Low angle larger planes are something I don’t have. I am at a loss in making a choice. Is the shorter low angle plane that much different than the longer jack?
Like to hear from others that have the LN low angle stuff or direct me to older discussions
thanks
dan
Replies
I have the LN low angle jack plane and while it is great on end grain and some use on the shooting board, it is one of my least used planes. I just never got the bevel up thing and much prefer my high angle frog 4 ½. If I were limited to only one plane it would be the LN #7, as it will do pretty much everything. I know others swear by the bevel up planes, but not me, just my opinion.
My LN low angle jack plane is probably the most used plane in my shop, next to my block planes. It is, by far, the most versatile. With the standard angle grind, you can smooth most easier American Woods. It's perfect and heavy enough for smoothing end grain. You can flatten table tops with it, and use it just like a jack plane for edging.
With curly, gnarly grain, like curly maple, curly cherry, birdseye, and crotch woods, you can pop in a blade ground with a 40° bevel, or even higher, practically reaching the point of becoming a scraper. It's adjustable to almost all situations. If I were only able to take one plane with me, this would be it.
Jeff
Thanks Jeff
So you think going for the extra length of the Jack is smarter than getting the shorter smoother LA from LN??
dan
dan,
I pulled the trigger on the LV LA Jack today. This will make 3 Jacks for me, a Stanley, Frosty (a #15 Millers Falls) and now the LV. I hardly ever use the #4 Stanley any more. Just my 2¢.
Yeah, Wallace certainly makes a body humble in short order! Gotta see it one more time tomorrow morning with coffee and then I'll pack em up and send em to ya. Really great stuff.
Thanks very much,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
I guess I have to set the rear trigger and touch the hair on this LV or LN low angle deal. Not sure but they both look good. Soon.
Wallace is a great builder and an exceptional teacher. Every time I have called or stopped by to see him he just opens up the whole shop and lets you set the tone.
The videos alone will open up so many ideas they just seem like something most creative builders could find something to adapt and try for the first time and have fun. Unfortunately, the word ..ifle gets in the way.
Wire inlay and roccoco details could keep me busy for the next ten years. There's so much stuff that open to your imagination. Well glad you looked at it and hope that you got some new ideas to put in future projects.
Even if you forget all of Wallaces stuff, you won't forget him trimming down a beautiful chunk of curly maple with a hatchet.
Wallace's old line: Don't work on wood that won't be there.
true that
osl
dan,
Just amazing how these guys work. Ain't the rifle but HOW they do it. It's almost like they just draw some lines on a piece of wood with chalk or whatever then just have at it and the next thing you know it's a work of art.
Every woodworker should see these videos. I'd gurantee every one would be amazed.
I can't thank you enough for letting me borrow them.
Best Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
I recently played with all of the LV planes at the Somerset Woodworking Show. I already had a very basic selection of planes, but I was shopping for a LA smoother and (possibly) a jack.
I ended up buying the low-angle jack, the low-angle block (with optional knob and tote) as well as the medium shoulder plane. I also seriously considered the LA smoother, but the block plane was sooooo sweet and easy to handle with the knob and tote I did not see the point.
My experience over the past few weeks has been very, very satisfying. I'm in the process of building a shooting board for the LA jack, and I still want to put the medium shoulder through some more tests. The LA block won my affections almost immediately when I used it to "blend" in a 12" section of a 5' padouk plank that I had screwed-up on the jointer.
I think it is fair to say that the quality rivals LN, and the the LV designs are a bit more innovative.
I have the LN LA smoothing plane and the regular adjustable block plane. I use the LA all the time and just wish it could fit into more places. I am convinced it can no ANYTHING.
dan,
Here's a few links for ya:
http://www.traditionaltools.us/SonofStan.htm
http://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=23326
Or Google lee valley low angle jack. Prepare for a lot of info. or search in here for low angle jack or derek.
I'll have the LV LA Jack in about a week.
