I had the chance to test the two planes today, side by side. Some comments,
in no particular order of importance:
LV:
well machined, but not finished to the level of the LN
has a very well machined bed for the frog
innovative adjustable mouth
no slop detectable
large grip
LN:
very well machined and finished
fixed mouth
small (Stanley standard size) grip
zero backlash
General. I would be very happy to own either plane, but would only buy and
use one - the LV. First, I have large hands and the LN does not let me grip
the handle unless my little and ring fingers are crossed over - awkward.
Second, in use, my 'pointer' finger is in contact with the back of the
blade. When I squeeze the handle to push the plane my finger digs into the
blade parts (screws etc) - painful.
Value for money, the LV beats the LN hands down. After careful fettling of
the LV, I'd be very surprised if the two didn't perform the same, with the
LV being more flexible due to the adjustable mouth.
As a disclaimer, I own LN planes but no LV, yet. My viewpoint is as a user
that likes very well made tools but insists on great useability coming with
a high price. In my comment above, relating to the finish of the LV, it
should in no way be taken to mean a lack of precision in the manufacture of
the item. I am referring specifically to the 'cosmetic engineering' aspects
i.e. plating, polishing, rounding edges etc. I am confident that the
engineering tolerances would be very similar between both companies.
Greg
Thanks for the review. I have been trying to decide between exactly these
two planes myself. Lee Valley it is.
It strikes me that LN might better serve our market by allowing for the fact
that people have just gotten bigger in the last 50-70 years and make some
adjustments accordingly.
My grandfather might have been very comfortable using the LN design but he
was 5'7". My dad was 5'10" and I am 6'4". I wouldn't want to wear Grand
Dad's clothes or ride his bike. They just wouldn't fit.
Cheers,
Dave Day
"Groggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I had the chance to test the two planes today, side by side. Some
comments,
> in no particular order of importance:
>
> LV:
> well machined, but not finished to the level of the LN
> has a very well machined bed for the frog
> innovative adjustable mouth
> no slop detectable
> large grip
>
> LN:
> very well machined and finished
> fixed mouth
> small (Stanley standard size) grip
> zero backlash
>
>
> General. I would be very happy to own either plane, but would only buy and
> use one - the LV. First, I have large hands and the LN does not let me
grip
> the handle unless my little and ring fingers are crossed over - awkward.
> Second, in use, my 'pointer' finger is in contact with the back of the
> blade. When I squeeze the handle to push the plane my finger digs into the
> blade parts (screws etc) - painful.
>
> Value for money, the LV beats the LN hands down. After careful fettling of
> the LV, I'd be very surprised if the two didn't perform the same, with the
> LV being more flexible due to the adjustable mouth.
>
> As a disclaimer, I own LN planes but no LV, yet. My viewpoint is as a user
> that likes very well made tools but insists on great useability coming
with
> a high price. In my comment above, relating to the finish of the LV, it
> should in no way be taken to mean a lack of precision in the manufacture
of
> the item. I am referring specifically to the 'cosmetic engineering'
aspects
> i.e. plating, polishing, rounding edges etc. I am confident that the
> engineering tolerances would be very similar between both companies.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> Eric, with the beginnings of arthritis and planing Australian Redgum, I
tend
> to use all the fingers to hold the plane, that's just my technique.
>
NP. I was taught to point, and I watch the LN people at the shows use the
same technique. I just learned to point with both my index and middle
fingers because if I try to keep three fingers wrapped on the handle it
tends to pinch just a little bit, wearing my hand out, while two fingers
wrapped gives me plenty of directional control and my arms wear out before
my hands.
I learned a lot about tuning and using a plane just watching and asking
questions at the show. The guy at the LN booth, whose name excapes me at
the moment, is very good at taking the mystery out of it. Considering how
many tools I've bought from them, they're happy to see me coming.;-) The
other guy I've learned a lot from is Graham Blackburn, one of the show's
seminar speakers.
Cheers,
Eric
"woodguy" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I've read many articles on tuning up old stanleys and have taken a class
> which went very well. I now have a finely tuned #4 and #5 that work great.
> My question is since I have no experience with the LN or Veritas how much
> better are they then a well tuned old Staney. Maybe even an old stanley with
> a hock blade. This still would be less expensive than either the LN or the
> Veritas. I understand the quality is there in both the LN and Veritas but is
> it that much better than an old stanley that has been brought back to life?
Well, if you want to accurately compare a L-N and an old Stanley,
you'd need to compare the L-N to the Stanley Bedrock series of planes.
Right there you've changed the monetary comparison, as Bedrocks go
for *quite* a bit more, especially if they are in good shape.
I had a regular #4-1/2 that I added a Hock iron to, and tuned
within an inch of its life. I was able to get it to perform quite
well, but when I had some discretionary cash I bought the L-N #4-1/2.
