Jointer Plane question

[Bob Burke]

I am on the lookout for a new plane to replace a #7 Clifton that recently got stolen...

After checking out the options, I am thinking about replacing it with another new plane. I have only used metal planes, and the LN or another Clifton seem like the easiest options. The one plane that has also caught my attention is the Primus jointer. So, any thoughts on the relative virtrues/vices of the Primus as opposed to the other two? Anyone out there used the Clifton and the LN, any real difference? On the positive side, I still have the blade and chip breaker that were upstairs getting sharpened...

Thanks again for all the great advice you guys offer here.

Bob

[Mark Singer]

Bob,
Sorry to hear about your loss. I have the Primus Jointer , the English and regular Jack planes and the Reform smooth plane I also have a #4 Clifton and Many LN's including the low angle smoother.
These are all top of the line planes, that is a fact.
The Clifton, if tuned properly is hard to beat. The Primus Reform smoother is probably the best overall plane I ever used. Shaving can go from "rank" to tissue paper. The Primus Jointer is a "monster" it is 24 " long and heavy. Probably the same as a #7 Clifton. It glides beautifully. It is big and massive and can be tuned nicely. Since ther is no moveable frog the mouth is fixed ....this is not a problem in a jointer plane. It is great for long boards and full size doors where you can let her go...on smaller pieces I step down to one of the smaller planes.
Mark

[Pam Niedermayer]

I tried to use the Record #7 equivalent, without much success (probably my lack of tuning skills); so to the bay it went. Replaced it with the Primus jointer and HNT Gordon try planes (not that 1 metal plane is worth 2 woodies, just that my needs were more refined by this point), both of which are wonderful, worked right out of the box, highly recommended.

As to Clifton and LN #7's, haven't a clue.

Pam

[Alan Turner]

I would consider a Bedrock 607. I have the 607c and it is worth well more than 20% of the LN No. 7, IMHO, which I offer without having used the LN #7.
Sometimes wrong; never in doubt.
Alan

[Dave Anderson NH]

I have 2 jointers, a 28" Chapin by Union which is a double iron woodie from the 1850's, and a type 11 Stanley Bailey #7. Both work quite well though I replaced the iron on the #7 with one of Ron Hock's thicker aftermarket irons. There are lots of good choices out there for jointers including the ones mentioned by others in the previous posts. I find it difficult to justify the high cost of L-N at $450 or even the Clifton for that matter. They sure are pretty, but pretty doesn't improve function. Unless you are going to use a jointer as a smoother for surfaces like table tops or use it as a panel plane, ultra-ultra precision and a super tight mouth measured at .002-.005 inch isn't necessary. Consider getting a used Stanley #7 in good shape from a tool dealer or at auction and you shouldn't have to pay more than about $65-90. Best of these planes run from about a type 11 through a type 17. After that, the quality began to go downhill rapidly.

[Michael Campbell]

They sure are pretty, but pretty doesn't improve function. Unless you are going to use a jointer as a smoother for surfaces like table tops or use it as a panel plane, ultra-ultra precision and a super tight mouth measured at .002-.005 inch isn't necessary.

Thanks Dave, good to hear a voice of reason now and then.

If I never see someone recommending the LN LA adj. mouth block plane to the person just starting in woodworking again, it'll be too soon.

[Wendell Wilkerson]

Dave's idea makes alot of sense especially considering you already have the blade and chip breaker from the stolen Clifton to use as replacements parts.

Wendell

[Matthew Springer]

I actually got one for Christmas / Birthday and it is great. Personally, I don't really have time or space to mess with tuning, so it's great to get thin shavings without all the fuss.

-Matthew

[Bob Burke]

Thanks folks. Lots of food for thought. I didnt bring up the Stanley #7 just because I cant seem to find one locally that they dont want more than 100.00 for... and I just cant justify that for something that will need hours to get working.

Bob

[Scott Quesnelle]

What about the LV #6? The mouth is set back far enough that you get a #7 like nose, and for most stuff other than the tabletops and such that Dave mentioned above it will be very good for.. and its only $220 US.

Personally.. I'll stick with my 26" woodie for $22 CDN. Nice thick double iron with a forge welded steel edge by Greenfield to a iron body, tough as hell to hone but holds an edge real nice.

Or for the price of the LN you could go the infill kit route.

That blade would fit nicely in a #4 1/2...

Scott Quesnelle
Guelph, Ontario

[Bob Smalser]

I replaced almost all the family's old beech planes this year...tired of inlaying mouths and redoing soles.



I wouldn't even consider a new plane, given the price of the common older Stanley Type 8-16's out there and the ease of tuning them. The most expensive plane in the bunch was the crude scrub plane at 40 bucks...but they all looked like this or worse when I got them:



Same plane a few hours later....I can braze in the hanger holes, too...but as they don't affect the function...why?






The shaving above is the full width of the blade and almost perefct micrometer thickness throughout...it don't get any better than that...even in a Norris....so take the sales pitches, other hype, and ravings from other newbies about spendy new planes with a grain of salt, eh?

