Jointer Planes

[Frank Martin]

Don't mean to hijack the thread but I am curious as I don't remember seeing that information on the LV website.

[Bill Moser]

I have a few jointers -- an LV BU, a couple of round-sided bedrocks (607, 608), and a couple of woodies. I'm not very analytical about my planes. Some of them feel more like they're my kids, or something. My 607 feels that way, I just don't think I could ever part with it. Derek made an interesting observation about the LV BU: it sucks down onto the wood. Very smooth feeling.

[Mike Holbrook]

The three things I am missing so far on the Stanley planes are 1) an adjustable mouth 2) the screws in the side of the plane body that keep the blade centered 3) A plain flat blade (adjusting the frog so that the chip breaker and blade fit properly with the fixed mouth seems complicated to me at this stage). I can see work arounds for those Stanley features, but at least at the stage I am at they are time consuming.

Another question I have regarding these planes has to do with the blades. I heard that the Stanley blades with SW are good blades and I have a couple of them? I have one that has the Stanley logo in a triangle, which someone somewhere insinuated was at least a decent blade and one blade has the Stanley logo in more of a rectangle. Any advise on these Stanley blades? Is it worth worrying about the differences, or is it a try and see thing? It seems like the chip breakers edges could do with a little work so they register well across the entire blade surface? At first I thought these blades were going to be soft and easy to work. Now I am thinking the steel may be tougher than I thought.

The attractive thing about the new custom Veritas BD planes in regard to my three Stanley issues is the new design seems to eliminate 2 1/2 to 3 of these issues.

[Jim Koepke]

Derek made an interesting observation about the LV BU: it sucks down onto the wood. Very smooth feeling.

My thought was that is the bevel up interaction with the shaving. Kind of like a chisel on the scribed line when chopping out dovetails. The action is more noticeable on thicker shavings with smaller planes.

jtk

[Jim R Edwards]

I have a Clifton #7 and it is a very good plane. Weighs over ten pounds and just plows through wood with minimal effort.

[Mike Holbrook]

Wow the Clifton #7 is over 10 lbs. I thought the Veritas BD #7 was heavy at 8 lbs. 9 ozs., good to know it isn't the heaviest.

The three Stanley plane features I mention above are currently time consuming, at least for me, at my current learning state. The Stanley blade/frog/cap iron setting features all work down to blade adjustment challenges. Derek mentions using the new Veritas BD with and without a cap iron. The videos and the plane description reveal "The cap iron registers on a low-profile blade carrier attached to the blade, which allows fast removal of the cap iron for blade sharpening. It also lets you restore the cap iron without losing its position relative to the cutting edge.". The video also offers a brief glimpse of the different system for mating cap iron and blade and a locking, push button style Norris-type adjuster. All in all it appears that the new BD plane attempts to minimize any and all challenges BD planes use to suffer in comparison to the BU planes blade adjustment system. Again Veritas appears to be incorporating features that users like on their BU planes into their BD planes, even to the point of using or eliminating a cap iron as the user sees fit. As Derek says Fascinating!

It would seem to be quite a coup if Veritas has designed a BD plane that can be used with or without a cap iron and simultaneously incorporated the blade adjustment features that are popular with Veritas BU plane users. To whatever degree these features succeed, we are left with choosing between BU and BD blades and the feel and balance of the two plane designs.

[Jim Koepke]

It would seem to be quite a coup if Veritas has designed a BD plane that can be used with or without a cap iron and simultaneously incorporated the blade adjustment features that are popular with Veritas BU plane users. To whatever degree these features succeed, we are left with choosing between BU and BD blades and the feel and balance of the two plane designs.

What would really be amazing is if there could be a low angle frog to change the plane from a bevel down to a bevel up plane.

Now that would be radical.

jtk

[Derek Cohen]

Don't mean to hijack the thread but I am curious as I don't remember seeing that information on the LV website.

Frank, the blades are 1/8" thick as I recall. Definitely thinner than the 3/16" BU planes.

Keep in mind that many will use them with the chip breaker.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

What would really be amazing is if there could be a low angle frog to change the plane from a bevel down to a bevel up plane.

Now that would be radical.

jtk

Hi Jim

That is already present!

