Contributor
I knew I'd seen them for sale in the US and poked through my bookmarks. It looks like Traditional Woodworker and Highland Woodworking both carry the ECE Primus and non-Primus Jointer planes, (among other sizes / styles from ECE.)Originally Posted by Johanna Johanson
Contributor
I don't do as much planning as some people here, but when I do, I like one with a front knob.
Member
I would look closely at the L-N #6 and #7, Veritas Custom #7, the "classic" Veritas #6.
I have the Veritas BU jointer (the one you're leaning towards) and have a few thoughts:
At its default cutting angle of 37 deg it cuts easily (good given your stated constraints) but also tends to tear out at the first hint of adverse grain (not good at all). You can fix the tearout by swapping in a high-angle blade to get to a 50 or 62 deg cutting angle, but pushing a jointing-thickness shaving (usually 3-5 mils for me) with a cutting angle that steep is Work-with-a-capital-W.
For real-world work on woods that aren't perfectly straight grained, I think that a bevel-down jointer with a close-set cap iron is easier to use in the final analysis. The Veritas #7 (my go-to jointer these days) is particularly nice in that you can get custom frog angles down to 40 deg. I have mine at 42 deg right now (IIRC Derek has done the same with his) and have also used mine at 40 deg with good results on most woods. IN that configuration it's basically as easy to drive as the BU jointer with the cap iron set back a bit, but you retain the option of advancing the cap iron to fix tearout without destroying your arms.
The LN jointers and the Veritas #6 don't go below 45 deg, but I'd still take those over the BU jointer unless I felt up to pushing thick shavings at high cutting angles, or was sure that I'd never work difficult grain.
You might also see if somebody like Steve Voight will build you a woodie with a 2" blade, as that will reduce cutting forces by ~17%.
Last edited by Patrick Chase; 07-11-2016 at 7:42 PM.
Member
Glad to see some SMC members defending the BU planes in the comments. Paul simply doesn't like bevel-up planes for general purpose use, despite the fact that they can work just as well and sometimes better. There are dozens of other reputable woodworkers out there that advocate BU planes so I generally dismiss Paul's opinions of them. Why did he completely ignore the fact that his combined cutting angle was probably less than that of his #4?
His reply to one of the comments:
So he's happy to have a spare blade for his #4's, but when it comes to BU planes he has to regrind a blade to change the cutting angle? Why is he ignoring the fact that you could just have a few blades set up for different cutting angles in your BU plane?The whole point really is this. Bevel up planes are not just an alternative to bevel down planes in my view and you do have to radically alter bevels to make bevel ups work when you do not need to do that to bevel downs. I don’t really like the idea being put around that these planes are just one and the same and its a matter of personal choice. When you start to regrind bevels to different angles because you have an inch or two of rough grain that can be taken care of by a regular bevel up in 99% of cases then it’s a significant ask in my view. Keeping a second iron with a back bevel on the large flat face to create a poor mans York pitch is fast and effective and cheap too. This too will take care of that grain as well as keeping a dedicated #4 bd plane with the poor man’s York pitch permanently too. That has always worked for me so it means most people can afford it. Regrinds in tough steels take much time and effort. Better off with a regular plane and avoiding the tearout in the first place and of course, as I said, no one will convince me that the bevel up planes are anything but predictably unpredictable when it comes to them planing flat faces. You don’t get too far through three or four boards before repair needs taking care of and a number 4 bevel down works every time for me. I do quite like the BU planes for some work though. I own several for the school and introduced them five years ago.
Back to the original topic...
For new jointer planes, I cast my vote for the ECE wooden jointers. The wedged models work great and are very cost effective if you aren't jointing that often but want a good quality plane. I ordered the ECE "short jointer" because I wanted the narrower blade and I'm pretty happy with it.
Member
To be fair, the Veritas BU Jointer is most similar to the LN 7-1/2 (also a 12-deg bed, bevel-up, 22" jointer).
The appropriate comparison for the LN #7 would be to the Veritas Custom #7, which is also a double-iron plane though with rather different mechanics (the mouth adjustment in particular may be polarizing for some, though Veritas' machining is good enough to make it work) and with the option of custom bed angles down to 40 deg.
I agree with your (implied) point that a double iron is preferable in a jointer.