The difference was immediately noticeable. The L-N has quite a bit
more mass (a *good* thing for a smoother used on tricky woods). It
also had less slop in the lateral lever, and lever cap and
considerably less backlash in the depth adjustment mechanism. This
may not seem like a big deal, but for doing fine work, achieving and
holding a setting, and being able to easily reproduce it (i.e.,
repeatability) are all key.
For my other benchplanes (non-Bedrock jointer, fore and jack), I
haven't bothered to upgrade to a L-N or Veritas, as tuning them and
adding an aftermarket iron seem to be all that is necessary to get
them to perform well enough for those roles. And depending on the
types of woods you work, a super-tuned Stanley #4 or #4-1/2 might be
sufficient as a smoother. If you aren't inclined to work with lots of
figured woods or exotics, the pricier planes might be overkill.
My own "philosophy" regarding buying L-N or Veritas tools is to
invest the extra money when the old Stanley is in roughly the same
ballpark price-wise (usually specialty planes, like the #164, #112,
#140, for example), or the extra precision would make life easier (the
#4-1/2).
There is also an aesthetics angle to consider. Some prefer the old
tools (and some just like bringing them back to life), while others
appreciate the looks of the L-N enough to make it worthwhile to pay
the difference.
As an aside, the times I have compared L-N and Veritas planes
side-by-side (#164 and #112), the Veritas planes have come out ahead
as far as bang-for-the-buck. The L-N are ahead in aesthetics, but
IMHO, not enough to justify the price tag difference. (And I actually
prefer the Veritas knobs/and totes from an ergonomic standpoint.)
Chuck Vance
[email protected] (Frank Shute) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Aesthetically, LN's appeal to me and for me that makes their extra
> cost worthwhile. Although my primary reason for buying them is that
> they work out of the box and go on working and working well.
Yep, each L-N I have bought was perfectly capable of taking decent
shavings right out of the box. Of course you still need to hone the
iron before doing any serious work, but they are the most ready-to-go
planes out there, IME.
> LN's range is pretty hard to beat too and some of their planes aren't
> made by anybody else AFAIK eg: ½" infill shoulder plane - the business
> for trimming tenons.
I don't know if LV has any plans for an infill, but they are
continually expanding their line, so they are worth keeping an eye on.
> I haven't used the Veritas planes but having read reviews, it sounds
> like they are excellent planes.....but aesthetically they leave me
> cold (sorry Rob Lee!)
I can understand that. I'm no fan of their look either, but I've
noticed that in the instances where I have both the L-N and LV planes
(#164 and #112), I reach for the LV tool first. Simply put, the LV
planes are more comfortable in use. Obviously, YMMV.
> [snip]
>
> BTW, what angle is the LV 4½ frog pitched at? With the LN you can get
> a York pitched frog, which would head it for the LN (for me) assuming
> the LV is only pitched at 45. Depends what timber the original poster
> is hoping to tackle with it though.
The LV is a standard 45 degree frog. Like you, I have the LN
#4-1/2, and I was seriously considering the 50 degree frog. However,
after reading Rob Lee's suggestion that you back-bevel the iron to get
the same effect I gave it a try and it works quite well.
Anyhow, I don't see myself giving up my L-N planes anytime soon,
but I can still heartily recommend the LV tools. They are a fine
mid-priced alternative and basically do everything you could ask of
them. And the fact that LV is aggressively pursuing their line of
planes is a good thing for all of us who like handtools, IMHO.
Chuck Vance
[email protected] (Frank Shute) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> How do the LV planes compare on that front? I'd guess they are pretty
> much ready to go too.
The irons on the LV planes I've got needed a bit more work to get
ready than the L-N planes. They were rougher and needed a bit of
lapping to flatten the back. Otherwise, it was just a matter of
adjusting the plane and going for it.
> I'd also be interested to know what tolerances
> the LV planes are machined to, my understanding is that LN's are
> better than a thou', Clifton's a couple of thou'.
Rob Lee could probably answer that for you better than I could, but
I will say that when I received the prototype for their low-angle
smoother for testing, the fit of the sliding toe-piece left a bit to
be desired. (There wasn't any lateral play, but there was a slight
gap along the sides on the sole that could pick up "crumbs" and
potentially ding your work.) But that was taken care of in the
production version. The appearance wasn't quite as impressive as the
fit on the L-N low-angle, where the junction of the sliding piece and
fixed sole is almost invisible, but it was plenty good enough.
As far as other specs, this is from their website (describing the
#4-1/2): "The sole is guaranteed to be flat to 0.003" concave, never
convex. The wings are square to the sole within 15 minutes (1/4°)."
> [snip]
>
> > The LV is a standard 45 degree frog. Like you, I have the LN
> > #4-1/2, and I was seriously considering the 50 degree frog. However,
> > after reading Rob Lee's suggestion that you back-bevel the iron to get
> > the same effect I gave it a try and it works quite well.
