LN miter plane

[David Weaver]

It's interesting that both of these high dollar shooting-only planes have come out in the last couple of years. I'll bet that in 50 years, they will be some of the least used planes on the used market. Unless they are literally sitting on a purpose made bench somewhere out of the way, cumbersome is the first word that comes to my mind.

[Zach Dillinger]

Far from making things up Derek. I have several hundred planes (no #4 though) and I use what I want to use on that particular day. This often includes the #9. I'm sure I'm not the only person. After all, think about vintage miter planes (which have existed for centuries). Do you think they were used (or only used) as shooting planes?

The #9 may just be a shooter to you. It isn't to me . Have you ever tried it for other tasks?

If I'm putting bevels on a long piece (not commonly done in my shop), I will usually use a chisel or a drawknife followed by a jointer plane. Never found a real need to make an actual coopers jointer. If I'm working on a small piece (more common in my work), I will do what I described above.

[Chris Griggs]

Hi Derek,

There are some who believe that historically miter/mitre planes were used for things other than miters, and that they may not have even been used for that?

Here is an interesting old Schwarz article I ran across on the subject that includes not only his personal experience but some historical discussion based on conversations he had with Joel Moskowitz. Seems to indicate that these may have simply been the BU planes of the 18th century, used similarly to how one would used a modern BU plane with a steep bevel angle to tame difficult timber.

http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/c...nes/miter1.asp

Perhaps this is old hat to most, but I found it really interesting, as I always thought of them as "only shooters" as well. I'd be curious to hear other folks thoughts on this as well.

[Zach Dillinger]

Agreed David. After all, how many vintage 51s do you see? And the ones you do see are usually in really good shape, indicating they weren't used all that much.

Guys can obviously buy and use whatever they want, however they want, but I don't think that anyone should be duped into thinking they are necessary, or that an excellent plane like the #9 is only good for shooting.

[Zach Dillinger]

Thanks for that Chris. I'm sure I've read that before. I'm not usually much of a Schwarzite (you can have my "spare" tools when you pry them from my dead hands) but it is nice to have support on the versatility of the #9.

[Chris Hachet]

Hi Jim

I have done a little work in this area.

Here is a review of the LN #51 (compared with the Stanley #51): http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRev...tingPlane.html

And a comparison of the LN #51, LN #9, and LV LAJ on both flat and ramped shooting boards: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Furnitu...sCompared.html

If you hang around a short while, I will have a review of the new Veritas/LV shooting plane shortly, hopefully this coming week.

Hotdogs are available here: (by hand) http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMad...LV%20LAJ1.html

... and here (with machine): http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMad...ck%20pics.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

One of your better reviews, Derek. I have been thinking that if I splurged on one really expensive plane at some point I would get an infill plane or the LN #51. At first I was thinking of infill, but I am leaning towards (eventually, next year or year after) getting a 51.

[David Weaver]

I remember when the 9s were fairly new, so was (to woodworking). For whatever reason, I had the notion back then that I would be shooting this and shooting that and shooting everything all over the place.

And that a bench plane wasn't very good at it.

Neither of those have really been too true. Maybe if I did more miters.

I have trimmed the top of every door panel for my kitchen cabinet doors (solid 3/4" thick) before (look away...look away!!) putting the panels on the router table to cut the RP profile on them, and I have to admit that I MUCH prefer a #4 or a continental smoother for that work to something heavy and expensive. Mark a line, put it in a vise, plane to the line. Blam. The faster the better. Those are all things that I would've done long ago with a low angle plane and methodically, etc. It seems that a very large part of the work is that kind of work (which is still plenty accurate) and a lot less of the NASA stuff.

I don't know...maybe I'm just being a little critical because I'm crabby today. Or every day. I got all of my money back out of the LN 9 and then a few bucks more, it's not like the experience hurt me any.

[Derek Cohen]

On one hand I am just teasing Zac. On the other there is an interesting phenomenon that the #9 might easily represent.

When starting out with hand planes, many use a few to do several tasks (possibly because there is a financial limitation, or simply because they want the biggest bang-for-the-buck). There are planes that excel in this regard. Perhaps one of the most popular is the LA Jack, either LV or LN, which can perform with the best as a jack, smoother, short jointer, shooting plane ... Indeed, when I reviewed the LV Jack Rabbet Plane I referred to it as the greatest alrounder available: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRev...bbetPlane.html

As time goes on, we build a collection of planes. In part this is because it becomes more convenient to own planes to do each task since the effort of converting a plane can become frustrating. One example of this is a plane dedicated to drawer bottoms (rather than a plough plane). A complex moulding plane instead of numerous hollows and rounds. And a plane dedicated for shooting.

Then we see the emergence of "anarchist" writings, which encourage woodworkers to reduce the number of tools to the essentials, such as using a tool for several purposes, which is not the same as a combination tool. For example, a jointer is also used for shooting. Many automatically reduce the number of tools they use (... but not necessary the number they own) as they become more proficient in their use.

