LV is less expensive, with additional features. It's one feature that I find gets in the way can easily be removed if it also gets in your way. Note that the LV MSP has a significantly narrower blade and sole than any of the others I have mentioned. For a few applications, that can be a significant advantage, but balancing on narrow shoulders is NOT a problem with the wider planes.
My vote is the LV medium shoulder plane.
Wendell @ Murphy, TX
>
Re: 104 years of lost opportunity for improvement
Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX
>I'd have to agree on new 93's, looked at a couple in a Woodcraft store, they were complete garbage, felt lousy just picking one up.
Pam
So has the competition....
Dave Thompson
>Following that line of thinking... don't forget the LN 073 is a clone of the Record 073 which is a clone of the Preston 1368. That design goes back at least a hundred years...
You're gonna get in trouble with that way of thinking if a pro-woodie chimes in.
No! buy the one I bought!
Dave Thompson
>Don't listen to them, I made the best choice, far superior to the rest..... buy the one I bought! ;-)
Frankly, I think there are alot of good one out there, and the differences are miniscule. We're talking tenon sizing as a primary use, right? ;-)
As mentioned above Preston, Record and LN (073,042, 041) are essentially the same design. Miniscule differences are Preston has got antinque cool factor and a cool logo, LN's got a beautiful bronze iron cap, and you can get it new. LN's also has got a mouth adjustor. LV's got a little dingle that you can wrap your finger around, and a hole to put it through if you like. Clifton and Record have one's you can turn into a chisel or bull nose, such that if you want the Shop Smith of shoulder planes you're set.
Why would he be in trouble?
HC Sakman
>Sir William..in trouble??? naaah!
Joking aside, metal and woodies are like apples and oranges to me. Completely different feel and user input, so I don't think there will be any trouble.
Chico...
OK, I need to follow the tread little more .......
HC Sakman
>...carefully because I am sounding like a moron!
So, Ed may be in trouble ... I don't know! ;-)
Chico....
Re: OK, I need to follow the tread little more ...
Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX
>Or, it would a hard tenet to hold if going up against an expert in an argument. Or, the person on the other side of this debate would blow you out of the water.
Pam
Re: Whose make of shoulder plane
mikew
>Hi Alan,
As Derek mentioned, my preference is for an infill:
As well I have the LN 1/2" infill shoulder plane. A pure joy to use on smaller work. The two compliment each other. These two are what I use 99% of the time.
But, that's not what you have really asked. While I like the feel and function of the LV shoulder planes, I prefer the classic style, fit and feel of the LN shoulder planes. But then, I have some Preston upon which they were based.
Take care, Mike
Nobody is in trouble.
Ed Snow
>We all have opinions. I personally find that I really like my #93 despite their manufacturing woes. I do not like the lee valley shoulder planes, I tried to use one for about two weeks when they were brand new, I found it uncomfortable and too tall. I tried the smaller clifton too, I liked it but it was too small for me also in the end too costly. The l-n large was too big for me, also too costly. The record 311 is also pretty nice if I could have found one for the money I had to spend I might have gotten on of those it fits in my hand as well as the #93.
I may not have performed a in depth side by side review of each but in turn I have used most of them on one project or another, one of the benefits of being a student, still?! I am happy with my purchase of my new #93 I put it off for way too long trying to make due with a hybrid infill of my own design. I am glad the #92 was out of stock and I recieved the larger #93 from highland hardware it fits better than I remember the #92 fitting in my hand.
Re: Nobody is in trouble.
Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX
>There's no trouble for liking the 93; but saying that the 93 is just fine because it's been around 104 years is not tenable and of little use.
Pam
Re: So has the competition....
paul womack
>LN 073 is a clone of the Record 073
Not quite; the overall shape is similar, but Thomas changed many details and (especially) materials.
BugBear
Ha! Wrong direction...
Dave Thompson
>You're gonna get in trouble with that way of thinking if a pro-woodie chimes in.
You're gonna get in trouble with that way of thinking (meaning: using the reasoning that because a plane design has been in production for 104 years it ought to be good) if a pro-woodie chimes in.
A pro-woodie, might say, my woodie shoulder rabbet design has been in production for ?2000+? years, so following that way of thinking it ought to be good.
I am certainly not a pro-woodie shoulder plane user. The point of the post was to say several current designs have been around for a long while, and length of production might not be the best determining factor for how good it works.
It's a clone for sake of this discussion
Dave Thompson
>Yes, I'm aware of many of the differences such as:
But consider the context of the discussion, the point being made and the likely use case, bringing up the difference obfuscates the point. If one were to pick at the term clone ;-), one might also point out the difference a Stanley 93 made 104 years ago versus today of which a few come to mind. Perhaps Ed has a 104 year old Stanley, and that's what he was refrencing off of.
Good on you Ed
Dave Thompson
>I've heard so many discouraging opinions over the years about the #93, that it's refreshing to hear someone speak up with a different opinion.
OT: Haven't seen your posts in a while Ed, though that's likely my fault. Didn't you once make a flaming purple woodie, and a 2"x4" chair on the pond?