Low angle v. standard plane

[Matt Clark]

I was wondering, if I can sharpen a low angle bevel up plane to just about any angle, why buy a standard angle plane? I'm sure there is a good reason, I'm probably just too new to know what it is.

[Mark Roderick]

It's an excellent question.

When I asked that very question at a Lie-Nielsen show, the answer was that the traditional bevel-down planes (such as the Lie-Neilsen #4 1/2 smoothing plane) have more bulk than the bevel-up planes and therefore can do a better job on difficult woods, sometimes.

But putting that to the side, a couple of bevel-up planes (e.g., a jack plane and a jointer) with two or three blades for each of them, sharpened to different angles, sounds like a good plan for most woodworkers.

[lowell holmes]

I have the LN 4 1/2 and a LV BU jack plane with all the irons. I like both planes, but if I had to choose just one, it would be the bu jack.

[Michael Faurot]

You might not ever need a bevel-down plane if you start out buying something like the bevel-up series of planes from Veritas and all the extra interchangeable blades. If you want to be able to do a variety of things with hand planes, but don't want to have a bunch of them--this would be the way to go.

As to why you might want a bevel-down plane . . .

• You like acquiring tools as much as you like working wood.
• Vintage planes can often be found inexpensively and with a bit of sweat equity can be made useful. Having different types of planes around can be useful when dealing with different types of wood and grain. Sometimes one plane will do the job, when another one won't.
• The bevel-up series of planes from Veritas, with interchangeable blades, are somewhat wide with blades that are 2-1/4". You may find, at some point, you need something a bit more narrow in a bench plane type configuration like a No. 3.

[Joel Goodman]

I like my LN 62 (BU) with a 35 degree blade better than the BD smoothers I've tried -- and that included a LN 4 1/2 York and an ECE. I'm sure the LV BU planes are similar.

[Raney Nelson]

I gues I'm in the opposite - I much prefer BD planes for most tasks. I do have a LA jack, which is excellent for shooting board and occasional endgrain use.

I find BU planes develop a pretty significant wear bevel, and it's on the blade back because of the orientation. This, to me, increases the sharpening PITA. With BD, the wear bevel is on the ground bevel, so it gets removed with normal honing. Not a deal killer, but it annoys me when I have to sharpen my jack blades.

The real reason, though, is that I don't like the low ceter of gravity on BU planes as much. I am a believer in the fact that a well-designed plane makes good use of the user's sense of level and plumb. Because the COG on BU planes is so low, I didn't find this to be the case.

I have several bench planes, so I like to have them set up to do one thing, and do it right. I'm not very concerned with 'versatility' in that sense.

Having said all that, though, there is really no argument that if you are going to have a small number of planes then BU gives you a LOT of flexibility.

[Robert Rozaieski]

To address your question directly, a BU plane can certainly have it's angle changed by grinding a different angle. However, so can a bevel down plane, by adding a back bevel . You can have different irons for a BD plane just as easily as a BU plane, so really, there is no difference in that respect.

With that said, I like BD because I like old tools and for the price of 1 BU jack (you choose the make), I can get at least 5 old planes. I don't care about the versatility of the BU planes and actually think that this perceived versatility is way over rated (yes I have used them ). I have found that it isn't worth the effort to constantly change blades and settings for different tasks. You give up something in a tool in order to make it more versatile. I have a jack plane set up to be a jack plane, a try set up as a try, a jointer as a jointer and a smoother as a smoother. This allows me to pick up a plane and go and it allows me to perform the tasks that the planes were designed to do very effeciently and with little effort or time spent constantly checking.

If you use machines to do your stock prep, then a jack plane is not what you want as they are designed for rougher tasks (based on their size, not their ability to take a thin shaving). In my experience, a jack plane (bevel up or bevel down, doesn't really matter) can smooth well if set up for doing so, however, they are a lot heavier than needed for a smoother. In addition, they are too long to focus on a small area of tough grain when required to do so. Also, they are too short to be any good for final flattening of panels or jointing edges. You can certainly use them for this, but you are going to work harder at it. I think this is why so many folks get frustrated trying to flatten a panel or joint an edge by hand ...they are trying to make a tool do something it was not optimized to do. That's the price of versatility .

Ask yourself what you want the plane to do. If you want to smooth a board, get a smooth plane. If you want to joint an edge, get a jointer. If you want to prepare rough stock using only hand planes, get all three (Jack, jointer, smoother). How it feels in use should be the deciding factor. If it's not comfortable for you to use, you will avoid it.

Bevel up or bevel down doesn't really matter as they will both do the task, but don't let a false sense of versatility sway your vote. If you work domestic hardwoods, you shouldn't need to change the cutting angle very often. I have a standard 45 degree smoother that does 95 percent of my smoothing. A sharp iron goes a long way . When I need a higher angle in a rare case, I have a 55 degree woodie I made or I'll scrape.