Can a #9 be used for several purposes? Of course it can. Should we consider this to be a reflection of its true purpose? No ... because few may want to use it that way, preferring it to be a specialist plane.

So where does that place "specialist" planes such as a #51? Right where one wants them to be. No right or wrong.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

Crabbiness again today - i'd place the 51 and the new plane from LV as gentleman's planes. Planes driven by what the local music store describes as the corner office customer (he sells banjos and guitars, though, and complains that the customers for the best stuff are the worst players, or people who don't play at all).

That $350-$500 would be better held back as opportunity money for when someone runs across a good half set of hollows and rounds, as that is something that has great potential in improving the looks of even simple work. Hand cut simple mouldings to cover joinery.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Derek,

There are some who believe that historically miter/mitre planes were used for things other than miters, and that they may not have even been used for that?

Here is an interesting old Schwarz article I ran across on the subject that includes not only his personal experience but some historical discussion based on conversations he had with Joel Moskowitz. Seems to indicate that these may have simply been the BU planes of the 18th century, used similarly to how one would used a modern BU plane with a steep bevel angle to tame difficult timber.

http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/c...nes/miter1.asp

Perhaps this is old hat to most, but I found it really interesting, as I always thought of them as "only shooters" as well. I'd be curious to hear other folks thoughts on this as well.

Hi Chris

That article was written in 2007. It is interesting that Chris S concluded that he was not about to give up on his bench planes. Note that some of the "mitre" planes he referred to were clearly not intended for shooting but for smoothing ...

"The so-called improved miter planes were an advancement among English planemakers. The front infill was replaced by a more shapely bun. And various makers, such as Spiers of Ayr, experimented with different ways of making the rear infill more comfortable to grasp. Ultimately, however, these advances would be eclipsed by the popularity of planes with rear totes. This plane could be used for actually shooting miters, which it does quite well, once you figure out a grip on the sidewall and lever cap."

What is also interesting is that, Chris S purchased a #51 about the same time as I did, which was pre-anarchist writings. I have not seen any sign of his selling this plane (along with the "extras" he sold). This is something of a return to the days of 2007, recognising that a specialised shooting plane has a place in the shop.

Who buys a #9 for use as a smoother today? Who buys a #9 as a combination plane?

I think not.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Zach Dillinger]

I know we are teasing, no big deal. I certainly didn't buy my #9 to use as a smoother, I bought it to "shoot end grain", but mostly to make myself feel better about not being able to afford what I really wanted, an infill miter plane (which isn't a shooting plane). It has been a happy surprise that it is so useful on many other things. The original post was discussing the versatility of the 9. I said it was far more versatile than the 51. That is the whole point of what I have written. I don't own a 51 and have no need to do so. My #9 and my shop-built low-angle wooden plane work exceedingly well for many things. I use both for many tasks.

I would say a miter plane's "true purpose" is defined by its historical usage. There is historical evidence for the miter plane as a face grain plane. I am unaware of any such evidence for its use as a shooting plane. Just because it is sold as a shooting plane doesn't mean it is only that, or that it is that at all (see the confusion about the Stanley 40 "scrub plane"). Many tools suffer under this (bevel edge chisels as cabinetmakers chisels when the historical evidence points the other way is another such example).

People should try things and not just buy based on the words of two guys on the internet.

Really, this whole discussion is pointless and I am sorry I got involved. Many things will do the job. Some take less skill / effort than others, but people should do what they like. I like my #9 for lots of things. I'm not wrong, you're not wrong, its all good.

[Chris Griggs]

Hi Chris

That article was written in 2007. It is interesting that Chris S concluded that he was not about to give up on his bench planes. Note that some of the "mitre" planes he referred to were clearly not intended for shooting but for smoothing ...

"The so-called improved miter planes were an advancement among English planemakers. The front infill was replaced by a more shapely bun. And various makers, such as Spiers of Ayr, experimented with different ways of making the rear infill more comfortable to grasp. Ultimately, however, these advances would be eclipsed by the popularity of planes with rear totes. This plane could be used for actually shooting miters, which it does quite well, once you figure out a grip on the sidewall and lever cap."

What is also interesting is that, Chris S purchased a #51 about the same time as I did, which was pre-anarchist writings. I have not seen any sign of his selling this plane (along with the "extras" he sold). This is something of a return to the days of 2007, recognising that a specialised shooting plane has a place in the shop.

Who buys a #9 for use as a smoother today? Who buys a #9 as a combination plane?

I think not.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Yeah, no disagreement from me on any of your points. I don't think anyone would buy a no. 9 with any other primary intention than to use it as a shooter, and I think a dedicated shooter is a lovely thing (its 90% of what my LA jack is used for).