>
> I don't like the idea of that....I don't have a 4-1/2 yet so it would
> mean I'd lose my excuse to buy another plane ;)
Oooops, sorry ... my bad. :-)
> I've currently got Clifton's #3 & #5 and a LN low angle #4 - a #4-1/2
> with high pitched frog would go nicely with those for facing.
Yeah, and at the other end of the weight spectrum, if you're into
wooden planes, you could go for the Clark & Williams wooden smoother.
They'll make it for you at any angle between 45 and 60, IIRC. Mine
(55 degree) is still my "special reserve" plane that gets called on
when everything else is having trouble.
> [competition from LV]
>
> It is good. Before LV & Clifton came along there was no competition
> for LN, you'd think the competition must drive prices down and quality
> up. Although to be fair, I think Tom Lie Nielsen and Robert Lee would
> prefer to be out of business than produce crap tools.
Agreed. Tom's offerings still have more cachet to them, and I
doubt that he'll ever try to compete directly with Rob. But, Rob and
LV have shown that you can be innovative in tool-design and produce a
very high quality product that is still affordable to the hobbyist
woodworker who doesn't have an unlimited budget.
(BTW, it's *Robin* Lee.)
Chuck Vance (who doesn't work for LV, but probably wouldn't mind
getting a job with them as a fulltime plane tester)
[email protected] (Frank Shute) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 18 Dec 2003 06:40:36 -0800, Conan the Librarian wrote:
>
> [little snip]
>
> > As far as other specs, this is from their website (describing the
> > #4-1/2): "The sole is guaranteed to be flat to 0.003" concave, never
> > convex. The wings are square to the sole within 15 minutes (1/4°)."
>
> That's certainly acceptable - I'd possibly lap the sole. Mind you, if
> I wasn't bone idle I'd probably lap the soles of my LN's too, I did
> lap the soles of my Cliftons.
I used to be totally anal about lapping soles, but I've stopped
messing with it unless I have reason to believe that a particular sole
is off. I.e., if I seem to be going from no shaving at all to gouging
with no in-between, I'll check the sole for flatness and fix it if
needed.
> > Yeah, and at the other end of the weight spectrum, if you're into
> > wooden planes, you could go for the Clark & Williams wooden smoother.
> > They'll make it for you at any angle between 45 and 60, IIRC. Mine
> > (55 degree) is still my "special reserve" plane that gets called on
> > when everything else is having trouble.
>
> I haven't got any wooden planes but am planning on making a moulding
> plane in the New year. Clark & Williams are a new name to me, I'll
> have to check them out.
Here's their website: http://www.planemaker.com/ They are a
two-man operation and they make wooden planes in the traditional
style. Their planes are pricey, but they are made one-at-a-time on
request. Since you mentioned the aesthetics of the L-N product, I
figured you might get a kick out of these planes. They are a joy to
look at as well as to use.
> > Agreed. Tom's offerings still have more cachet to them, and I
> > doubt that he'll ever try to compete directly with Rob. But, Rob and
> > LV have shown that you can be innovative in tool-design and produce a
> > very high quality product that is still affordable to the hobbyist
> > woodworker who doesn't have an unlimited budget.
>
> Sure. Although I bet if you got Rob drunk & quizzed him he'd say he
> was trying to produce planes as good if not better than LN but at half
> the price. You might not even have to get him drunk & maybe he's
> aiming for Karl Holtey;)
>
> <tool porn>
>
> No 98 Holtey Damascus:
>
> http://www.holteyplanes.com/98damask.htm
>
> </tool porn>
That's just sick! :-) Did you see the miniatures on his main
page? Absolutely unbelievable.
> > Chuck Vance (who doesn't work for LV, but probably wouldn't mind
> > getting a job with them as a fulltime plane tester)
>
> Hope you bag the job!
I've been working on it. :-) Rob was kind enough to let me take
part in pre-production testing of a few of his tools. It's amazing
how I revert to acting like a kid in a candystore when one of those
packages arrives. :-)
Chuck Vance
Just say (tmPL) And I hope I will always react that way to new
tools.
"woodguy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've read many articles on tuning up old stanleys and have taken a class
> which went very well. I now have a finely tuned #4 and #5 that work great.
> My question is since I have no experience with the LN or Veritas how much
> better are they then a well tuned old Staney. Maybe even an old stanley
with
> a hock blade. This still would be less expensive than either the LN or the
> Veritas. I understand the quality is there in both the LN and Veritas but
is
> it that much better than an old stanley that has been brought back to
life?
> Thanks, John
John,
my personal view is no, they are not much better, if at all. Originally, I
was comparing two new planes, not two new planes and a highly tuned old
plane.
Value for money depends on a number of things and the relative importance
varies by user. For example, someone with the time and skill could
successfully rebuild a (seemingly worthless) plane shell by using
electrolysis, welding, machining, lapping, scraping, making new handles,
finishing, fettling etc. It depends on how much of the journey you enjoy.
