Apart from the Sacrilege

[Kees Heiden]

Well, mr. Schwarz's investigation method is a bit dubious, but the question still remains. Are the new LN and LV planes really better then the vintage planes? And in what respect are they better?

I can't compare, because I don't have new benchplanes. But I have another example. I like to use both my Stanley #4 and my wooden coffin plane. The Stanley is certainly easier to use, quicker to adjust, not warping over the year, quicker to sharpen with its thinner blade. But the woody is lighter, has less friction, feels better in the hand. All in all, when the going gets tough, I tend to reach for the Stanley. Both are as perfectly tuned as possible for me.

At the other hand, I have a Chinese Quengsheng blockplane and a Stanley #18. Both are prefectly allright and I have no favorite.

[Brian Holcombe]

You're certainly in the mood to stir the pot.

I have little basis for comparison, because I only own LN planes. That being said one of the woodworkers nearest to me (in proximity), who is also my reliable source of information outside of SMC, owns vintage planes, wooden planes and LV planes. I know from speaking with him that he considers his LV planes among his favorites.

[Joe Bailey]

This much is clear -- no one (much less Mr S.) with the most basic understanding of survey methodology would claim that Mr Schwarz's students represent an adequate sampling population.
Notice he takes pains to call it simply "an observation."

And at the end of the day, that is all that it is -- one man reporting what he has seen while teaching the craft to relative or absolute newcomers.

[David Weaver]

(interchange LN and LV as necessary, except where chipbreaker comes up)

If you set it up as a parameterized thing, I'd grade it as follows:
* flatter - LN (flatter is good)
* easier to grind (stock stanley) - easier is good
* longer edge holding - LN - longer is good
* easier to sharpen - depends on the stones, they are the same with really aggressive stones. With anything else, the stanleys are easier to sharpen
* heavier - LN - heavier than stock stanley, to me, is not good. Lighter than stock stanley can also be not good
* prettier - that's an opinion. I think a clean stanley plane looks nicer (one with good rosewood), I think the cherry on LNs looks cheap and their choice of knurling on the knob looks cheap. Otherwise the LNs are pretty attractive - they looked nice with cocobolo
* cap iron design - stanley is better. It might be cheaper to make but it's still a better design. LN had some trouble even figuring out where to locate the holes so you could use them
* adjusters - stanley more coarse, LN more fine. Probably beginners will prefer the LN fineness, but someone who isn't a beginner won't care. The whole backlash argument doesn't amount to anything in real time at the bench, and the biggest offenders are probably the millers falls planes with the stamped yokes - I still like them

The balance of "quality" measures would point toward the LNs. You can drop them, the tolerances are tighter, they're generally newer and they haven't had an era where they made "cheap ones"

The modern irons on LN planes are definitely harder, and if taking a million 1 thousandth shavings is your objective, the hardness and wear resistance probably points toward them being preferable.

If, however, you're dimensioning wood from rough where the bulk of shavings will be heavy, a super hard iron really isn't any advantage. It makes the plane a bit more of a nuisance to grind and sharpen, especially if it's harder and thicker at the same time.

Harder on a smoother is a nice quality, though, but it doesn't amount to a lot if the balance of sharpening time vs. planing isn't any better (it's similar between a stock stanley and an LN if you sharpen them the right way, though it might lean just a bit in favor of LN if you hone a smoother with two diamond grits).

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why LN thinks that their new chipbreaker design is improved. It is not better at breaking chips, and it has lost most of that lovely spring that the hump on a stanley chipbreaker provides under lever cap tension.

I liked LNs better when I was a beginner (doing mostly smoothing), they're new, clean, you haven't figured out how to correct anything with stanley type planes that come used, etc. I like using stanley planes better now for a whole host of reasons, but still understand why beginners would like LN planes. They (beginners) have no concept of what they'll be doing as woodworkers, especially if they choose to go totally hand planes, it's easy to admire attributes that don't amount to anything when you don't know why they would or wouldn't be important. For some reason, and I think it's one of the things that you don't necessarily need to parameterized, over time, despite having a shelf full of LN and LV planes, I gravitated back toward the stanley planes to actually do work. And once I did that, I went to oilstones and natural stuff (like the jasper), and find that more satisfying, too. I'm sure I can get work done faster now than I did before I gravitated toward stanley planes, but that has to do more with familiarity with dimensioning by hand, and i'd guess that I'd work the same speed with either type.

The biggest flaw in the whole discussion about what beginners pick out of a bucket is that it actually implies you're accomplishing something more with the LN, and you really aren't. All of the old forum wisdom about stanley planes (the backlash is bad and it affects your ability to get work done, they are too out of flat, the cap iron is cheap and flimsy, the iron is cheap and flimsy) all of that is bunk.

[David Weaver]

This much is clear -- no one (much less Mr S.) with the most basic understanding of survey methodology would claim that Mr Schwarz's students represent an adequate sampling population.

Actually, he may teach enough students to have a credible count, but credible group size or not, it's sort of like taking the opinion of freshman pre-med students on who their favorite vendor of surgical tools is for dermatological excisions.

[Kees Heiden]

You're certainly in the mood to stir the pot.

Ha, that's what pots are made for, aren't they?

Actually I was reading a bit in the Seaton chest book this morning. One of their observations was that the tools mostly weren't very perfect. For example chisels were grinded on both surfaces but not very flat. People back then could make things with astonishing perfection (for example the sawplate thickness was very accurately tapered), but perfection was time consuming and costly, so they only cared for precision where it really counts. That's a different mindset then what we have in our machine perfect modern world. Using our handtools we can go back a little bit to that mindset, but we are fairly deeply engrained with the need for perfect everything. For example when I write that shooting boards are hardly neccessary in a handtool shop, I don't get much acclamation.

[Brian Holcombe]

Cheers!

I use shooting boards because I show end grain often times on my projects. My evolution into a mostly hand tool user was due in part to the fact that I found the product of machine tools to be mostly disappointing in lack or perfection or just ubiquity and without a human element. Using hand tools you have to constantly be up on what is what (checking for flatness, squareness, act), but with machine tools its often assumed that they're doing the job with perfection.

[Sean Hughto]

I disagree with you about the backlash. One of the great benefits of the BD Stanley design is that you can take a pass, lift the plane and make a minor adjustment of the depth wheel without even taking you hand off the tote, and take another swipe (lather, rinse, repeat). A responsive wheel is very nice to have as you adjust on the fly without making full turns and guessing when it engaged to make the desired tiny adjustment. Indeed, when rough dimensioning and flattening large panels and such I often need to gradually go from coarse to fine over the course of a planing effort as I go from knocking down high spots to close to smoothing type passes or from across the grain to with the grain, etc.

[Derek Cohen]

Well, mr. Schwarz's investigation method is a bit dubious, but the question still remains. Are the new LN and LV planes really better then the vintage planes? And in what respect are they better ....

Well Kees, today was the first day at the Perth Tool Event (I had the stand next to Terry Gordon - HNT Gordon Planes - and we had a great chat about hand plane design ...).

While my main focus was building a Shaker side table, I spent quite a bit of time discussing tools with the visitors. One demonstration involved showing how a variety of smoothers could perform on a piece of interlocked curly Jarrah. All planes had freshly sharpened blades, and I made sure that the chipbreakers used were also flat and ready to perform at their best.

I started with a Stanley #3 with the chipbreaker pulled back. The wood tore out quite noticeably.

The tearout was removed and replaced by a glassy surface by a 60 degree BD HNT Gordon smoother.

The LN #3 with a 55 degree frog took the glassy surface away and left a smooth but faintly rough finish behind.

The Veritas SBUS (with a 62 degree cutting angle) replaced this with a glassy surface that was tearout free.