I guess I was just trying to point out that the fact that it can be used comfortably for other tasks, may be a selling point. I guess I sorta like tools that are specialized and really good at one or two tasks, but that can still be used for other things. That's why I've always been enamored with the no. 9 (even though I personally chose to go with an LA Jack)...it (the no. 9) is super specialized, but not quite 100% specialized, if that makes sense.

On paper the fact that the ability to use it for other things may be a selling point seems kinda trivial...I mean why use something so optimized for shooting, for something other than that when you have other tools better suited for other jobs? But in practice for me its different. Even though I can easily walk across the room and grab another tool, sometimes laziness and a cluttered bench means that I'd rather just use the tool thats out - for that reason, in spite of the fact that I bought it for the sole purpose of shooting, LA Jack gets used for fair bit of other things even though I generally like BD planes for those other things better...if its out and can do the job well enough, its what I'll grab (yeah, I know not an apples to apples comparison with the No. 9 obviously, just an example from my own shop)

Don't know if any of that makes sense. I'm not trying to debate anyone or tell anyone they should buy one plane or the other. Mostly I just find miter and other shooting planes to be cool and interesting tools. I'm just trying to explain the appeal that something like the no. 9 might have over something like the 51. Like I said, I don't own either anyway and my shooter is an LV LA Jack, so you know, grain of salt and all...just kinda thinking out loud here. Finding this discussion quite interesting. As you point out in your comparison all 3 of the aforementioned planes are pretty sweet shooters...I can't imagine anyone would find any of them lacking in any way. Definitely looking forward to the expanded comparison to include the new shooter from LV - always fun to see nice tools in action

(Yeah, I've noticed that CS doesn't mentioned the 51 in writing on tool anarchy...seems to be his dirty little, not so secret, secret )

[David Keller NC]

Just to add to the vote count: My perspective is someone that has no interest in minimizing the number of tools owned, nor the number of tools in routine use in the shop. With regard to the #9, mine is a L-N of approximately yr 2000 vintage, and is drilled and tapped for the side handle. However, I use it as a dedicated right-hand shooting plane with the hotdog. My reasoning is fairly simple: I rough-saw almost all of my drawer stock to length with a hand-saw, and while it is possible to dovetail the parts of a drawer together from this rough-sawn state, I don't prefer it, as it makes the necessary markings for the dovetail saw difficult to see. For that reason, I shoot almost all of the rough-sawn boards to exact length with my #9, and in the process render a perfectly square and rectilinear end. The reason I don't use the #9 for face or side grain planning is that I've set up my #9 very, very precisely - that includes going through a few #9 blades until I found one that could be sharpened sufficiently to yield end-grain shavings in most woods, and still not chip or nick the edge. It also includes setting the cap iron and blade to a very precise blade projection and blade side-to-side alignment and leaving it be so that it's instantly ready to shoot an edge. I have owned and used a lot of so-called "miter planes" in the past, from wooden shoot-board planes, to British infills (both antique and modern), to the original Stanley #51. The L-N #9 is by far my preference (especially compared to a bench-plane, whether bevel-up or bevel-down).

[Pedro Reyes]

Derek,

As always, awesome reviews, I was surprised to see (somewhat), that the LN51 did better than the LV LA. I calculated the LN effective angle (assuming 45 pitch and 20 skew) and it is still higher than the 37 degrees on the LV tool (my calculation came at around 43).

So it brings me back to an area that as an engineer it bothers me, which is skew has an effect (positive) on results, beyond just lowering the effective angle. Based on that the upcoming LV version of the 51 should perform beautifully, it would be close to 35 degrees, and skewed... please let us know when the revirew is ready.

On another note, I empathize with David W.'s approach, and in practicality, it is often true (e.g. if I already have my 5-1/2 out and I need to shoot one end, I won't go searching for my 62). But on the other hand, this desire to have pretty tools is often justified by convincing myself to only use the tools as they were designed (e.g. I could cut a groove with my router plane, but better to use my Record 50) not because I can't do it with the 71, but because some planes are just set up and optimized for certain tasks.

I don't yet own a dedicated shooter, I have a 62, but before that all shooting was done with a 5-1/2 or a 7.

peace

/p

[David Weaver]

Despite my griping lately, there is one thing that's true, and I'll use the farmers where I grew up as an example (of you get to make the decision and you should do whatever you feel like doing). When you're farming, everything you do is immediately apparent and subject to ridicule - how expensive your equipment, what buildings you build, how straight your rows are, how good the stand is (i.e., how even, large, straight, healthy the plants are), how many weeds, etc.

Everyone always has suggestions for everyone else and some folks have an open ear to find out how they can have straight rows, fewer weeds, get by with less $$ in equipment...but there are also plenty of folks who say "my fields, my equipment, my farm, my money, my crops.....my decision".

Certainly nothing wrong with that.