• We invite you to join UKWorkshop.
    Members can turn off viewing Ads!

LA Jack: 62 or 62.5?

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

Ham

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2003
Messages
82
Reaction score
0
Location
The South Hams, Devon
Could the assembled audience of plane experts give their considered opinion as to which is the better LA Jack? Is it the LN 62 or the Veritas VP3401 (62.5)? To me the choice is obvious, that of the Vertias because it has a wider blade and is a fair bit cheaper. However there may well be a sound reason for going down the LN route?
Cheers, David
 

ike

Established Member
Joined
24 May 2004
Messages
1,682
Reaction score
0
as to which is the better LA Jack?
Hair splitter required.

As to which is the better value LA Jack? I rarely pay the extra just for the name, so my money went on the Veritas.

cheers,

Ike
 

Waka

Established Member
UKW Supporter
Joined
8 Mar 2004
Messages
4,489
Reaction score
7
Location
Weymouth
The LABU Jack is the way to go IMHO becasue with the extra blade you can turn it into a smoother as well.

Not to gloat here, but I have the set of 3 LV BU planes and the extra blades and I have to say that I think they are superb, I also have the odd LN but I wouldn't want to do a comparison becasue I think that both companies produce supurb planes. But for my money the versititlity of the veritas and offcourse price is a big factor.

I'm sure the experts will be along shortly to drag you further down the slope, beleive me its not a happy experience.
 

Mirboo

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2006
Messages
214
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney, Australia
I've got the Lie-Nielsen Low Angle Jack and I reckon its a great plane. I've not tried the Veritas but I can't recall ever reading/hearing anything negative about it. My understanding is that it is also a great plane.

I like the look of the Lie-Nielsen better, but its not looks that make the shavings so I suppose Ike's comment that a hair splitter is required is probably appropriate.
 

Philly

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2003
Messages
6,874
Reaction score
0
Location
Dorset, England.
Ham
I have both planes-they feel very different in use. The Veritas also is heavier and wider. The L-N is a beautiful plane but I use it in low angle mode only. The Veritas is used mainly with high angled irons by me, and it also excels on the shooting board.
So it depends on what planes you have and what you intend to use it for.
Both planes are real crackers :wink:
Hope this helps
Philly :D
 

Ham

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2003
Messages
82
Reaction score
0
Location
The South Hams, Devon
Thanks for the Aussie and Dorset brigade opinions. I think I'll be going with my original decision - Veritas.
Cheers, David
 

Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2005
Messages
2,827
Reaction score
301
Location
Perth, Australia
David

I think that a direct comparison will be difficult to come by - only Philly has both. I have used both, but I do not have much access to the LN. On the other hand I do have the Stanley equivalent, the #62, and I do own the LV 62 1/2.

The question that has not been asked, or answered, is whether you have a special use in mind for the plane.

My vote would go to the LV for use on a shooting board. Not only does it have greater heft, but it also has finger grips (which work) for use on its side.

I do not see the greater width of the LV as a significant factor (it is only 1/4"). However, the great mass of the LV does make it easier to push through hardwoods.

I love the delicacy of the Stanley #62. Like Philly, I use it only with a LA cutting angle. It is like a large block plane, and its lightness is easier to manage on longer sections of endgrain when used manually.

With ergonomics and features in mind, the plus for the LN would be the angle of the tote. The plus for the LV would be that its tote is a 4-finger size, which I prefer. Besides the set screws, which stabilise the blade (debated by some) and offer fine tuning (definitely), the LV has a BIG feature, the depth stop for blade projection. This allows rapid and precise return to a setting. Very, very desireable. The LN does not have these features.

In the end, were I to have to choose one, it would have to be the LV.



Regards from Perth

Derek
 

Shady

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2004
Messages
838
Reaction score
0
I've got the L-N, and it is a simply superb plane: however, the reason is primarily design and function. The L-V offers the same, but with the addition of that mouth stop screw - and my L-N blade has suffered from the lack of same (DAMHIKT). :roll:

Either will give you great satisfaction: pure economics and maximum silly person-proof functionality would have me buying the L-V if I were doing it today...
 

David C

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2005
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
35
Location
north devon
I have never been convinced by the "good for shooting" opinion. Historically they were probably (almost certainly) not used for this function.

Yes there is a theoretical case for using a low angle plane.

Blade sharpened at 30 degrees possibly?