I had been saying to many how much the chipbreaker could aid in controlling tearout. So now I carefully adjusted the Veritas chipbreaker (with a 60 degree leading edge) on the Stanley #3 down to .4mm, and pushed it across the board. The result was a major anticlimax - the plane was hard to push and left a poor surface in it wake. Nice straight shavings, but terrible surface.

I do generally get a better finish on interlocked wood with a chipbreaker, but I find it is variable. The high angle planes are just more reliable.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

* cap iron design - stanley is better. It might be cheaper to make but it's still a better design. LN had some trouble even figuring out where to locate the holes so you could use them

David, I'd debate that with you. I find the Veritas and the LN more reliable than the Stanley. This has to do with the Stanley being so flexible. The leading edge with more forward as the screw is tightened. You could take this into account and then set it by tightening the screw to move it closer to the edge, but that is not the expected way. The solid LN and Veritas just go where you want them to go, and stay there.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Sean Hughto]

I'm imagining you in this scene - you call that a chipbreaker? ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vW54lAtldI

[Derek Cohen]

Heh Sean ... I was planing on my mini travelling bench. Anything on it would look Big!



Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

I was not there, so it's too easy to critique. Probably I would have made a mess in front of a public. Anyway, 0.4 mm isn't quite close enough. I don't know if you measured it, and how you measured it? If it doesn't work well enough, push it a little closer. Indeed when you get tearout any plane feels hard to push, it's not smooth and smooth is good.

When I tested my plane with a 35 degree bevel on the capiron for the first time I was quite disappointed. Then I got the simple tip: "push it closer" and around 0.1 mm or so it worked very well. Should have thought about that myself. (I don't recommend that 35 degree bevel! It is too vulnerable).

[David Weaver]

David, I'd debate that with you. I find the Veritas and the LN more reliable than the Stanley. This has to do with the Stanley being so flexible. The leading edge with more forward as the screw is tightened. You could take this into account and then set it by tightening the screw to move it closer to the edge, but that is not the expected way. The solid LN and Veritas just go where you want them to go, and stay there.

Regards from Perth

Derek

What makes the stanley perfect isn't the flexibility, that's a feel issue and separate from the function of a chipbreaker. What makes it ideal is that it literally works right away. If there is a snag on the leading edge, then all you have to do is polish the profile if the cap iron as it is, and it works better. As warren has described, I've always had better service (slightly, but better) and better surfaces with curved leading edge on the cap iron, with the profile on the stanley being ideal. I came to that conclusion, however, before I ever saw warren mention it.

There is less finesse in setting it than you're implying, and I don't find one or the other type any easier (faster or more precise) to set. It is the benefit of experience, I guess, but presumably every woodworker will get to the point that they have "experience" as that's what most are lacking, not ease of tool use.

Lee Valley may have known how to set the cap iron when they sold their planes and designed their new cap iron, but I'd imagine LN did not, and their design likely has less to do with actually setting the cap iron for use than for some other reason. Why do I think that? Because for years, they made planes where the cap iron couldn't even be set close to the edge and they never once suggested using the cap iron for mitigating tearout.

[David Weaver]

- the plane was hard to push and left a poor surface in it wake.

You set the cap iron too close and your comparison isn't relevant, then. I admire that you're trying the cap iron in all of these instances, but it may not be for you. In the last 2+ years, I've had dozens of PMs from different people who have had no trouble getting a good surface with their cap iron and who were ecstatic with their results, nobody has mentioned a dull surface. Not once have I used a common pitch plane and ended up with a duller surface than a 55 degree plane would leave, bevel up or bevel down, it makes no difference. I could set the cap iron too close and smash the chip back into the wood and get it to occur, but I don't know why one would - the ideal surface is set back just a hair from that (either a hair thinner shaving, or a cap iron a hair further back).

When I decided I would learn to use the cap iron without questioning it, it was less than a week before that was the case every single time, and perhaps a matter of a couple of days. the only thing that changed after that was that it took less time to set the cap iron the more I used it.