The end result, ie the finish imparted to the wood, is all that concerns the
customer, and the customer pays. So, for the pro cabinetmaker, the journey
needs to be as short as possible. Most of us in this group are somewhere
between.
A second hand Stanley can be a great buy, but is it a better buy than a
second hand LN or LV?....hehe.
For me, I can spend a lot of money on fuel just driving around looking for
that "killer gloat", in fact, I have done just that. I have spent more money
on fuel than I would have on a few planes - with no luck. If I were to
factor in my hourly rate and wear and tear on the vehicle... - well, let's
not get depressed here.
I value my time as I don't get a lot to spare, for others, the equation is
reversed. The decision is ultimately up to the individual and no 'one'
decision can be wrong because it is a highly individual decision. In fact,
it is not dissimilar to the normite/neander discussions.
Have I cleared that up? Thought not!
Bottom line - all well designed planes in a well maintained and highly tuned
state perform well.
regards,
Greg
Thanks for the follow ups to my question. From what I gather most
people who make their living working wood don't have the time to mess
with tuning the older Stanleys. This of course makes perfect sense to
me. Since I do this as a hobby the couple of hours I spent on my old
#5 were worth it to me since I 1. enjoyed it, 2. have about $8 bucks
in the thing (I still am going to get the Hock blade) & 3. At my skill
level I am getting results I'm happy with at the moment. Thanks
again....
woodguy wrote:
> or the Veritas. I understand the quality is there in both the LN and
> Veritas but is it that much better than an old stanley that has been
> brought back to life? Thanks, John
Probably depends on what you can afford, and how good you are at using the
enhanced features in the first place. Like with anything else, really.
I could get much better peformance out of a $10,000 flute. It would deliver
better timbre, better intonation, more certain action, perfect balance, and
gobs of melodious pulchritude... in the hands of a top quality flutist.
In my hands, I could probably see a difference with a $1,000 flute vs. the
eBay special 20-year-old cheap student flute I play now. The difference
between a $1,000 flute and a $10,000 flute would be meaningless.
The cheapo special is better than nothing, and it's paid for, so it will do
just fine. It's not like I'm a professional, or even a remotely noteworthy
amateur. My cheapo planes do just fine too. One un-prized early '60s #5,
and one un-prized brand new #4. They're paid for, and they're a lot better
than nothing. At this stage of the game, I suffer more from poor technique
than poor equipment.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:36:38 -0500, Robin Lee wrote:
>
> "Frank Shute" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 15 Dec 2003 05:23:09 -0800, Conan the Librarian wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> That's interesting, I wish I could get my hands on one to try it out.
>> If Robert Lee is reading, when are Brimarc in the UK going to start
>> selling your planes?!
>
><snip>
>
> Hi Frank -
Hi Rob,
(Apologies for mangling your name!)
>
> That's a question you have to ask Brimarc - they have an offer....!
OK. It would be nice if they carried more of your products. They could
stimulate demand by sending a few out for review to the woodworking
mags (I'm sure they'd get good reviews).
>
> Not sure if you've ever seen the people below - but they have a shipment on
> the way...just across the channel from you. Nice people too.... Language may
> or may not be an issue!
Thanks. Checked out the site & discovered the French for plane :) but
it looks like they haven't updated their site yet. It's fairly easy
for me to buy from the continent as customs & excise can't get their
sticky hands on the gear and start demanding money with menaces....
>
> Cheers -
>
> Rob Lee
>
>
> http://www.hmdiffusion.com/
>
>
Thanks,
--
Frank
I've read many articles on tuning up old stanleys and have taken a class
which went very well. I now have a finely tuned #4 and #5 that work great.
My question is since I have no experience with the LN or Veritas how much
better are they then a well tuned old Staney. Maybe even an old stanley with
a hock blade. This still would be less expensive than either the LN or the
Veritas. I understand the quality is there in both the LN and Veritas but is
it that much better than an old stanley that has been brought back to life?
Thanks, John
"Groggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Eric Lund" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I have the LN #4 1/2 and have never touched the LV. Let me make a few
> > observations.
> >
> > You mentioned your index finger brushing the back of the blade. You are
> > supposed to use a plane similar to a saw, with your index finger
pointing
> > the way. Still, for my fat hands, that's still too tight, so I point
with
> > two fingers. Works great. Doesn't take a lot of effort to pull the
plane
> > back, and you don't use those fingers to push anyway.
>
> Eric, with the beginnings of arthritis and planing Australian Redgum, I
tend
> to use all the fingers to hold the plane, that's just my technique.
>
> > The LN mouth is not fixed. That's what the frog adjustment is for. The
> > frog moves forward to close the mouth. The mouth on my 4 1/2 is
somewhere
> > around .003". The chip breaker is about the same behind the edge of the
> > blade.
>
> The LV mouth fully supports the blade as it moves, it's an elegant design.
> See http://tinyurl.com/ykff
> or
>
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?page=44751&category=1,41182,41187&abspage=1&ccurrency=2&SID=
>
> Scroll to the bottom and click on the "Tech" hyperlink, it provides an
> excellent sectionalised diagram showing the design.
>
> I also note the hand grip shown in the diagram is just as I use it. My
> handsaw technique is as you described though.
>
> > I have 9 LN planes, and the only one that appears to have "nearly" zero
> > backlash is the large shoulder plane (#93). They are relatively tight,
> but
> > there is some backlash. It's built into the design.
>
> Yes, good point. I have a Stanley garden variety number 4. In comparison
to
> the LN though, "zero" is not innacurate.
>
> >
> > The high angle frog really improves the performance of this plane in
hard
> to
> > plane woods.
> >
> > The new chip breaker is awesome. Easier to attach to the blade (don't
> have
> > to flex and screw), stiffer, outstanding match to the blade. Makes a
> > noticeable difference in performance. I'm told it becomes standard on
all
> > LN planes starting in 2004.
>
> I didn't mention that, although it was fitted to the plane I was looking
at.
> A good feature indeed.
>
> cheers,
>
> Greg
>
>
On 18 Dec 2003 06:40:36 -0800, Conan the Librarian wrote:
>
> [email protected] (Frank Shute) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> How do the LV planes compare on that front? I'd guess they are pretty
>> much ready to go too.
>
> The irons on the LV planes I've got needed a bit more work to get
> ready than the L-N planes. They were rougher and needed a bit of
> lapping to flatten the back. Otherwise, it was just a matter of
> adjusting the plane and going for it.
That's fair enough.
>
>> I'd also be interested to know what tolerances
>> the LV planes are machined to, my understanding is that LN's are
>> better than a thou', Clifton's a couple of thou'.
>
> Rob Lee could probably answer that for you better than I could, but
> I will say that when I received the prototype for their low-angle
> smoother for testing, the fit of the sliding toe-piece left a bit to
> be desired. (There wasn't any lateral play, but there was a slight
> gap along the sides on the sole that could pick up "crumbs" and
> potentially ding your work.) But that was taken care of in the
> production version. The appearance wasn't quite as impressive as the
> fit on the L-N low-angle, where the junction of the sliding piece and
> fixed sole is almost invisible, but it was plenty good enough.
>
> As far as other specs, this is from their website (describing the
> #4-1/2): "The sole is guaranteed to be flat to 0.003" concave, never
> convex. The wings are square to the sole within 15 minutes (1/4°)."
That's certainly acceptable - I'd possibly lap the sole. Mind you, if
I wasn't bone idle I'd probably lap the soles of my LN's too, I did
lap the soles of my Cliftons.
>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > The LV is a standard 45 degree frog. Like you, I have the LN
>> > #4-1/2, and I was seriously considering the 50 degree frog. However,
>> > after reading Rob Lee's suggestion that you back-bevel the iron to get
>> > the same effect I gave it a try and it works quite well.
>>
>> I don't like the idea of that....I don't have a 4-1/2 yet so it would
>> mean I'd lose my excuse to buy another plane ;)
>
> Oooops, sorry ... my bad. :-)
:)
>
>> I've currently got Clifton's #3 & #5 and a LN low angle #4 - a #4-1/2
>> with high pitched frog would go nicely with those for facing.
>
> Yeah, and at the other end of the weight spectrum, if you're into
> wooden planes, you could go for the Clark & Williams wooden smoother.
> They'll make it for you at any angle between 45 and 60, IIRC. Mine
> (55 degree) is still my "special reserve" plane that gets called on
> when everything else is having trouble.
I haven't got any wooden planes but am planning on making a moulding
plane in the New year. Clark & Williams are a new name to me, I'll
have to check them out.
>
>> [competition from LV]
>>
>> It is good. Before LV & Clifton came along there was no competition
>> for LN, you'd think the competition must drive prices down and quality
>> up. Although to be fair, I think Tom Lie Nielsen and Robert Lee would
>> prefer to be out of business than produce crap tools.
>
> Agreed. Tom's offerings still have more cachet to them, and I
> doubt that he'll ever try to compete directly with Rob. But, Rob and
> LV have shown that you can be innovative in tool-design and produce a
> very high quality product that is still affordable to the hobbyist
> woodworker who doesn't have an unlimited budget.
Sure. Although I bet if you got Rob drunk & quizzed him he'd say he
was trying to produce planes as good if not better than LN but at half
the price. You might not even have to get him drunk & maybe he's
aiming for Karl Holtey;)
<tool porn>
No 98 Holtey Damascus:
http://www.holteyplanes.com/98damask.htm
</tool porn>
>
> (BTW, it's *Robin* Lee.)
Woops!
>
>
> Chuck Vance (who doesn't work for LV, but probably wouldn't mind
> getting a job with them as a fulltime plane tester)
Hope you bag the job!
--
Frank
"Frank Shute" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 15 Dec 2003 05:23:09 -0800, Conan the Librarian wrote:
<snip>
> That's interesting, I wish I could get my hands on one to try it out.
> If Robert Lee is reading, when are Brimarc in the UK going to start
> selling your planes?!
<snip>
Hi Frank -
That's a question you have to ask Brimarc - they have an offer....!
Not sure if you've ever seen the people below - but they have a shipment on
the way...just across the channel from you. Nice people too.... Language may
or may not be an issue!
Cheers -
Rob Lee
http://www.hmdiffusion.com/
"Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hey Eric,
>
> Where did you hear about Lie Nielsen's new chip breakers on all their
> planes? I'd like to hear more details about this. Will the model
> numbers change?
>
The Lie Nielsen reps at the Costa Mesa woodworking show said so when I
visited their booth. They didn't give me any other specific information,
but I wouldn't expect the model numbers to change. I would expect the price
of a plane to go up just a bit. They will also have to make some new sizes,
because they don't currently make one wide enough for the #8. I also expect
the new chisels will come out in the 2004 catalog.
Cheers,
Eric
I'll second this guys opinion. I for one, have a well tuned 601/2 Stanley
low angle block plane, with well sharpened Hock iron in it. I put ohh, umm
4-5 real hour into tuning and screwing with the Stanley. THEN I broke down
and bought a Lie-Neilsen 60 1/2 adjustable mouth low angle block
plane...........................big bucks for a little plane.
In REAL time I might have spent 1 hr - 45 mins. Sharpening the iron, up to
6000 grit waterstone.
DID NOT tune the plane body, did not need to.
The LN is WAY better than the Stanley, hands DOWN !
I have not enough time in the world to PLAY around with tuning, planes. I
want to plane wood, period !
I made my own wooden body planes and fooled with all kinds of others. Buy a
LN bite the bullet and plane wood.
Need I say more?..........................Some of us need the cash back
sooner than others. I make money with my tools...................what do you
want to do ?
"Jim Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "woodguy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > I've read many articles on tuning up old stanleys and have taken a class
> > which went very well. I now have a finely tuned #4 and #5 that work
great.
> > My question is since I have no experience with the LN or Veritas how
much
> > better are they then a well tuned old Staney. Maybe even an old stanley
with
> > a hock blade.
>
> I've got the same - obsessively tuned up #5 w/ Hock blade. Which I've
> always liked a great deal.
>
> And now a LN #5. It's way better. Way way better. Mass matters.
> Rigidity matters.
>
> But I'm a tool geek.
>
> Jim
On 15 Dec 2003 05:23:09 -0800, Conan the Librarian wrote:
> [email protected] (Frank Shute) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> Aesthetically, LN's appeal to me and for me that makes their extra
>> cost worthwhile. Although my primary reason for buying them is that
>> they work out of the box and go on working and working well.
>
> Yep, each L-N I have bought was perfectly capable of taking decent
> shavings right out of the box. Of course you still need to hone the
> iron before doing any serious work, but they are the most ready-to-go
> planes out there, IME.
How do the LV planes compare on that front? I'd guess they are pretty
much ready to go too. I'd also be interested to know what tolerances
the LV planes are machined to, my understanding is that LN's are
better than a thou', Clifton's a couple of thou'.
>
>> LN's range is pretty hard to beat too and some of their planes aren't
>> made by anybody else AFAIK eg: ½" infill shoulder plane - the business
>> for trimming tenons.
>
> I don't know if LV has any plans for an infill, but they are
> continually expanding their line, so they are worth keeping an eye on.
I did try & persuade Tom Lie Nielsen to produce a 3/4" infill shoulder
plane but he's going to be producing one along the lines of his 1"
shoulder plane. I also pitched the idea of making a decent carpenter's
brace - he agreed that the current offerings stink, so I remain hopeful
on that front. He also mentioned that he'll be making some decent
cabinetmakers screwdrivers.
>
>> I haven't used the Veritas planes but having read reviews, it sounds
>> like they are excellent planes.....but aesthetically they leave me
>> cold (sorry Rob Lee!)
>
> I can understand that. I'm no fan of their look either, but I've
> noticed that in the instances where I have both the L-N and LV planes
> (#164 and #112), I reach for the LV tool first. Simply put, the LV
> planes are more comfortable in use. Obviously, YMMV.
That's interesting, I wish I could get my hands on one to try it out.
If Robert Lee is reading, when are Brimarc in the UK going to start
selling your planes?!
>
>> [snip]
>>
>> BTW, what angle is the LV 4½ frog pitched at? With the LN you can get
>> a York pitched frog, which would head it for the LN (for me) assuming
>> the LV is only pitched at 45. Depends what timber the original poster
>> is hoping to tackle with it though.
>
> The LV is a standard 45 degree frog. Like you, I have the LN
> #4-1/2, and I was seriously considering the 50 degree frog. However,
> after reading Rob Lee's suggestion that you back-bevel the iron to get
> the same effect I gave it a try and it works quite well.
I don't like the idea of that....I don't have a 4-1/2 yet so it would
mean I'd lose my excuse to buy another plane ;)
I've currently got Clifton's #3 & #5 and a LN low angle #4 - a #4-1/2
with high pitched frog would go nicely with those for facing.
>
> Anyhow, I don't see myself giving up my L-N planes anytime soon,
> but I can still heartily recommend the LV tools. They are a fine
> mid-priced alternative and basically do everything you could ask of
> them. And the fact that LV is aggressively pursuing their line of
> planes is a good thing for all of us who like handtools, IMHO.
It is good. Before LV & Clifton came along there was no competition
for LN, you'd think the competition must drive prices down and quality
up. Although to be fair, I think Tom Lie Nielsen and Robert Lee would
prefer to be out of business than produce crap tools.
--
Frank
"Eric Lund" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have the LN #4 1/2 and have never touched the LV. Let me make a few
> observations.
>
> You mentioned your index finger brushing the back of the blade. You are
> supposed to use a plane similar to a saw, with your index finger pointing
> the way. Still, for my fat hands, that's still too tight, so I point with
> two fingers. Works great. Doesn't take a lot of effort to pull the plane
> back, and you don't use those fingers to push anyway.
Eric, with the beginnings of arthritis and planing Australian Redgum, I tend
to use all the fingers to hold the plane, that's just my technique.
> The LN mouth is not fixed. That's what the frog adjustment is for. The
> frog moves forward to close the mouth. The mouth on my 4 1/2 is somewhere
> around .003". The chip breaker is about the same behind the edge of the
> blade.
The LV mouth fully supports the blade as it moves, it's an elegant design.
See http://tinyurl.com/ykff
or
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?page=44751&category=1,41182,41187&abspage=1&ccurrency=2&SID=
Scroll to the bottom and click on the "Tech" hyperlink, it provides an
excellent sectionalised diagram showing the design.
I also note the hand grip shown in the diagram is just as I use it. My
handsaw technique is as you described though.
> I have 9 LN planes, and the only one that appears to have "nearly" zero
> backlash is the large shoulder plane (#93). They are relatively tight,
but
> there is some backlash. It's built into the design.
Yes, good point. I have a Stanley garden variety number 4. In comparison to
the LN though, "zero" is not innacurate.
>
> The high angle frog really improves the performance of this plane in hard
to
> plane woods.
>
> The new chip breaker is awesome. Easier to attach to the blade (don't
have
> to flex and screw), stiffer, outstanding match to the blade. Makes a
> noticeable difference in performance. I'm told it becomes standard on all
> LN planes starting in 2004.
I didn't mention that, although it was fitted to the plane I was looking at.
A good feature indeed.
cheers,
Greg
"woodguy" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I've read many articles on tuning up old stanleys and have taken a class
> which went very well. I now have a finely tuned #4 and #5 that work great.
> My question is since I have no experience with the LN or Veritas how much
> better are they then a well tuned old Staney. Maybe even an old stanley with
> a hock blade.
I've got the same - obsessively tuned up #5 w/ Hock blade. Which I've
always liked a great deal.
And now a LN #5. It's way better. Way way better. Mass matters.
Rigidity matters.
But I'm a tool geek.
Jim
Hmmm... I was going to buy one, but maybe I will wait for that 2004
catalog (and a little more $). Amazing there are still manufacturing
shops left in the USA.
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 02:23:51 GMT, "Eric Lund"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Hey Eric,
>>
>> Where did you hear about Lie Nielsen's new chip breakers on all their
>> planes? I'd like to hear more details about this. Will the model
>> numbers change?
>>
>
>The Lie Nielsen reps at the Costa Mesa woodworking show said so when I
>visited their booth. They didn't give me any other specific information,
>but I wouldn't expect the model numbers to change. I would expect the price
>of a plane to go up just a bit. They will also have to make some new sizes,
>because they don't currently make one wide enough for the #8. I also expect
>the new chisels will come out in the 2004 catalog.
>
>Cheers,
>Eric
>
On 11 Dec 2003 05:38:17 -0800, Conan the Librarian wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> There is also an aesthetics angle to consider. Some prefer the old
> tools (and some just like bringing them back to life), while others
> appreciate the looks of the L-N enough to make it worthwhile to pay
> the difference.
Aesthetically, LN's appeal to me and for me that makes their extra
cost worthwhile. Although my primary reason for buying them is that
they work out of the box and go on working and working well.
LN's range is pretty hard to beat too and some of their planes aren't
made by anybody else AFAIK eg: ½" infill shoulder plane - the business
for trimming tenons.
>
> As an aside, the times I have compared L-N and Veritas planes
> side-by-side (#164 and #112), the Veritas planes have come out ahead
> as far as bang-for-the-buck. The L-N are ahead in aesthetics, but
> IMHO, not enough to justify the price tag difference. (And I actually
> prefer the Veritas knobs/and totes from an ergonomic standpoint.)
I haven't used the Veritas planes but having read reviews, it sounds
like they are excellent planes.....but aesthetically they leave me
cold (sorry Rob Lee!)
The block planes are fine with the black finish on the lever caps but
the bench planes with the reddish wood (bubinga/paduak?) knobs clash
badly with the black lever caps to my eye. A big improvement IMO would
possibly be maple/ash handles possibly ebonized, if they did that
(and sold them in the UK!) I'd be very tempted. Wouldn't a yellowish
wood fit in better with LV corporate colours too?
I've also got a couple of Cliftons which I like although they required
a bit of tweeking before use. I also stripped off the nasty shiny
lacquer from the handles & Danish oiled them. A problem I've found
with them is that the chrome plate on the lever cap will rust/tarnish
if you're not careful (certainly in my unheated shop) although I guess
it will polish out as it looks like pretty thick plate.
With the British racing green paint, bubinga knobs & chrome lever cap
they're pretty handsome - work well too. Certainly worth considering
alongside LN & LV although they don't do a 4½.
BTW, what angle is the LV 4½ frog pitched at? With the LN you can get
a York pitched frog, which would head it for the LN (for me) assuming
the LV is only pitched at 45. Depends what timber the original poster
is hoping to tackle with it though.
--
Frank
Hey Eric,
Where did you hear about Lie Nielsen's new chip breakers on all their
planes? I'd like to hear more details about this. Will the model
numbers change?
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 06:15:58 GMT, "Eric Lund"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Groggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I had the chance to test the two planes today, side by side. Some
>comments,
>> in no particular order of importance:
>>
>> LV:
>> well machined, but not finished to the level of the LN
>> has a very well machined bed for the frog
>> innovative adjustable mouth
>> no slop detectable
>> large grip
>>
>> LN:
>> very well machined and finished
>> fixed mouth
>> small (Stanley standard size) grip
>> zero backlash
>>
>
>I have the LN #4 1/2 and have never touched the LV. Let me make a few
>observations.
>
>You mentioned your index finger brushing the back of the blade. You are
>supposed to use a plane similar to a saw, with your index finger pointing
>the way. Still, for my fat hands, that's still too tight, so I point with
>two fingers. Works great. Doesn't take a lot of effort to pull the plane
>back, and you don't use those fingers to push anyway.
>
>The LN mouth is not fixed. That's what the frog adjustment is for. The
>frog moves forward to close the mouth. The mouth on my 4 1/2 is somewhere
>around .003". The chip breaker is about the same behind the edge of the
>blade.
>
>I have 9 LN planes, and the only one that appears to have "nearly" zero
>backlash is the large shoulder plane (#93). They are relatively tight, but
>there is some backlash. It's built into the design.
>
>The high angle frog really improves the performance of this plane in hard to
>plane woods.
>
>The new chip breaker is awesome. Easier to attach to the blade (don't have
>to flex and screw), stiffer, outstanding match to the blade. Makes a
>noticeable difference in performance. I'm told it becomes standard on all
>LN planes starting in 2004.
>
>Cheers,
>Eric
>
"Groggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I had the chance to test the two planes today, side by side. Some
comments,
> in no particular order of importance:
>
> LV:
> well machined, but not finished to the level of the LN
> has a very well machined bed for the frog
> innovative adjustable mouth
> no slop detectable
> large grip
>
> LN:
> very well machined and finished
> fixed mouth
> small (Stanley standard size) grip
> zero backlash
>
I have the LN #4 1/2 and have never touched the LV. Let me make a few
observations.
You mentioned your index finger brushing the back of the blade. You are
supposed to use a plane similar to a saw, with your index finger pointing
the way. Still, for my fat hands, that's still too tight, so I point with
two fingers. Works great. Doesn't take a lot of effort to pull the plane
back, and you don't use those fingers to push anyway.
The LN mouth is not fixed. That's what the frog adjustment is for. The
frog moves forward to close the mouth. The mouth on my 4 1/2 is somewhere
around .003". The chip breaker is about the same behind the edge of the
blade.
I have 9 LN planes, and the only one that appears to have "nearly" zero
backlash is the large shoulder plane (#93). They are relatively tight, but
there is some backlash. It's built into the design.
The high angle frog really improves the performance of this plane in hard to
plane woods.
The new chip breaker is awesome. Easier to attach to the blade (don't have
to flex and screw), stiffer, outstanding match to the blade. Makes a
noticeable difference in performance. I'm told it becomes standard on all
LN planes starting in 2004.
Cheers,
Eric