Any of the frogs could be used in a BU configuration, such as a 50 degree to act as a 80 degree scraper plane using a 30 degree (reversed) blade. What makes this practical is that the blades are thick and stable, and the mouth is easy to open up (it slides away like the BU planes).

However there is also the 40 degree frog which, with a 30 degree bevel, can work as a low angle 40 degree shooting plane and a high angle 70 degree smoother. All this is without using a chip breaker. (I have planed reversing grain without tearout using the 40 degree frog and closed up chip breaker).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Noah Wagener]

I read that you want a high center of gravity for a jointer. Any deviation from square when jointing an edge is felt more. Apprentices were given razee jointers because they are less likely to tip out of square but it can not be felt as much.

[Derek Cohen]

I read that you want a high center of gravity for a jointer. Any deviation from square when jointing an edge is felt more. Apprentices were given razee jointers because they are less likely to tip out of square but it can not be felt as much.

Larry Williams (Old Street) used to write about how it was easier to orientate for vertical with a high-sided woodie. I can accept his logic here, and have no doubt that there are many that benefit from such planes and prefer to work that way. No argument from me.

I think that there are a number of ways to joint edges, and that the most successful way (best way) for one is not necessarily the best way for another.

I have built a few high-sided wooden jointers (and classic coffin smoothers). After a while I find myself returning to the BU Jointer. For myself, it is more important that I have a feel for the surface of the wood than a feeling for vertical. I have a good sense of vertical generally, for example, can saw plumb with a backsaw with my eyes closed, and consequently it may be that I do not require extra sensory input in this department.

Jointing mating edges I prefer to match plane. Therefore my jointer plane blade is straight, not cambered. I understand the cambered method, however one is either joining two edges or preparing a flat edge, and for this I find a straight blade edge preferable. My BU Jointer has a 40 degree straight edge (the only bench plane I use with a straight edge).

For jointing single boards (such as when preparing a stretcher for a mortice-and-tenon joint), my method is to place a square against the edge and see where, and by how much, the top needs to be re-shaped (sometimes you do not want a jointer for this). I will then move the blade over to that area, and tip the plane to remove that section. With the feedback from the plane it is possible to determine where it is cutting. Once square, or largely square, the edge can be planed on the square.

I'd be interested to hear of the method used by others.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

High or low, one can get used to and use almost anything. I find my woody jointer to be a bit more difficult to use for freehand jointing a square edge, but probably because I'm so used to Stanley planes. But it's not like the difference is large (it's not even large enough to see a difference in the joint, it's more of a difference in feel).

I can remove wood fast more comfortably with the woody. I remember truing edges with the LA jack feeling a little bit funny, but I'll bet it would take less than a week of dedicated use to get used to it.

[Mike Holbrook]

Thanks for the insights Derek and David. I am hoping Derek will post a review on his Blog before long. It will be interesting to read how he thinks the new BD compares to the BU for actual work. We appreciate the detailed, user centric evaluations Derek. Veritas certainly went all out on making a sleek, modern looking design. It screams new, different, improved but then I believe, as I believe Derek does, that the Veritas BU Jointer is a tough act to follow. LV was not afraid to think out of the box on this one. Instead of following the trend to make small improvements to the original Stanley design and maintain the overall look and feel these planes seem to go out of their way to be different. It looks to me like the feature set is radical enough to make these BD planes instant classics.

[David Weaver]

I think if you want to use the cap iron, there's no way to do it other than the new planes. If you don't, then there's a lot of six of one and half dozen of another sort of things going on when comparing the two planes.

[Mike Holbrook]

I hear you David. I think someone could make a good case for a woody with nothing but a blade and a wedge being the easiest to adjust. To make that argument one would have to assume several things that are tough to assume though. The blade, wedge and plane bed would need to be made very precisely and maintained that way. The user would need to have the prerequisite ability to tap tap the blade and wedge into place too. The Stanley planes attempt to replace some variables with constants but in the process create some new hopefully easier to manage variables that have to be dealt with. The same principals hold true to an even greater degree with the BU and the new BD planes. Certainly at some point in this modern world one has to ask themselves how many new variables they want to deal with in order to achieve some theoretical advantage. The crux of the matter being that all features do not turn out to be benefits to all users. Which is why I think the "smart money" is waiting to see how many of the features on the new BD planes turn out to be valuable for the way they work.