The Veritas Custom Planes - more than a review

[Jim Koepke]

Exactly my point! Being a beginner in hand planes and not having extensive experience with BD bench planes makes it difficult to understand what experienced woodworkers say about BU vs BD. They simply have mastered BD and don't see so much of the use of BU planes. At least that is what I read from Paul Seller's blog posts about BU planes. Yet, some say that Stanley #62 was "one of Stanley's better planes they ever decided to manufacture". This contradicts each other in my view.

One thing to keep in mind is the thickness of the shavings. Chip-breaker has to be set up to about the same distance from the tip of the blade as intended shavings thickness. I fear, that it will also influence the findings for forward force experiments Derek would hopefully perform. And I fear that this would prove that BD is favorable for thick shavings and I expect that for very fine shavings difference will be slim.

Another thing is the angle of chip-breaker. As Japanese professor showed, 50-80 degree is the best for chip-breaker effect.

Overall, Derek formulation of Center of Effort plus scientifically proved magic of chip-breaker might explain that variety of opinions on BU vs BD since there is no absolute winner. But it would be very helpful for beginners like me to decide what way to take and what to try first. Which none of experienced woodworkers managed to explain for me yet.

If custom Veritas BD plane has Center of Effort close to those of Veritas BU planes but easier to push without tearout (thanks to chip-breaker) then it would very much justify my expenses to get one or more. And might also convince my wife - she is scientist as well

Howdy Andrey and welcome to the Creek. Your profile doesn't indicate a location.

If you are in the Paciific Northwest I would be happy to let you try my one bevel up Jack and compare it to my bevel down Jack(s). In my use the BU Jack requires less effort to produce a shaving of the same thickness as a BD Jack. The angle of attack on the BU Jack is a touch lower than on any of my BD Jacks.

The angle of attack makes for most of the difference in determining the force necessary to make a shaving. The second main determinator of force needed is the thickness of shaving being produced. The chip breaker adds a little more effort to the equation.

Two planes, one bevel up and one bevel down, with the same angle of attack on the work would likely require the same force to raise a shaving of the same thickness. Any difference would likely be due to the chip breaker.

Of course this doesn't answer questions about Center of Effort. That may have to wait for Derek.

jtk

[don wilwol]

the other possibility is this is just being way over thought. Part of the fun of all this is figuring it out for yourself. If this thread and this exercise hasn't shown that there are differences of opinions, I'm not sure what will. There is no right or wrong answer, and how you work, how you stand, how you sharpen, the kind of wood you use, the air you breath and the kind of beer you drink will all have an influience on the outcome.

The other thought that has always intriqued me is as I've looked at 100's of catologs, from todays to 100 years old, and bought and sold hundreds of planes, search hundreds of tool shops and drooled over thousands and thousands of photes, the ratio of BD versus BU planes tell me a great deal about what has been prefered by craftsman for well over 100 years.

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

Howdy Andrey and welcome to the Creek. Your profile doesn't indicate a location.

If you are in the Paciific Northwest I would be happy to let you try my one bevel up Jack and compare it to my bevel down Jack(s). In my use the BU Jack requires less effort to produce a shaving of the same thickness as a BD Jack. The angle of attack on the BU Jack is a touch lower than on any of my BD Jacks.

The angle of attack makes for most of the difference in determining the force necessary to make a shaving. The second main determinator of force needed is the thickness of shaving being produced. The chip breaker adds a little more effort to the equation.

Two planes, one bevel up and one bevel down, with the same angle of attack on the work would likely require the same force to raise a shaving of the same thickness. Any difference would likely be due to the chip breaker.

Of course this doesn't answer questions about Center of Effort. That may have to wait for Derek.

jtk

Thanks, happy to be here. Updated my profile. I'm far away, unfortunately :-(

I understand that lower angle of attack means less effort, I can feel that with two BU planes that I have, one 37 degree and another 50 degree included angle. However, low angle can be used on collaborative wood mostly. Otherwise, with medium thickness I get tearout even on pine. In the end, I have to stick with 50 degree to avoid any tearouts and still might need to scrape afterwards. Another problematic case I have is factory laminated beech panel. It consists of many pieces, each potentially with different grain direction. All this makes it hard and very sweaty work. And forces me to think again and buy even more tools :-)

It might be that BD with 45 or 40 degree frog and closely set chip-breaker with high micro bevel on it would require less force for tear free planing. Or is it better solved entirely differently?

[Jim Koepke]

It might be that BD with 45 or 40 degree frog and closely set chip-breaker with high micro bevel on it would require less force for tear free planing. Or is it better solved entirely differently?

I have found setting the chip breaker on a very sharp blade, adjusted for the finest cut possible, does fine in most cases. I do not believe a micro bevel on the bevel of a bevel down plane does anything to change the dynamics of the shaving process. It may help prevent wear. Some might argue a back bevel would effectively increase the angle and help to prevent tear out.

In my limited experience, a very light shaving with a well set chip breaker tends to alleviate tear out. With some really bad grain reversal I have come back against the main grain to take care of the tear out. With a blade as sharp as can be and a shaving through which you can read, a few passes against most grain will not tear out.

Not to start any flame wars, but on the firs and pines I work, it seems a bevel down plane leaves a slightly smoother surface than a bevel up plane.

YMMV!!!.jpg

jtk

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

I have found setting the chip breaker on a very sharp blade, adjusted for the finest cut possible, does fine in most cases. I do not believe a micro bevel on the bevel of a bevel down plane does anything to change the dynamics of the shaving process. It may help prevent wear. Some might argue a back bevel would effectively increase the angle and help to prevent tear out.

Wrong formulation on my side. I mean micro bevel on chip-breaker to make it 50 degree or more so that it breaks chips effectively. According to that Japanese professor chip-breaker works best when it has 50-80 degree bevel that touches the back of the iron at the distance to the tip of the blade slightly bigger than the thickness of intended shavings. Which eliminates tearout even for quite heavy shavings (0.1 mm or 4 thousands of an inch). Heavy shavings means potentially good productivity. Theoretically, at least :-)

In my limited experience, a very light shaving with a well set chip breaker tends to alleviate tear out. With some really bad grain reversal I have come back against the main grain to take care of the tear out. With a blade as sharp as can be and a shaving through which you can read, a few passes against most grain will not tear out.

Agree, my (also limited) experience tells me that very fine shavings can be achieved without tearout almost with any angle if blade is sharp. No experience with BD and chip breaker though...

Not to start any flame wars, but on the firs and pines I work, it seems a bevel down plane leaves a slightly smoother surface than a bevel up plane.

Then Paul Sellers is right and BU planes are advertised wrong. Good for sales but not so good to replace BD planes. I was totally convinced by advertisements and good reviews and now have 3 Veritas BU planes that share the same blade type and 0 BD planes :-)

[Erwin Graween]

Hi,

Nice review by Dereck, as usual.

I'm wondering about these new custom bench planes, in fact a bout 2 points, and would like to get some feedback :

Do you have to remove the blade carrier to hone it in a guide (like LV make 2), or is it after the jaws of it ?

And for the jointer specifically, on the toe, the casting seems to be rounding in ellipse. So how does is affect the use ?
I thinking about edge planing (no issue for surface planning). I usually shift the plane on one side or the other to get it square (using curved blade). But doing so with this plane sole form would change the length of sole laying on the edge ? From what I see 1 or 2 inches, hard to say while not having a chance to hold one in hand before buying
Anyone having thoughts or experience about this point (or maybe a picture of soles side to side to see the difference) ? Probably not an issue, but worth asking when in the market for a jointer plane.

Thank you.

Regards,
Erwin.

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

the other possibility is this is just being way over thought. Part of the fun of all this is figuring it out for yourself. If this thread and this exercise hasn't shown that there are differences of opinions, I'm not sure what will. There is no right or wrong answer, and how you work, how you stand, how you sharpen, the kind of wood you use, the air you breath and the kind of beer you drink will all have an influence on the outcome.

The other thought that has always intrigued me is as I've looked at 100's of catalogs, from today's to 100 years old, and bought and sold hundreds of planes, search hundreds of tool shops and drooled over thousands and thousands of photos, the ratio of BD versus BU planes tell me a great deal about what has been preferred by craftsman for well over 100 years.

I hear you. And that is probably right. But my curiosity to know why it is like this and how right it is for me makes some pain in the head area. :-)

Plus I can afford to buy first BD plane only next month. Enough time to over think suddenly... I will keep my BU planes anyway, I already like them a lot. How fast I need BD plane and which one are the questions in my head. Probably, Veritas custom bench plane #4 1/2 with standard frog angle would be nice to try and learn next.

[Derek Cohen]

I hear you. And that is probably right. But my curiosity to know why it is like this and how right it is for me makes some pain in the head area. :-)

Plus I can afford to buy first BD plane only next month. Enough time to over think suddenly... I will keep my BU planes anyway, I already like them a lot. How fast I need BD plane and which one are the questions in my head. Probably, Veritas custom bench plane #4 1/2 with standard frog angle would be nice to try and learn next.

Hi Andrey

Without doing any more testing, I think that it is easy to make a deduction - and frankly I do not have the time for for testing at present as I have little enough time on weekends, and what little enough is currently dedicated to my current build.

When I chose to purchase a 42 degree frog for the Custom #4 I was sending out a message. Perhaps on the more experienced users would have recognised what I was stating: I was prepared to sink my money into my belief that the chipbreaker was capable of controlling tearout in a low cutting angle. The reason for the low cutting angle was that it would produce a cleaner surface on softer woods, but that it would also perform as well on hard woods.

Now a BU smoother with a high cutting angle (say 62 degrees included) will plane most anything from the North Americas, and on hardwoods I would argue that you would not tell the surface differences against a chipbreakered lower cutting angle ... especially after a finish goes on.

So which would be easier to push? Hell, six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. You are taking fine shavings, and there would not be a lot in it, not enough to make it the deciding factor. The high cutting angle on the BU is not the same as a high cutting angle on a BD plane. You can easily tell the difference when you swap frogs on a LN bench plane. I have a LN #3, purchased with a 55 degree frog. I did not get on with this combination: the angle was not high enough to control tearout on my local woods, and the plane was hard to push (with an unwaxed sole). I changed to a 50 degree frog - could not go lower because I was using a #4 handle, and the 45 degree frog would not fit with this. But it was not a lot different ... better, but not enough, because by now I was reasonably proficient at setting the chipbreaker. I worked out a way to modify the #4 handle to fit the 45 degree frog, and so ended up with one.

A couple of last comments: firstly, BU planes with high cutting angles make excellent smoothers. BU planes are excellent planes. They are easier to set up than anything else, and their performance can be superb, better than 90% of woodworkers need for the woods they work. Secondly, ignore the silly sprouting of advice given by Paul Sellers about BU planes. He has no clue - he achieves poor performances with them since he only hones his blades at about 30 degrees - which means that he is cutting with very low angles. Not good. Thirdly, I must warn that the 42 degree frog on the Custom #4 is not a beginners choice. It takes a little more accuracy in placement for the chipbreaker to work. I suspect that the lower the frog angle, the higher the leading edge of the chipbreaker needs to be, or the closer to the edge of the blade one needs to get (relative to the desired thickness of the shaving).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

Hi,

Nice review by Dereck, as usual.

I'm wondering about these new custom bench planes, in fact a bout 2 points, and would like to get some feedback :

Do you have to remove the blade carrier to hone it in a guide (like LV make 2), or is it after the jaws of it ?

And for the jointer specifically, on the toe, the casting seems to be rounding in ellipse. So how does is affect the use ?
I thinking about edge planing (no issue for surface planning). I usually shift the plane on one side or the other to get it square (using curved blade). But doing so with this plane sole form would change the length of sole laying on the edge ? From what I see 1 or 2 inches, hard to say while not having a chance to hold one in hand before buying
Anyone having thoughts or experience about this point (or maybe a picture of soles side to side to see the difference) ? Probably not an issue, but worth asking when in the market for a jointer plane.

Thank you.

Regards,
Erwin.

To hone: the following is from the article(s) ..

Do not remove the screws – just loosen them. Contrary to advice, you will remove the blade carrier. Why? Because setting the chipbreaker requires minute amounts of placement, and it is something one must do by eye.


Once the blade has been sharpened, and the chipbreaker is to be replaced, you are going to reverse the process. However, an observation by Chris Schwarz. Chris suggested first securing the blade carrier screw, and then the chipbreaker screw. Doing so the other way around will cause a tiny bit of movement of the chipbreaker, which is relevant when one is talking in fractions of a millimeter at the leading edge of the blade.

Below, loosening the screws ..





Now, if you hold the blade and chipbreaker apart with your fingers …





… there is sufficient space to slide the chipbreaker forward and over the end of the blade without touching the edge.







Of course, you will reverse this process when bringing them together. Just ensure that the slots in the blade carrier align with the slot in the blade.

And for the jointer specifically, on the toe, the casting seems to be rounding in ellipse. So how does is affect the use ?
I thinking about edge planing (no issue for surface planning). I usually shift the plane on one side or the other to get it square (using curved blade). But doing so with this plane sole form would change the length of sole laying on the edge ? From what I see 1 or 2 inches, hard to say while not having a chance to hold one in hand before buying

I very much doubt that you would notice any reduction in registration area.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Reinis Kanders]

I have all of these planes LV custom, LV old style bevel down, LV bevel up, etc. I have not tried any Lie Nielsen. At the end of it all I prefer old Stanleys and wood jack and try plane. I also like old german style woodies. I do everything, but resaw by hand.

LV custom planes have the piddly hex screw cap iron adjustment. One day I will lose the screw and I am sure it is metric

In 4 1/2 size I have old Millers Falls and that plane works well and takes shavings in curly maple like Brian was showing with smoothing Kanna in the other thread where he is building jewelry cabinet.
From Veritas I prefer their old style bevel down plane because chipbreaker is easier to set and plane can be used with the usual grip and they are cheaper.
Woodnet has old Stanleys come up for a decent price quite often.

I hear you. And that is probably right. But my curiosity to know why it is like this and how right it is for me makes some pain in the head area. :-)

Plus I can afford to buy first BD plane only next month. Enough time to over think suddenly... I will keep my BU planes anyway, I already like them a lot. How fast I need BD plane and which one are the questions in my head. Probably, Veritas custom bench plane #4 1/2 with standard frog angle would be nice to try and learn next.

[Derek Cohen]

LV custom planes have the piddly hex screw cap iron adjustment. One day I will lose the screw and I am sure it is metric

Yep. That's why I recommend that one does not remove it, just loosen it.

Also, make a dedicated screwdriver similar to mine ...





The pattern for hex keys is essentially the same as a torx head. I am sure that you could find a 3/32 torx screwdriver, or screwdriver insert



Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

Then Paul Sellers is right and BU planes are advertised wrong. Good for sales but not so good to replace BD planes. I was totally convinced by advertisements and good reviews and now have 3 Veritas BU planes that share the same blade type and 0 BD planes :-)

Please note my experience relates to almost exclusive use of soft woods.
Please also note a my "slightly smoother surface" description. This is purely subjective and may be different with different woods. Most of the time if my finished piece is less than super smooth, a handful of shavings rubbed over the surface will shine it right up.

One advantage for the BU planes is an ability to quickly change the angle of attack by changing blades.

Look around for an old BD plane in second hand stores, junk shops or antique stores. One with all the parts can usually be found fairly inexpensively.

jtk

[Matt Bainton]

Derek, would you choose the new “slightly Stanley” Veritas totes for your BU planes? I was a bit confused over which you settled on now that there is a third option. I only have a Stanley No. 4 and have experienced the fatigue from the short palm section when dimensioning rough lumber. I'm considering a BU LAJ, and while I'm not scared of innovation, I am not a fan of the lack of nuance to the Veritas original totes.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Matt

There is nothing "wrong" with the Stanley handles. They have stood the test of time. However, to get the best out of them one needs to be aware of where "power" comes from - it is not from pushing downward with a grip from under the horn, but from pushing forward from the base of the handle. The LV/Veritas handles make this easier to do, especially with their original, vertical style. The choice of this style is especially where the emphasis is on taking heavier shavings, such a jack or jointer.

Personally, I would not be using a #4 to dimension lumber. The Stanley-style LV/Veritas handles offer the ability to plane with more power (they are still more vertical than Stanley handles) and then push downward and increase force on focused areas, such as a small area of tearout.

My longer planes all have the upright handles, while my smoothers all have the Stanley-style handles.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Matt Bainton]

Derek, I'd LOVE to not be dimensioning with a #4, but I hardly have any of the desirable tools for many woodworking tasks.

Hopefully I'll be able to rectify that little by little starting this new year. I'm interested in the Low Angle Jack because of the versatility.