The one thing that I will give the BU planes over the BD is their effectiveness on end grain. A BD plane cannot have a cutting angle lower than it's bed angle. If you want a plane for end grain, get a BU smoother, that way you can leave it set up as a smoother. If you set a BU jack for use as a jack plane, you won't be able to take a shaving on the end grain as it will be too big a bite so you'll constantly be changing the setting...very ineffecient. With that said, I have a BD wooden strike block (miter plane, whatever you call it) with a bed angle of 35 degrees. This is the same effective cutting angle as your typical BU plane with a 25 degree bevel angle. It works just as well on end grain as a BU plane.

[glenn bradley]

I went with a LA BU and have a second iron with a higher angle so I can change back and forth as desired.

[Brian Kent]

So why is it that the LV Low Angle Jack suddenly meets a piece of wood it doesn't like (and it really does get along well with most wood) and then an old Stanley jack or a Mujingfang or a Krenov suddenly takes the right bite?

It's a mystery. Pick your "mostly" plane and make really good friends with it, but have one of its cousins sharp and ready.

[Chris Friesen]

With that said, I like BD because I like old tools and for the price of 1 BU jack (you choose the make), I can get at least 5 old planes.

I live in the middle of the Canadian prairies. There are basically no old tools available locally, and when dealers in the US condescend to deal with us Canucks the shipping is often excessive (and then add on UPS brokerage fees, since many dealers won't ship USPS).

It's enough of a pain that I've basically given up on being able to find decent old tools, and have started buying new.

[Eddie Darby]

I own both types of planes, and the real difference in performance is mostly to be found out at the fringes where you find difficult woods.

The BD planes have the added weight and the adjustability on the fly that makes them ideal for the job. You can just advance the blade with a twirl of the index finger, and keep on going.

Adjustment isn't as straight forward and easy with BU planes, which tend to be lighter, generally.

The BU excel at low angles of attack, such as endgrain, and I prefer BD for tough wild grain, where the mass helps.

Both will get the job done, and the BU offer flexibility, which is nice for someone starting out on a budget.

[Larry Williams]

I was wondering, if I can sharpen a low angle bevel up plane to just about any angle, why buy a standard angle plane? I'm sure there is a good reason, I'm probably just too new to know what it is.

Derek Cohen is one of the biggest proponents of low-angle/bevel-up planes around. Recently, though, in a discussion of the new Holtey No. 982 he wrote: "...Hats off to Karl Holtey for his superlative work. Does it matter whether he does 90% or 50% or 10% with machines? This man is the universally accepted master of toolmakers. He has about 3 decades or more of experience and expertise in his planes. ..."

While I don't agree about "universally accepted master", I do think he's learned plenty about hand planes. He's discontinuing his #98 bevel-up plane in favor of a middle pitch bevel down plane. His #98 with its 22 1/2º bed angle doesn't suffer the clearance angle problems of the 12º bed angle bevel up planes like the rapid wear on the under side of the iron mentioned earlier.

I could explain why I think he's learned the middle pitch single iron plane is better than a bevel-up for difficult interlocked grain hardwoods but I don't have time to write a book.

I find the evolution of Holtey's planes interesting. He started out producing reproduction standard double iron infills. Then he switched to steeper pitched double iron infills. After these, came the #98. Now he's making a single iron middle pitched plane. It looks to me like he's ended up nearly right where plane evolution was in the last half of the 18th Century when double irons were introduced.

Those old guys knew a lot and tried everything. Just look at American plane patents for an idea of the constant effort at improving planes over the years. One funny thing is Holtey and a lot of others seem to be looking for the heaviest plane possible. If you look at the patent records for American metal planes one thing you'll find is the old guys kept looking for a way to make metal planes lighter. In fact, being lighter may be the most common claim in old US metal plane patents. If you've ever actually worked all day at a bench with bench planes doing traditional work, you'll really understand the earlier quest for lighter planes.

[philip marcou]

Larry,
Let's not worry too much about who supports what. You are certainly correct in saying that the Old Boys knew a lot- but they also knew nothing of improved wear resisting steels such as D2, A2 and various other high speed steels. It would be interesting to see how access to those would have influenced plane design.
I have an issue with your take on metal planes and the quest for weight reduction: since Stanley were the big boys in mass production I suspect (believe) that the real reason for all that touting was in fact the need to cut costs of production by using /casting as little iron as possible. Why did they not seek to lose some weight by using lighter weight timbers for knobs and totes?. Ditto the famous/infamous chattering thin irons....the really Old Boys in fact used mighty thick irons.
The days of labouring all day with handplanes are long gone- folk are more keen on playing/enjoying the work and will use electricity to do the boring stuff . I also think that workmen of yore were a lot tougher than what we have nowadays, so handplaning all day was no sweat, but handplaning dense hardwoods was a different proposition so they in fact looked for heavier planes such as Norris, Spiers et al made. I would rather plane Teak or Jatoba with a Very Heavy Plane , all day, than force and keep a lighty down for a short time.
The fact of the matter is that the main influences on bevel angles and the question of b/u or b/d are items such as the way one works (or plays), the nature of the blade, and wood types worked (a lot different to days of yore). Folk are more apt to adapt or customise their tools and planes to suit-and it must be said that a b/u plane with superior steel blades allows more scope for that.
As to why dear K.H has defected from b/u to b/d- who knows the real reason? These days one is better off with many strings to the bow,(read: many blades to the plane) and if one is considered a leader in one's field one is able to mould a market to suit one's tastes, should one be so inclined. One also grows more cynical with age.
What would you predict the next Holtey to be?

[David Keller NC]

Why would one buy two or more planes when a bevel up plane wtih two or more blades can do the same work?

If you work with handplanes a lot (and not just for smoothing, but also joinery and shooting on the same job), there's a really easy answer - because stopping your work to change out a blade is a tremendous PITA. My method of working is, I suspect, fairly similiar to others that do mostly handwork after roughing out planks on machines. Once I set up a plane, I tend not to mess with the setting for the rest of the day, and perhaps for the rest of the job, depending on how hard the wood is and whether I have to stop to hone the blade (which is also a PITA, but that part can't be helped)

A good example is in block planes. Over the last 3 days I constructed a 1:12 scale doll bed for my niece. Most of the work was done with a Lie-Nielsen low-angle block plane, standard angle block plane, #2 bronze bevel-down bailey plane, and a miter plane on a shooting board. Having to stop to replace the blade in my low-angle block would've very significantly slowed me down, and very much interfered with the precision of my work.

The precision hindrance comes from the fact that even though I like and use Charlesworth's method of flipping the plane upside down and running a small piece of wood across the blade aver the width of the plane to check and adjust the depth and centering, I still typically make small adjustments to the cut depth and centering after two or three shavings.

On every tiny workpiece of this project, I was typically flush-planing it to match its mate, shooting each side, and planing each end. Stopping to change the blade in my low angle block to go from side or face grain to end grain would've been maddening.

[Larry Williams]

Philip,

I doubt access to today's fad steels would have changed much in traditional plane design. I doubt they could have sold tools with steel that didn't quickly take a good edge back then.

While I maintain a lot of high speed steels and even carbide for metal working, I have no use for them in woodworking tools. I had a D-2 chisel given to me but it wasn't worth the effort to properly tune, a brief session on the sharpening stones told me all I needed to know about that chisel. Of coarse, if I was using metal stamping dies I'd look to D-2 because that's its intended use.

I used some A-2 plane irons for a while but I've replaced them with W-1 irons. I found the "increased wear" marginal and not worth the struggle and extra effort to sharpen them. I'm getting to be an old man with a limited amount of time left on this planet, I've got better things to do than sharpen steel that really doesn't want to be sharpened.

Because of the metal working we do, we have grinders you won't find in many woodworking shops. I could have taken that D-2 chisel I mentioned to the oscillating diamond grinder and properly shaped the body for its intended use. It would have probably taken a day or more and used up a couple $150 diamond wheels. I can buy a whole set of old chisels like that one for less than the diamond wheels would have cost. I have the equipment to handle today's fad steels and still don't find them worth the effort for woodworking.

I spent a lifetime doing architectural woodworking and a lot of what I did was with hand tools. I used Stanley planes for years. I can understand complaints about tear out with Stanley planes but complaints about chattering irons tell me someone needs to learn to tune and sharpen their planes.

Actually the early irons were quite thin, about 1/8" or less thick. The thick irons you mention were a 19th Century compromise to mass production.

When you say, "The days of labouring all day with handplanes are long gone," are you suggesting the only use for hand planes today is as a substitute for a finish sander? Only to remove machine marks? I know a lot of people who would disagree with that. I think those who believe that are limiting themselves and missing out on a whole world of capability. You'll also find the pressure required to keep a plane in the cut greatly increases with an inadequate clearance angle.

Here's a link to US bench plane patents:

http://www.datamp.org/displayIndex.php?start=0

If you spend much time looking at them you'll soon come to realize how often metal plane patents claim to reduce the weight of metal planes.

I have no idea where Holtey might go but it is interesting where his experience has led him. I'd have told him to start where he is now but he didn't ask.