LV Cabinet Makers Trim Plane vs. LN Chisel Plane

[Maurice Ungaro]

Pulled the trigger, just under the wire for reduced price ($109, shipped). I like to use plugs and dowells, so this will be interesting to test out. If I see no real advantage over chisels, block planes, etc., then I'm sure I can always find a Creeker to take it off my hands a reasonable price. Heck, I'd even be willing to loan it out as we've been known to do.

[Karl Fife]

I just bought both. I'll let you know which I decide to keep, and why.

Just some preliminary observations/comparisons:
The LN is bedded at a lower angle (12 deg) versus the LV which is bedded at 15 degrees. Lower is probably better for this application IMO.
The LN uses A2 steel versus the LV which comes in O1 only. No A2 is available, neither PM-V11 from LV.
The LN comes with a 25 degree primary bevel, (recommended 30 degree honing). The LV is a bit unusual, with a 20 (twenty) degree primary bevel. Presumably you'll hone at 25. Grinding at 20 is not a big deal, but if you grind everything else at 25, it's inconvenient, and requires a few special setups. That puts the included angle at 40 for the LV, vs 42 for the LN. Presumably you could also grind the LN at 20 (hone at 25), making the effective included angle 37.

Like I said. I'll use both and report back.

[Bill Rhodus]

My wife gave me the Wood River chisel plane as a present and while I do not think it compares well to LN or LV, it has shown me that I would rather use a chisel than own one of these planes (anyone's). I will be selling this one at some point.

[David Weaver]

I think that's the case with most chisel planes. Someone pops up and talks about how much they like chisel planes every once in a very great while, but most of them get sold with very little wear. The volume that stanley was able to sell (not many) should also warn prospective purchasers about actual utility.

[Jussi Auvinen]

User comfort is a very personal thing. I had the DX60 veritas block, it did not fit my hand at all. Even tho it looked like a very comfortable tool to use, it was not. Atleast in my hands.

I bought the LN 60 1/2 and it fits in my hand like a glove and I have to say the machining is better on the LN.

[paul cottingham]

I have used the LN version, and frankly didn't care for it. I have briefly played with the LV chisel plane and found it easier to use from the point of view of ergonomics and comfort. I also like the fact that the LV seemed smaller and easier to control (tried them at different times.) If I were to buy one, I would probably buy the LV one.

[Tony Zaffuto]

I have had a LN version for about 5 or 6 years. Didn't use it much at all, until I read something by a "talking head" how great it is. Gave it another shot and still thought chisels easier. As a last resort, sharpened the blade to tiny, thin blond hair popping sharp, took ultimate care in setting the blade and guess what, it worked! Problem is, it took (and will take) significant time investment to get performance equal to a sharp paring chisel.

There is a place for this tool, and that place is in cleaning inside corners (for example) of a glued up box. If you got any extra hundred and a quarter laying around, you might want to pop for it. For me, I wouldn't do it again as there are easier/quicker ways to do most of what this tool will do.

[David Weaver]

Patrick Leach said that it was originally marketed to cabinetmakers and piano makers. I can understand piano makers wants maybe a little better, because the inside of a piano needs to look better, especially if it's intended to be displayed, than does most inside cabinet work.

I almost bought one when I first started because I had a tendency toward the rare, unique and expensive. And it seemed like it would be the ideal tool for cleaning up a glue line. Thinking back on it, I can now envision that it might lift hard drops of glue and pull wood up with them.

[Jim Neeley]

David,

While agreeing that a chisel plane isn't on the essential tool list, I use mine for cleaning up glue lines althought they'd work for dowels as well.

For any who haven't had good results when using one, remember that it is set up differently from your other planes. Your goal is to set it so that the blade is precisely flush with the bottom of the plane. Too deep and it'll dig; too shallow and no cut.

The positive thing is that (like a router plane) it doesn't need frequent sharpening so once you get it set, leave well enough alone. :-)

[Karl Fife]

I think Bill and David are mostly right. You CAN often determine the success of a tool by looking at how popular it was--but not always. While manufacturers DO make things people need, I think it's far more accurate to say that they PRIMARILY make what people buy, and less so what's needed or useful. Sometimes those are the same thing. Sometimes not.

Yes, Stanley sold comparatively few #97 'dedicated' chisel planes (which is why they're ~$400 on ebay), but Stanley also sold more 'combination' chisel planes than you can shake a stick at! Look at the #75 and #90 bull-nose rabbets, (convertible to a chisel plane). Look also at the #92 shoulder plane. They decided to ALSO make it a chisel plane just in case you didn't already have enough chisel planes between your #90, #93, #94, #75, and #97 chisel planes. Obviously somebody somebody was using chisel planes. There's not a single one Stanley shoulder plane designs that isn't convertible.