I wrote a whole article on rehabbing them and another on rehabbing old chisels ya oughtta read...sure didn't garner many questions here...if ya wanna save some dough. All are posted here. Look for them in a major mag one day, as these trial balloon postings garnered me an invite.

The Stanley 8C above works just as well as the fine Civil War-era jointer with the thick, laminated blade.

Will fix the oldies up on more time and hand them down to oldest boy so he won't have to spend big bucks on new planes.

But these are too useful to replace:

[Bob Smalser]

I have 2 jointers, a 28" Chapin by Union which is a double iron woodie from the 1850's, and a type 11 Stanley Bailey #7. Both work quite well though I replaced the iron on the #7 with one of Ron Hock's thicker aftermarket irons. There are lots of good choices out there for jointers including the ones mentioned by others in the previous posts. I find it difficult to justify the high cost of L-N at $450 or even the Clifton for that matter. They sure are pretty, but pretty doesn't improve function. Unless you are going to use a jointer as a smoother for surfaces like table tops or use it as a panel plane, ultra-ultra precision and a super tight mouth measured at .002-.005 inch isn't necessary. Consider getting a used Stanley #7 in good shape from a tool dealer or at auction and you shouldn't have to pay more than about $65-90. Best of these planes run from about a type 11 through a type 17. After that, the quality began to go downhill rapidly.

Hey Dave,

What's the difference 'tween Type 8's...a couple of which I have and use daily...and Type 11's...and why would Type 11's be better?

I can't tell much of a differnece in substantive features between my Type 8's and Type 16's.

I can't figure it out from the Blood-Gore and other collector sites.

[Dave Anderson NH]

Starting around the type 10 planes just after 1900 (exact date I'm not sure) the frog and its' seat were improved to prevent lateral shift. This was done by adding the rib and making the frontmost part into a "tabbed" like structure. The 10's also added the screw at the back of the receiver which allowed the adjustment of the frog without removing it, just like on the Bedrocks. The other thing I like about the planes up to the end of the Sweetheart era is the higher quality of their irons. The steel is just better and holds an edge longer. In fact of all my older Stanleys, only 2 or 3 have been fitted with an aftermarket iron. Based on a lot of your posts here I suspect you and I share the old Yankee ideal of getting every bit of use out of something we can. Remember, Yankee is a state of mind, not a regional address.

I also have a couple of type 9 planes which lack the frog adjuster and they work quite well too. I think that almost any of the planes made before quality started to really slide in the late 1930s and then plummeted vertically after WW II will work if fettled. It becomes a matter of how much time and energy soomeone is going to put in and what skill level someone starts with. Someone just starting out would likely get frustrated spending a lot of time on a really beat up pre-lateral adjuster Stanley with the iffy frog and not knowing how to properly align the blade. A more experienced fettler wouldn't be fazed.

[Bob Smalser]

Starting around the type 10 planes just after 1900 (exact date I'm not sure) the frog and its' seat were improved to prevent lateral shift. This was done by adding the rib and making the frontmost part into a "tabbed" like structure. The 10's also added the screw at the back of the receiver which allowed the adjustment of the frog without removing it, just like on the Bedrocks. The other thing I like about the planes up to the end of the Sweetheart era is the higher quality of their irons. The steel is just better and holds an edge longer. In fact of all my older Stanleys, only 2 or 3 have been fitted with an aftermarket iron. Based on a lot of your posts here I suspect you and I share the old Yankee ideal of getting every bit of use out of something we can. Remember, Yankee is a state of mind, not a regional address.

I also have a couple of type 9 planes which lack the frog adjuster and they work quite well too. I think that almost any of the planes made before quality started to really slide in the late 1930s and then plummeted vertically after WW II will work if fettled. It becomes a matter of how much time and energy soomeone is going to put in and what skill level someone starts with. Someone just starting out would likely get frustrated spending a lot of time on a really beat up pre-lateral adjuster Stanley with the iffy frog and not knowing how to properly align the blade. A more experienced fettler wouldn't be fazed.

Thanks, Dave...that helped a lot.

[Roger Nixon]

and I just cant justify that for something that will need hours to get working.
Bob

It's pretty much an urban legend that it takes hours to get an old plane to work. I know reliable people who have told me about planes that were badly warped but I have yet to find one after 200+. I bought my favorite #7, a Keen Kutter K7, at an auction about 3 years ago. It was in good shape but it had a Winchester lever cap and a Millers Falls blade so I was able to get it for $22.50. For those who haven't checked out Keen Kutters, the K series were Type 4 Bedrocks.
I ran my usual highly scientific test on it which consists of installing a sharp blade and putting it to work. It has worked perfectly for 3 years now. All I have done is clean it up and put the right lever cap on it. I really like the MF blade so I kept that in it.
I have prettier #7's (and I've never had to work on any of them) but the old K7 is my go to.