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
thanks
dan
Seen that video on Wallace yet???
Bob
I was thinking about the LN jack but after reading about the LV LA jack it looks very attractive. I'd love to try the high angle blade on some curly maple.
dan
I've had the LV LA jack for a short while. As Billy Crystal might say, "Mahvelous. Simply mahvelous."
-Steve
Steve
Did you opt for the A2 blade or the HSS? I'm thinking of trying the A2 steel with this purchase. I don't have any metal planes with the A2 blade replacements.
Also, have you used it for smoothing any difficult grain woods?
I had a nice wooden plane with a Hock blade-A2 fitted in it. Only got to use it a short while before some other person liked it more than I did.
As I am climbing the new tool ladder I am hoping to try some new materials along the way. A2 blade will be different, bevel up and reground angles fitted to a well supported back will also be new.
It's time for me to break down and get a couple new diamond stones for sharpening. I do a bunch of moving around and work in 2 shops. The diamond stones(older ones) have been great and its time to replenish.
Wondered if you are a diamond stone user??
dan
Dan,
Your font is screaming....
I have the A2 blades. The alternative choice is O1, not HSS (unless I've missed some announcement somewhere). I've gone all-A2 ever since I bought the Lie-Nielsen adjustable mouth block plane with an A2 blade a few years back. The edge lasts sooo much longer, but is a little more effort to sharpen (especially flattening the back) than an O1 blade.
I haven't used the jack with a high-angle blade, but I have tried the smoother. Curly maple is a piece of cake. I also tried it on some exceptionally gnarly curly bubinga. It was definitely a bit of a workout, but the results were good. Here is an in-progress shot:
View Image
To give you an idea of how hard the wood is, those shavings are only about 0.001-0.002" thick, but they're crispy to the touch.
I use diamond plates for coarse grinding, but switch to waterstones for fine honing. I've used scary-sharp, too, but am not completely satisfied with it.
Speaking of HSS, I'm just about to commit to buying a set of Japanese chisels made from a HSS-like alloy. They're supposed to be both harder and tougher than normal Japanese chisels, which deals with my only complaint about Japanese chisels: it's easy to chip the edge.
-Steve
That wood is really sweet. The plane in the photo is the one I think I am leaning towards buying. I like the way they set the handle with 2 threaded rods. Thats a clever idea.
I don't have any friends with these planes so I am buying my first tool without trying it on some wood. I guess this deal will be a bunch of "firsts" for me.
Sharpening and diamond stones. I have used the first generation DMT diamond stones with the circles. I was/am very happy with the stones. I can not keep my water stones flat without them on hand. I want to get the bigger stones this time. Thinking of the 8" generation.
I have been converted to the diamond paste after talking with Garrett Hack a couple years back. He mentioned final honing with the diamond paste so I gave it a try. The stuff is cheap and it is great. You can put a little on a flat surface and get nice results. Quick and easy.
I have a piece of 3/4 birch plywood that I cut in a 14" circle. I took a thick piece of cowhide I had in the corner and glued it to the ply. Drilled a hole in the middle and put a makeshift mandrel to go in my drill press at slow speed. A dab of diamond paste and the carving tools are so sharp I hesitate to use them... nah.
Question: when you say "plate" I am assuming you have the plates w/o the circles?? I have wondered about them in lieu of the circles design?? Is that what you mean?
Oh the font?? "Your font is screaming...."
Is it hard to read? Another knotter said the font was too small so I reset the size. I had my laptop set to Times instead of Geneva so maybe I need to just use the Geneva if its hard to read??
photo: an inlay I made up today from an idea from another rifle builder. I cut 8 at the same time and filled them "ganged" together and they came out just about identical. Trouble is... I am not making a bunch more rifles with bird escutcheon plates.
dan
No, my diamond plate has the circles. (I call it a "plate" because that's kind of what it is--it's only about 1/4" thick.) You can see a photo of it here. The kind that doesn't have the circles is okay for edges, but doesn't work very well for flattening backs, as there is no place for the swarf to go.