As I became a better mountaineer over a period of decades, I began to notice that stuff sold at outfitter stores was not what I SHOULD carry into the wilderness, but was what I THOUGHT I should to carry into the wilderness when I was less experienced! :-) Now I notice that phenomenon all the time. It's mostly about what sells; less about what you need. With that in mind, don't sell yourself short.

While I DO agree that a chisel plane is not an essential piece of kit, neither is your third (or more) marking gauge, nor are any of your bench planes other than your jack plane. That said, if you know how to wield them, all of them can be extremely handy, and all of them can save time.

Now if you'll excuse me, TWO CHISEL PLANES JUST ARRIVED (pictured below). I'm going to go compare them to each other. One is from LN, the other from LV. I'll post my thoughts shortly.

[Winton Applegate]

My LN is precise and predictable enough I can cut a drop of candle wax off my table without touching the finish.
The table is very flat though; I wouldn't try this on a thin top antique.
The micro thin hint of the spot that is left I can just polish off with a dry rag.

[Tom Vanzant]

Karl, re: mountaineering/backpacking...a wise man once suggested that after a BP trek, empty your pack on the floor and look at what was NOT used. Don't take it next time. Another suggested putting your gear into three piles: 1) the things you are certain you will need, 2) the things you think you will need, and 3) the things that would be nice to have if you need them. Pack the first pile for your next trek and leave the others at home. Worked or me on the trail, works for me in the shop.

[Winton Applegate]

Leave them at home.

See now . . . I . . . and my friends . . . live in rather a different universe. I don't know why and how it intersects this weirdness that others seem to find viable. Well not weirdness though much of it scares the bidgesuzues out of me.

What you are not taking into account is what I will call the "Bwana Syndrome".
Or more accurately BWANA

You see there is this guy we back pack with. During the day, or week, he is a mild mannered PHD computer science professor. When the week end arrives he is some how transformed . . .

Into BWANA BORTON

Let me give you an example :
After three days into a backpack trip to visit a couple three fourteeners (for the low landers in the fold a fourteener is a mountain peak one "walks up" to the top of, sits down, takes out some little squirreled away treat and while munching said treat gazes out at the world from a point at or above 14,000 feet above sea level and goes "Cool dude" "Sweet !" and other profound utterances) . . .

Now Bwana . . . his idea of a squirreled away treat, that day at least, was a huge assed water mellon. Which he had hauled out of his back pack and was proceeding to cut up and distribute among the group (which for reasons I won't go into here is collectively known as The Bare Assed Construction Company) while they are all going "Cool dude" and "Sweet !".

He hauled that water mellon around for days in his frame pack along with all the food and fuel, water and housing for a week long back pack trip.

The Bwana Syndrome

[Karl Fife]

I do the same--excepting of course safety gear.
"Didn't need the repair kit... leave that behind next time" :-)

The benefit of being über minimalist when backpacking is hard to underestimate. By contrast, when we go Kayaking it's a different story. The marginal weight penalty is minimal, especially in the double kayak with its 20' long waterline. Therefore we bring EVERYTHING (by backpacking standards). You name it--ice cream packed in dry-ice, chairs, awnings, Champaigne, canned peaches in HEAVY syrup. It's great fun to have those luxuries in the wild (see BWANA BORTON above).

I don't adhere to the backpacking model in my workshop shop. I adhere more to the kayaking model. There's no payoff for being a strict ultra-minimalist. Even if you CAN do with less, some tools save time and bring great satisfaction. Personally that's my yardstick. If it's reasonable and useful, I say bring it along.

[Karl Fife]

So after considerable deliberation, I decided to keep the Lie-Nielsen chisel plane. The best way to summarize my opinion is that the Lie Nielsen plane is perhaps a slightly better tool (IMO), but if I had my druthers, I might prefer that it be made of ductile iron, not bronze. Further, I would say that I'm really splitting hairs here. They both work well enough to where I wouldn't fuss about having one vs. the other.

Better?
On paper the Veritas looked to be an easy winner. In practice, it has some elements which are indeed better, but overall I preferred *using* the Lie-Nielsen. An advantage of the Lie-Nielsen lies with the ease of positioning of the blade. This is ironic, because I thought the Veritas would be better in this regard due to the set-screws for lateral blade positioning and the clever design of the depth adjuster. In practice, I didn't find it to be better. Simpler turns out to be better. It’s not exactly obvious, but once you the hang of it, adjusting the blade on the Lie-Nielsen, couldn't be easier. Here’s why: the body of the plane and the blade are flush with each other (see picture), and as it turns out, you can exert a staggering amount of control of the blade position, just by “pinching” the point where blade-meets-body. Pinch hard, and rock your hand a bit, and you can move the blade by the teeniest-tiniest amount--and quickly. It’s more accurate than hammer-taps, and faster than fumbling around with a key wrench. By contrast, the Veritas tool buries the main part of the blade inside the body (see picture), so using hammer-taps is hard (because what will you swing at?), and the pinch-and-rock technique doesn't really work either. If you try to manipulate the blade by good old-fashioned ‘pushing and pulling’ with your fingertips, I think you’ll find it difficult to make a fine adjustments. If you instead manipulate the blade with set-screws, you may find that the guy using the other tool is already done, putting his plane away before you can find the key wrench. I’m exaggerating, but I think the truth is that the set screws will eliminate some need for lateral adjustment, but it won’t eliminate the need completely. Different applications require different (nuanced) settings, and post-sharpening, you'll need to adjust to the blade's new idiosyncrasies anyway. I find it simpler, faster and more instinctive to fine-tune the blade more-or-less on the fly.

Iron vs. Bronze?
I have a bronze smoothing plane, and am a fan of bronze. The weight of the bronze is welcome in this plane, but it may be more trouble than benefit. As you may know, bronze planes can leave a bit of oxide on the wood under some circumstances. Normally it’s 100% irrelevant because within a stroke or two, oxide is rubbed off the sole, and oxide marks (if any) are shaved away. It’s not quite irrelevant on a chisel plane because you don’t end up shaving away the wood that touches the sole. Therefore, it's more likely that you'll leave an oxide mark on your project if you don’t wax the sole.

Other thoughts:
LIKED:
I really like the blade advance mechanism on the Veritas. It has a thrust bearing mechanism which nearly eliminates pitching the blade left or right when advancing or retracting the depth of cut. It’s a no-compromise improvement.
DISLIKED:
I disliked that the lever cap screw on the Veritas is just an ordinary machine screw thread. By contrast, every Stanley (or Lie Nielsen) plane you’ve ever seen uses what I think is called a ‘low allowance’ thread. In practice, low allowance means the screw is a bit ‘tight’ even when it's not holding anyting. It won't turn unless turned with a screwdriver. That’s good. Essentially you can set the screw once and practically never touch it again. By contrast, the Veritas plane uses an ordinary screw thread. In practice, if you don’t do something like put blue thread lock compound on the screw, it will move when tension is removed such as when installing/removing the blade for sharpening. I find it annoying to fuss with things like that when there is a solution that is well-known, obvious, simple, and as old as dirt.
PREFERED:
I prefer the lower 12.5 degree bed on the Lie-Nielsen vs. the 15 on the Veritas. If the Veritas looks to be lower in the picture, it's an illusion. It's not a big difference, but every bit helps, and in this application, lower is better. To wit: In service of low angles, Veritas went to the trouble of grinding a *20* degree primary bevel on the blade instead of a normal 25. You may find this to be the only 20 degree grind in your shop. If you hone at 25 degrees, your included angle will be 40. I have a preference for the blade on the Lie-Nielsen which has a ‘normal’ 25 degree primary bevel. I can use my ‘normal’ 25 degree hollow grind setting on my 6” grinder. The hollow grind allows me to hone at a ‘strong 25' degrees, making the effective included angle at just under 38 degrees. Sure, you could change the grind on either tool to be like the other, but the Lie-Nielsen tool has a 2.5 degree head-start. That's good.

MISCELANY:
I have found it helpful to hone a very slight camber on the blade—far less than what you might do for a smoothing plane. In practice this means the corners of the blade won’t catch when you encounter a bit of natural variation in the surface (or if say, a housefly sneezes nearby). I find the tool works a lot better when the blade is crazy sharp--it's even more important than with other planes.

PARTING THOUGHTS:
By some metrics, this is a non-essential tool, but I'm surprised how frequently I reach for it. Just yesterday I used it to clean up remove some proud bits where a chisel handle would have prevented it from laying the chisel flat. I'd buy one of these again without question. I'd also say that I consider the inexpensive WoodRiver tool to be a bad "value". IMO getting the blade "just so" is the name of the game with a chisel plane. The fact that the 'small' WoodRiver doesn't have a depth adjust mechanism seems about as smart as square wheels. I have never tried any of the chisel plane designs that are a 'one piece' blade with some kind of top-mounted handle. After using these tools however, I understand why this is better. A tiny amount of camber would be impossible on a one-piece tool, and maintaining the bottom of the tool (half of your cutting edge) is much more of a chore on a one piece blade. With either of these tools, I can do a few seconds of David Charlesworth's "ruler trick" to create microscopic back-bevel, restoring an insanely sharp edge to one that's been worked to considerable deformation. That's a necessary evil with chisels, but not so with this style of chisel plane.

I hope this helps someone somewhere make a decision if you're considering one.