Last edited by Patrick Chase; 07-11-2016 at 9:40 PM. Reason: Grammar
Member
This will probably get me flamed but... that's Real Jointer (tm) territory. I think you're looking at the right planes here.
Obviously with sufficient skill and copious measurements you can joint with just about anything, but at 6' a 22-24" jointer will make your life noticeably easier.
Member
LV also carries a lot of their planes but not the jointer. I have a wedge-type Ulmia toothing plane, and am very impressed with the tool. I've played with the "Primus" adjustment mechanism and it was a little over-engineered for my tastes (and that's really saying something) but others swear by it.
Member
Trevor; the following blog entry by Paul Sellers may answer that question. https://paulsellers.com/2014/11/ques...s-one-problem/
Member
Yep, even when he has the right bottom-line answer (and IMO he does in this case) his reasoning is self-contradicting and borderline-incomprehensible.
I'll sum up my reply in 3 words: Angles aren't everything.
As you say, it's easy enough to hone a BU blade to match or even exceed the cutting angle of a BD plane, but angle isn't what we care about. Bottom-line performance is, and a BU plane at 45 deg cutting angle (as you describe) isn't the equal of a common pitch BD plane for the simple reason that you don't have the option of using the cap iron to control tearout. You can match the tearout performance of a BD plane by using an even higher-angled blade, but then cutting forces start to climb and surface "glassiness" suffers.
The Veritas BU was my first jointer, but I've since concluded that it operates in a fundamentally inferior glassiness/effort/tearout tradeoff space as compared to double-iron BD jointers.
EDIT: In the interests of balance, I should probably acknowledge that I still have the BU jointer and don't plan to get rid of it. I keep it set up with a 25 deg blade (secondary bevel, primary is hollow-ground at ~23) and use it whenever I want a very low cutting angle and don't care about tearout, for example to get the glassiest possible finish on straight grained wood or for working long end-grain edges. I sometimes use it to true up the edges of pieces of baltic birch ply and maple die board, though that's pretty brutal on edges. It also handles very well due to what some describe as "center of effort", though that's a very secondary concern for me.
Last edited by Patrick Chase; 07-12-2016 at 12:45 AM. Reason: FIxed typo
Contributor
Agree, one of the neat things about the transitional planes like Steven posted is one can make a base to suite their own need. A cheap one with good metal parts and a good 2x4 of some hardwood would get someone on the way to making a light and inexpensive jointer.
There are more options than one can imagine.
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Member
Yep, I agree completely. I didn't mean to imply that metal planes are the only game in town. How about "22 inch and up jointer"? :-)
Contributor
Stanley No. 31.....24" long, and has a 2-3/8" wide iron....about half the weight of a Stanley No.8
IMAG0112.jpg
Mine is from 1892....
Member
I've seen a lot of references to weight here, though I have to ask: How much does that really matter for surface jointing?
For heavy jointing cuts I mostly notice the weight when taking the plane out of the cabinet and carrying it to the bench, and to a lesser degree when drawing it back between strokes. During the actual planing I perceive (perhaps wrongly) that the effect of weight is totally dominated by cutting forces when using the full width of the blade.
Edge jointing is a different matter, but that's just not as much work period, and therefore isn't a "limiting" concern for me.
Contributor
The one thing about weight nobody talks about...bringing that aircraft carrier sized plane back to the start point....Too much blade wear IF you simply drag on of these back...you have to lift at least one end or the other. A 5 pound plane is a lot easier to haul backwards than those 10 pound #8s (BTDT)
Member
The Veritas BU was my first jointer, but I've since concluded that it operates in a fundamentally inferior glassiness/effort/tearout tradeoff space as compared to double-iron BD jointers.
EDIT: In the interests of balance, I should probably acknowledge that I still have the BD jointer and don't plan to get rid of it. I keep it set up with a 25 deg blade (secondary bevel, primary is hollow-ground at ~23) and use it whenever I want a very low cutting angle and don't care about tearout, for example to get the glassiest possible finish on straight grained wood or for working long end-grain edges. I sometimes use it to true up the edges of pieces of baltic birch ply and maple die board, though that's pretty brutal on edges. It also handles very well due to what some describe as "center of effort", though that's a very secondary concern for me.
Oops Patrick. Ya nose will grow just like Pinocchio.
Last edited by Stewie Simpson; 07-12-2016 at 12:31 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote