Anyone Raise a Door Panel With a LN 140?

[David Weaver]

I picked up one of the skew 140s yesterday on a whim, and I'm wondering if anyone else has used one to raise a door panel.

I don't know if it'll get used for anything else, but I have two small projects waiting in the wings - each with two raised panel doors, and I didn't want tearout.

I guess it's sort of jumping the gun to get the plane first and than wait and see if another rabbet plane (without the skew) produces tearout.

I recall someone on here saying that the skew goes the wrong way for raising panels in some planes. Which way is it supposed to go? On this plane, the way the fence is set up and the way the nicker is set up, the blade hits toward the center of the door first and works the shaving out toward the edge of the door if that makes any sense.

The doors in both cases will be maple, so tearout really shouldn't be an issue, even if it's going the wrong direction.

[lowell holmes]

I've dressed doors that were raised with a shaper with my LN 140. I see no reason why the panels cannot be raised with it.

I'm working some Curly Maple now that does not respond to low angle planes though. I'm using a BU Jack plane with a 40 degree iron in it.

[Chuck Hamman]

David,
Will the recessed portion of the panel be flat or will it be beveled? If it is flat and only and eight of an inch or so below the field I might attempt it with that plane. If this edge is of the beveled type then I wouldn't even consider using any block plane skewed or not. The fence on that plane won't work very well and you'll find it difficult to grip when using an auxiliary fence.
I use a Stanley 78 with a 10 Deg fence clamped across the top of the panel, along the edge of the field. I don't use the nicker at all; it'll just leave marks that you won't be able to remove. Plow a narrow groove up the sides and along the top and bottom to define the field.

As Lowell said, that plane will do a real nice job dressing things up. Wish I had one.

-Chuck

[Mark Stutz]

David,
I agree with Chuck...I wouldn't try to do the whole thing with a 140. but it is great for the end grain. I use a series of planes to "hog off" most of the excess after defining the field with a small groove. If you don't use a raised field you can use about any bench plane to do the job. I posted a series of PICS about the process. http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthre...t=raised+panel

I suppose that if you were doing a small panel for a box lid that it might be possible to use the 140. I found it desirable to have both the right and left hand versions for doing this.

Mark

[David Weaver]

Thanks for the suggestions guys - I tried a combination of the LN plane and a millers falls Stanley 78 copy, reverse from that order, though.

Mark - I revisited this tonight to comment on how shocking the results of the 140 are on endgrain, and just noticed that you plowed grooves. That's a great idea - the only problem I had without using the nicker was tearout, but I was using a piece of scrap oak.

The job that the 140 leaves on the endgrain is stunning, and I didn't even bother sharpening it on the best stone that I have - only on a king 6000 out of laziness and haste to use it. The backs of the new irons from LV and LN are really really flat lately - never had to go to an 800 stone or paper - just strokes on the 6000 stone, and a very fine experience shaving the hair off the back of my hand. I polished the front bevel at the edge just barely greater than the primary grind, by probably a degree or two. It took stunning shavings.

Each time I get a new LN plane, it's like (fill in the blank here)...you just get that fresh feeling and a wonderful whoosh.

I do like a raised field, and will probably just set the depth stop on the rabbet plane to be the depth of the field after it's cut. I don't have a plow plane, but I do have a stanley 55. That might be a horrific experience on the cross grain, but I can trim it with a 79 or 98 or 99 if it doesn't tear out too bad.

My doors will all be cherry or maple, so the tearout should be less of an issue with those.

I'm open to other ideas for raising the field - that won't leave tearout.

I will probably not do a true raised panel - I'll cut the sides of the panel to fit in the plowed rails and styles and rabbet out the back.

Glad I didn't get a good raised panel bit set yet.

Anyone want to offer up the edge details they do on the door frame?

Also, anyone have any experience with a sargent VBM rabbet? Somehow, I ran across one of those for $15 in basically unused condition and I think the prior owner stored it in a box of thousands of dead spiders. If I dig it out and clean it off, is it worth the effort? It's sure prettier, but it doesn't have the trick depth adjustment that the MF plane does.

[Mark Stutz]

David,
You can also field the panel using a back saw to define the fields. I think you would get less tearout and a smoother edge than using a #55 across the grain. I used a #46 which was just the trick for the cross grain dado.

Mark

[Derek Cohen]

I have used a Stanley #140 on the end grain on several occasions. It does a grain job finishing. I used a a basic jack to remove much of the waste, then changed down to the #140.

This is the only picture I have on file: Hoop pine cabinet with Jarrah raised panel inserts. At that stage with a temporary molding.



I am currently making another, this time with a newly restored #140. This was a 1985 model that looked like this to begin ..



.. and ended like this ..



One of the reasons I went through this resto (with a lot of help from Thomas LN) was to use it in this area.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

Derek - I saw your post about getting parts for that thing and getting it less than half price on ebay. Was it really made in 1985?

I paid full price for mine

I guess you called LN and gave them a list of what you needed for parts and they hooked you up? I've had good luck with them, even if I'm buying a part for a stanley (like depth stop feet for a 98 and 99 - not a perfect fit, but workable, and where else are you going to get it?).

For the end grain, I haven't seen anything cut like it, and being able to take the side off and cut all the way up to the edge is nice. Might not get used a whole lot, but when you need it....

[Derek Cohen]

Hi David

I don't mean or plan to hijack the thread. But I was so thrilled with the restoration. In a nutshell, it was one of the first #140s made by LN, in 1985. The width is fractionally wider and it is 1/4" longer than the current model. I needed special parts, and Thomas LN made them for me (new side piece, new thick W1 blade, new fence, upgraded to the latest nicker). The colour is a champagne rather than the yellow bronze of the recent models. There was work I did, and work done by LN. It is stunning and will be a great user.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[lowell holmes]

I have one that is about 5 years old. It has no nicker. What's involved with adding a nicker?

[David Weaver]

It's in the casting - like a nicker on a Stanley 78 (though not quite the same), if you've seen one.

Looks like it would be ultra useful cutting a clean rabbet cross grain, but it would leave a groove in anything else - though I guess you could cut part way with it and then put it up and cut down to the nicker mark.

See the picture at the following link and look at the screw in the front.

http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=140

I think if you want one with a nicker, you should probably sell yours and get one that has a nicker already to keep the resale value in tact - unless there's something I don't know about the castings of the ones without a nicker.

I don't want to be quoted, but I don't think the original stanley 140s had a nicker. I've never seen one in person, though, so that's not reliable...just recall reading somewhere that TLN decided to add a nicker to the original design.

[Michael Pilla]

If you contact Lie-Nielsen they can add a nicker to your plane. I seem to remember reading online that it wasn't expensive either.

Michael

[Derek Cohen]

I don't want to be quoted, but I don't think the original stanley 140s had a nicker. I've never seen one in person, though, so that's not reliable...just recall reading somewhere that TLN decided to add a nicker to the original design.

David, the original Stanley #140 lacked both nicker and fence. The addition of these by LN has created a very versatile plane. There is no problem adding a nicker. And the new nicker is an improvement on the old one. Note that you can "switch the nicker off" if you don't need it, and "turn it on" when you do.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

I haven't had the chance to "turn mine on" yet, figured it just rotated like the ones on a 78. Could be wrong, though.

Seems like the fence makes it much easier to use on raised panels. Same is true for rabbets, I guess.

So, if you can't use the nicker fielding a raised panel, what's the reason for it - reduce tearout on rabbets?