Effective pitch 42 degrees. This is not significantly different from the pitch of a bench plane, and the difference in smoothness of the finished surface is only marginally better, {assuming the blade is properly sharpened}. All end grain needs sanding anyway to achieve the glasslike smoothness which is possible.

What these planes lack is a decent area of support on the side wings. and tipping is the most common problem for beginners learning shooting. A bedrock is better than a Bailey and dedicated shooting planes have larger support areas again.

This objection becomes invalid if one builds a version of Bob Wearings anti tip shooting board, but mass of plane is important when shooting thicker stuff.

David Charlesworth
 

Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2005
Messages
2,827
Reaction score
301
Location
Perth, Australia
Yes there is a theoretical case for using a low angle plane.

Blade sharpened at 30 degrees possibly?

Effective pitch 42 degrees. This is not significantly different from the pitch of a bench plane, and the difference in smoothness of the finished surface is only marginally better
Hi David

I have used a variety of planes on my shooting board, the one with the highest cutting angle being the HNT Gordon Try Plane. While this plane works (and, indeed, I was introduced to this combination by Terry Gordon), planing endgrain in hardwoods is a very physical process. The high angle blade tends to "slam" into the stiff wood fibres.

By contrast, both the Stanley #62 and the LV LA Jack, with bevels at 25 degrees (not 30 degrees), providing a cutting angle of 37 degrees, make this process much easier. I maintain a blade with a 25 degree bevel just for the shooting board.

Shooting endgrain is not just about obtaining a mirror finish, but also about squaring the end of a board. I agree with you, nonetheless, a mirror finish is best obtained with sandpaper.

I also agree that using a LA Jack for a shooting board is not correct in the historical sense, but it works. In the absence of a #9, or an infill mitre plane, or a #51/52 shooting combination (although I am building one of these), I use the LV LA Jack. It is my first choice for this task (my second is the LV LA Smoother, also with a 25 degree bevel).

Regards from Perth

Derek
 

Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2005
Messages
2,827
Reaction score
301
Location
Perth, Australia
Did you get castings (like the OldTools list once did)? Or are you making one from wood?
Hi Jasper

I am using mild steel. Technically, I should not call it a #51/52 since it is not. I called it this as most recognise the concept. The design is a variation of a 19 century Lancashire pattern shoulder plane, for a picture I cam across in Sandor Nagyszalanczy's "The fine art of tools" - and it is bevel up !!!!

I apologise for the quality of the picture. I scanned this onto my computer, but (Murphey's Law) the binding is in the way. Still, there is enough to give you an idea of the shape.



Regards from Perth

Derek
 

Alf

Established Member
Joined
22 Oct 2003
Messages
12,079
Reaction score
0
Location
Up the proverbial creek
I think that a direct comparison will be difficult to come by - only Philly has both.
Technically, at least. :whistle:

I have a definite view on this one, but due to recent drivel bandied about on the 'net I no longer feel comfortable saying so. Feel free to PM me if you like, David, but I may not get to it for a bit.

Cheers, Alf
 

ydb1md

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2005
Messages
634
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland
Alf":30oaz595 said:
I think that a direct comparison will be difficult to come by - only Philly has both.
Technically, at least. :whistle:

I have a definite view on this one, but due to recent drivel bandied about on the 'net I no longer feel comfortable saying so. Feel free to PM me if you like, David, but I may not get to it for a bit.

Cheers, Alf
Drivel bandied about? Did I miss something -- I have been out of town for a bit. Can someone point me in a direction so that I might catch up?

cheers!
Dave
 

David C

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2005
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
35
Location
north devon
I wonder how long a 25 degree bevel will hold up for, taking end grain shavings off dense cranky woods likeTasmanian Blackwood?

The skewed blade of the Lancashire pattern shooting plane offers a very useful way of reducing effective pitch without having to lower the honing angle excessively.

David Charlesworth
 

deirdre

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2006
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Location
Menlo Park, CA, USA
"dense cranky woods" -- wonderful turn of phrase David. Rather how I feel about hickory at the moment, except I'd add splintery.
 

David C

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2005
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
35
Location
north devon
Deirdre,

Unfortunately not my phrase, I think I heard it from Terry Gordon or Colen Clenton, but it is very descriptive!

They seem to have a lot of timbers in Australia which are both beautiful & cranky!

David
 
Top