Regarding the font size, here's a pair of screenshots of your two messages, side-by-side. The one on the right is the default size, which I think corresponds to a "1" on the size scale. The one on the left is a size 5. You should be able to reach a happy medium somewhere in between. The problem is that every web browser interprets the size settings differently, so what looks perfectly fine in one browser might look way too big or way too small in another.
View Image
-Steve
dan,
Most of the time the font size that you have, to me anyway, is quite small and difficult to read. This is Times size 2 here in Knots which is what we normally see in your posts..
I have mine set to 2 as here, which is Arial size 2. It appears to me that Times is the culprit. Times is a transitional font whereas arial is sans serif.
But then again, it could also be an age thang, you being a lot younger than I. :>)
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 3/8/2008 9:45 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres
Edited 3/8/2008 9:46 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres
Hi Bob
Thanks for the feed back. A test is in order from my end.
Test 1- Times 2
Test 2- Times 3
Test 3- Times 4
Test 5- Times 5
Something funny going on here??? I have never set it under Times 4 and that is not eye chart stuff as I'm looking at it.(times 5)
I compose off line quite a bit and paste it in (arial 4)
This does not make sense to me??
dan
dan,
Ive noticed that many tiimes when I Reply to a post it takes on the attributes of the person to whom I am replying to. If that happens, just press the left button on your mouse and highlight your reply, then you can apply whatever font/size, etc. from the formatting line at the top of the reply box. Of course this is assuming that you are using IE; some other browsers don't support rich text.
By the way, Times 3 or 4 works nicely on these old tired eyes!
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Its a funny thing Bob. Years ago I was playing tennis on a regular basis with an Opthalmologist from Duke. In a conversation about computers and reading, he told me that they found that Palatino, Bookman and Times were the easiest on the eyes for lengthy reading with just about all of their patients. He mentioned that is why all of the magazines use those fonts. I am not sure about all of the science and the tests he used but he convinced me enough to get me to use it. Now I'm wondering. I don't have any special love of the mentioned fonts -- I just don't like Geneva.
I will try the Time in 5 when I write and see if that gets bad feedback. I use IE on my laptop. We'll see.(times 5)
dan
Times is actually not the best; it was designed for the narrow columns of newspapers, and the letterforms are a little too narrow for good readability--things like m's and n's run together with i's and u's. One of the other serif fonts is usually better.
-Steve
Fair enough. Times is not the best. What is??
dan
My personal favorite is Palatino (aka Book Antiqua). I think it works well both on screen and on paper. Some people think it looks too old-fashioned.
Garamond is also a very nice face for paper, although it can be a little thin on screen in smaller sizes.
Whatever you do, never ever use Comic Sans. For anything. There's even a web site devoted to ridding the world of Comic Sans.
As it happens, a significant part of my job is making forms and questionnaires look good both on paper and on screen, given the vastly different characteristics of the two media, so fonts and typefaces are in my blood.
-Steve
I really like Palatino. Its not a drop down here on my computer so I haven't been using it. I use it for word docs and never got any negative feedback... so I keep using it.
Thanks for the information. Its interesting stuff to see what appeals to people and what reads most comfortably for them.
What's good for me might not be the best for others. My goal in most cases is to get the ideas and instructions over to the next person and not have any struggles(size or font choice). I'm not in the publishing business but I do pass out a good bit of information for others to read.
Back to the glue pot. I have some 251 gram stuff going and I'm trying to see if the rub tests are any different than the 192 stuff. I have been mixing this week by weight. Results a bit later.
adios
Fontology 101Times was developed for The London Times, I believe in the 19th C. The serif pattern (little curlicues and flowing thick-thin pattern) was easier to read in columns. Times is a proportional font, so when the type was poured (hot lead-antimony) the composition could be economized to save space. Sans-serif fonts (Arial, Helvetica) are generally more emphatic, but harder to read continuously in body text (they also take up more room)- so newspapers generally reserve them for headlines or sub-headlines. As a rule, most publications limit their font choices (type-faces actually) to two (or just a few) fonts: a serif and a sans serif.When WYSIWYG screens started to appear on computers (with the Mac in the mid-80s, and in Windows in the 90s), the ability to show the small smooth details of fonts on a pixelated screen became an issue, particularly for serif fonts. Hence, screen friendly True-type and PostScript fonts began to appear- notably Georgia, Verdana, Tahoma and Trebuchet. These are often the best to start with when using html email or to chat on forums-YMMV,Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
You're also limited by the type faces supported by the forum, Eh? Or is it your browser?
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
You can write a message using any typeface installed on your system (there is a Custom... selection in the Font dropdown).
What the recipient will see depends on which fonts are installed on their system, plus some semi-intelligence on the part of the message editor here and on the part of the web browser. An HTML <FONT> tag can contain a list of fonts:
<P><FONT face="Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif" size="2">Hello, World!</FONT></P>
The browser on the recipient machine will go down the list until it finds a match (some browsers are smart enough to do partial matching, others require an exact match).
The message editor sometimes puts in a list, sometimes doesn't. I don't know what algorithm it's using.
-Steve
Steve
Could that process make a Time/4 size come out smaller on another man's computer?? I am lost on the size thing it seems??
"Could that process make a Time/4 size come out smaller on another man's computer??"
Yes.
"I am lost on the size thing it seems??"
It's one of those things that seemed like a good idea at the time. But because it's so vaguely specified, every browser handles it differently, and there's all kinds of weird interactions between browser settings and font size settings within the page.
There's a good example of bizarre behavior in Internet Explorer, on Microsoft's own http://www.msn.com web site. Here's an example of text in two sizes, displayed on my system with "Medium" text size selected in the browser:
View Image
Looks just fine, right? Now, I set the browser's text size down a notch to "Smaller" (that's just one notch, mind you), and it looks like this:
View Image
That fuzzy little line at the top is what happened to the larger-size text in the original. Notice that the smaller-size text hasn't changed at all. And if I set the size up a notch to "Larger," I get this:
View Image
Aren't computers wonderful?
Have fun with the glue, and don't forget to let your dog have a taste.
-Steve
Thanks Steve
That makes a bunch of sense to me. I think I am going to just bang away here with this font and size till I hear from someone having trouble with the text.
Glue: Having fun with this high tack stuff. My shop is a bit on the cold side these days. Some of the wood I am using for tests got a bit cold. I took the scraps to my oven in the shop and warmed them up before I did my glue ups. It made a noticeable difference. Letting the wood get to cold limits the tack/gel time.
Hi Folks,I own a LN Smoother. I bought it because I find that the most-used plane in my shop was my #4, and I then reasoned that having a low-angle variant was the best plan.I can't believe that there would be much difference between the LN and the LV. Both companies make beautiful tools.As a figured wood smoother, either can't be beat, I'm sure. My LN, when sharpened to a razor edge, really does leave virtually no tear-out.As far as whether to buy the smoother or the jack, FWIW, I think that the best assortment/minimal tool selection to do 99% of what one needs is: #4, a LA smoother, a #6, a 90, and a 140 equivalent. That is what sits on my bench and actually gets used. I have over 100 planes sitting in my collection, all razor-sharp, so it's not a matter of not having the plane. The LN smoother is the latest addition.What I find is that over time, one reaches for the lightest, least bulky tool to do the job. For a flat, jointed edge, the #6 is the best-- longer than a jack, and more accurate. I have a couple of #7s and a Bedrock 608, so it's not that I don't have a choice-- it's just that they're heavy, harder to control, and just don't give the best results unless something is 1.5" wide and LONG. The reality is I just don't make boardroom solid-wood tables, or doors, where you'd really need something like that. For 80% of what I do, a #4 is the best-- flattening a weird board before I run it through the thickness planer, or just general fitting. For the 5% of weird figure, I grab the LN smoother. It's heavy, and regardless of what folks say, it's not an asset if you really plan on using it all day as your 'one and only.'My combo of a 140 and 90 are the best for fitting tenons and such. The 140 does a great job as a block plane, with its skewed angle, and the 90 is great for getting into corners and knocking the leftover edge out of a table-sawn rabbet.And these tools don't take up that much room on my bench, which can get cluttered. The main thing about the LN or LV smoother is that it will actually be a 'used tool' as opposed to one that is just beautiful. I have no problem with collecting beautiful tools-- I've got a ton-- but if you're on a limited budget, and you really just want to work wood, you don't need one. It's sure nice for the occasional piece of figured wood-- that's why I got it-- and as always, it is a great experience to use any really fine tool. But I've found even that plane doesn't always leave me with a surface that I don't have to sand, when using wood with interlocking grain. There will be a piece of tear-out somewhere, and I'll have to get out the sander. Re: the LN/LV jack-- one looms in my future, because I, too, love beautiful tools. But when I look at the weight of one of them, and the fact that now I don't use one of the #5s that I already own, makes me skeptical. I may WANT it, but will I really use it?The most expensive tool in my shop is the real-estate on top of my bench. I find that minimizing use of that is the best strategy. And the most expensive resource is my time. Being able to minimize the number of tools you use is key toward maximizing your own woodshop productivity. Any mechanical/tooling engineer will tell you its the tool changes that kill you, time-wise.Buy a LN or LV cuz it's fun, and it's about the same price as a pair of great seats at a rock concert. But hey-- it's a decision about things the heart wants. Not what one really needs.And your wife realized this a long time ago! ;-)
Pedro,
the best assortment/minimal tool selection to do 99% of what one needs
Another approach might be the LV LA Jack and the LV Low Angle Block plane. With the optional knob/ball and tote for the LA Block available makes for an interesting setup with perhaps some additional angled blades for each.
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 3/10/2008 9:01 am ET by KiddervilleAcres
Yo, Bob, dude:
pezeshki <> perizoqui (Basic, Pascal)
pezeshki != perizoqui (C, Java)
pezeshki ~= perizoqui (Dylan)
-Steve
So.. if you have a couple bevel down #4's, your choice would be the LN or LV smoothing plane?
dan
Hi Dan,I have the LN, the simple fact that for Christmas, I could put my wife on the website and be sure that even if she screwed up, I'd get SOMETHING that I wanted!Performance-wise, I can't imagine that there's any difference. I can tell you that I used the LN on smoothing an elm dining room table (84"x42"--elm has interlocking grain) and it worked extremely well, though I still had to sand. The blade was extremely sharp, but interlocking grain is just a bitch, and there was tear-out. It did really cut down the inevitable time with the belt-sander, and that made me grateful.As a hobbyist, it was my 'justification' for telling my wife that's what I wanted for Christmas. That and I didn't want to get more socks!Best,Chuck
dan,
I spent probably way too much time making the decision. I thought I wanted the LN but after reading Dereks review of the LV and some posts here on Knots I decided the LV was a better fit for me.
This will be the first new plane that I've ever bought so am chompin at the bit to get my hands on it. The ramped shooting board will be ready when it gets here.
Was gonna get the 38° extra blade but was told that the 25° blade with a back bevel would be better. Never done a back bevel so another adventure awaits.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
"Was gonna get the 38° extra blade but was told that the 25° blade with a back bevel would be better."
Ack! Not a back bevel, a secondary bevel.
-Steve
Oooops.
It's the snow! It might rain too! There's a flat tire on the plow truck!
I'm excited about the new plane!
I think you really meant to say NAK didn't ya?
:>)
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 3/7/2008 10:18 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres
I suppose it really should have been BEL, BEL, BEL, BEL, BEL.
-Steve
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled