Which block plane?

[woden]

I've been thinking about purchasing a high quality block plane from one of the top tool makers but am not sure on which one to go for.

I have an old Stanley 60 1/2 with the original thin blade but think I might upgrade to either Lie Nielsen's 60 1/2 or Veritas' Low Angle Block plane. However, at some point I intend to get Veritas' Low Angle Jack plane - as it seems like a great all rounder and fantastic plane - and wonder if this big plane couldn't do most of what I might use the 60 1/2 /LAB for. Yes it's way bigger and more bulky but couldn't it - albeit a bit more cumbersomely - do any end grain trimming that I needed? I don't want to buy two 'expensive' planes and find I only need one of them.

This brings me to another block plane I admit I've always lusted after - LN's #140. Yes I know from Alf's review that they're not some multi-purpose wonder and actually have quite a limited range of uses, but then doesn't any plane? I've liked the plane since the first time I saw it due to its seemingly great potential for cross and end grain work.

My reckoning is that there'd be less of an overlap in functions with a #140 and LAJ than with a #60 1/2 and LAJ. Why not get a block plane that excels at cross grain work (and can rebate) while using the LAJ for anything a 60 1/2 might do? The other option of the #60 1/2 and LAJ seems to exclude the great cross grain performance for two planes that are in the end fairly similar in function.

Is this making any sense or am I talking utter cobblers?

The other thing I'm puzzled by concerning block planes is the considerable difference in cost between buying them in the US and having them mailed in contrast to buying them from the likes of Axminster here. Take the LN #140, Axminster only do the bronze version and it retails at £138 but if I bought directly from LN I could get the iron version for the equivalent of £85 plus another £15 or so for postage. That's just £100 for essentially the same plane. Am I missing something here - is there an import duty/other taxes that you'd have to pay on top of this?

But despite having wibbled on about all this I'll probably end up with all three planes - #60 1/2 or Veritas equivalent, #140 and LAJ - in the long run. :roll:

 

[Scrit]

I've been thinking about purchasing a high quality block plane from one of the top tool makers but am not sure on which one to go for......... .......Veritas' Low Angle Block plane.

There, you already knew the answer! :lol:

I'll give you one major reason why the #140 can't do what a LA block can do - the mouth isn't adjustable which can be critical on some cuts to avoid break-out. (The other problem with skew planes is that I always think you should have a left-right hand set, after that's how side rebate planes work, isn't it? :? ). As to a LA jack being able to replace a LA block, absolutely no way. I've got the #62 and I've had the #164 and neither can replace a good block because they are fundamentally far too large and heavy for all those niggly little trim jobs a block plane does so well. And whilst my LA block is often to be found in my apron pocket (yes, I know, a "pinny" wearer :roll: ) I doubt that either of the other pair would fit in there. From my point of view the #62 is wonderful, but the LA block is much, much more useful

This brings me to another block plane I admit I've always lusted after - LN's #140.

I've not had the L-N version, but I have in the past owned both the Stanley version and the Millers Falls (#07B) copy of same. Because I've had a shoulder plane for a loo.....oong time I just felt that the #140 was a tool with no real purpose - a solution in search of a problem. A #60-1/2 (or for that matter a #65) is a better block plane because of the mouth, a shoulder plane works better on shoulders or in rebates (and many have adjustable mouths), so what advantage is there in having a #140? Especially the bronze ones? I dislike bronze tools because unless used regularly they will leave dark, semi-indellible marks on light timbers such as maple or sycamore. Hence my Veritas #95 departing. And much of what a #140 does can equally be achieved using a £5 wooden skew rebate

Is this making any sense or am I talking utter cobblers?

Ermmmm.......... Not my position to say, but I think you're being driven by "tool lust" rather than practicality (Hark, do I hear the strains of "Slip, slidin' away"?)

As an idea what someone like me takes out to do installations it's the following:

Always -

#05, #05-1/2 or #T5 jack
LA block plane w/adjuster mouth

Sometimes -

#04 or #04-1/2 smoother
#778 rebate

If I find a niche for the #140 I'll let you know - just don't hold your breath :wink:

Scrit

PS Am I beginning to sound like Mr G? :roll: :wink: (with apologies to the gent in question)

 

[Paul Chapman]

I reckon that the Veritas low angle block plane is currently the best one available. Some will say that an adjustable mouth is not important, but in my experience it is when planing very small pieces and with very difficult grain.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Woody Alan]

classichandtools do the iron version of the 140 even though it's not listed on their website.

Alan

 

[MrJay]

I'll add to the choir and heartily recommend the Veritas. It's a shame Clifton don't have a block plane in their line up, it seems a shame to have to fly a plane (hee hee) over the Atlantic because there's nothing made locally.

 

[DomValente]

I have the LN block plane and wouldn't be without it, although the adjustable mouth is rarely used.

Dom

 

[Paul Chapman]

It's a shame Clifton don't have a block plane in their line up.

They do but at the moment it's only in prototype. It's the best block plane I've ever handled and I hope that Clifton put it into production some time because I'd be the first to buy one.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Scrit]

.....I hope that Clifton put it into production some time because I'd be the first to buy one.

Oh yes? Bet Alf will beat you to it :wink:

What's this prototype like? Anything like the LV LA block? Can yoe even say?

Scrit

 

[Paul Chapman]

What's this prototype like? Anything like the LV LA block? Can yoe even say?

Mike Hudson has had it at some of the shows to get customer feedback so if you see him at a show he can let you see it. Had the original nicked, I believe, so he had to make another one. It's similar to the Veritas in that it is low angle and has a nice Norris-type adjuster and adjustable mouth but what is really special is that he has incorporated a very nice Bubinga handle (lever cap) so it is very tactile in use. I give him a ********** every time I see him, and Alan Reid, about it not yet being in production.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[woden]

I'll give you one major reason why the #140 can't do what a LA block can do - the mouth isn't adjustable which can be critical on some cuts to avoid break-out.

I think the LN #140 lacks an adjustable mouth because it was designed mainly with cross and end grain in mind where the type of chip formation makes the size of mouth opening irrelevant. The LN #60 1/2 and Veritas equivalent, when it comes to c/g and e/g work, have a superfluous adjustable mouth and lack the skew blade to give a really low angle of attach. Of course the adjustable mouth is vital with long grain, and that's what it was intended for on these planes, but I just thought that I might be able to cover all l/g trimming with the likes of the LAJ while keeping the specialist #140 for all c/g and e/g trimming.

But I think you're right, a LA block will still be necessary for at least all the l/g trimming the LAJ is too big for. But as for c/g stuff I'm still very keen on a #140. The one thing I will say against the #140 offered by LN and Stanley previously is that it doesn't appear to be terribly well designed - good concept, poor execution.

Why is that detachable stainless steel plate necessary - couldn't the rebating side just have been left open as with the LA rabbet block plane LN produce? Furthermore, why not join the rear of the base on the rebate side to the front of the base, again as on the LA rabbet, and thus remove the problem of the bed flexing at the unsupported side with too much pressure from the cap? Finally, why not have the blade coming out flush to the edge of the plane on both sides as on the LA rabbet - albeit with staggered openings given the blade's skew? There could have been a hole to take the fence on each side too thus eliminating the need for two planes.

It just seems to my amateur's eye that LN just added a few extras to the Stanley #140 and missed the opportunity for greater improvement through a more extensive redesign.

I dislike bronze tools because unless used regularly they will leave dark, semi-indellible marks on light timbers such as maple or sycamore.

Ah, come now, Scrit, an occasional wipe of the sole and sides with brasso eliminates that problem. Sure unless iron planes are used regularly they'll rust and that'll also leave marks on light timbers. The difference is that brasso is rubbed off when polishing whereas any oil wiped on an iron plane has to stay on to work while it's not being used and that's messy. I suppose another advantage of manganese bronze is that it's probably even stronger than ductile iron given that ordinary bronze is stronger than iron.

And much of what a #140 does can equally be achieved using a £5 wooden skew rebate

But you won't get a wooden skew rebate with a bed angle low enough to match the #140 on cross grain rebates. All round, the #140 is surely also a much more versatile plane than a wooden skew rebate. Wider - so better for cheeks, low centre of gravity - so more stable, more precise adjusting mechanism and probably a better fit in the hand for trimming work. I have a wooden skew and it's a bulky thing in comparison to a block plane. Another possibility with a #140 is if you got a second blade and ground a very steep bevel on it the plane might overcome its shortcomings on long grain. Whereas you can't lower the angle of attack with a wooden skew.

I reckon that the Veritas low angle block plane is currently the best one available. ...

Having just read Alf's excellent review, I think you're on the money there, Paul. The fact that it has a good lateral adjustment mechanism and the two grub screws for holding the front of the blade in place while still costing less than a LN #60 1/2 that has none of these must give it an edge. And even if the casting is a bit ropey, as Alf found, Veritas seem to account for this at the machining stage. Then there's the option for the ball tail and front knob that you don't have with a LN.

The only drawback I've read concerning the Veritas LA block is that they can be a bit bulky in comparison to the LN #60 1/2 unless you have large hands. Do you have one - the Veritas - Paul and if so, how have you found it?

I have the LN block plane and wouldn't be without it, although the adjustable mouth is rarely used.

How do you find the lack of lateral adjustment*? My old Stanley has neither the lateral adjustment or the Veritas' type grub screws and as a result the blade can be fiddly enough to keep lined up when adjusting the depth of cut. It tends to squirm about. Have LN overcome this problem with their #60 1/2?


*at least I think I'm right in saying the LN #60 1/2 has no lateral adjustment.

 

[Mister Loco]

I ordered a L & N block plane from the USA and paid around £20 in taxes when I collected it from Parcelforce. That would take your expenditure up to £120 and I also waited around six weeks for mine to arrive! Is it worth you spending another £18 for next-day-delivery from Axminster? Probably, yes.

 

[Paul Chapman]

The only drawback I've read concerning the Veritas LA block is that they can be a bit bulky in comparison to the LN #60 1/2 unless you have large hands. Do you have one - the Veritas - Paul and if so, how have you found it?

I struggled on with my Stanley #60 1/2 and Record #09 1/2 (which I've had since 1970) and was waiting for Clifton to start producing their's, but as that is still not in production I bought the Veritas low angle about a year ago. It's now one of my favourite planes. I prefer it to the Lie Nielsen, which I have compared it with side by side. I think the size of the Veritas is better, as is the Norris-type adjuster, which the LN doesn't have. I've never got on with those two little side screws to keep the blade lined up, so I took mine out, but some people like them. I had no trouble with the bed of mine - I think that problem on Alf's (which was a pre-production one) was just a pre-production glitch. The materials, finish and overall build quality on mine are first class.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

PS Even though I now have Stanley, Record and Veritas block planes, I'll still buy the Clifton one if it ever goes into production, because it's so nice :wink:

 

[Scrit]

I think the LN #140 lacks an adjustable mouth because it was designed mainly with cross and end grain in mind where the type of chip formation makes the size of mouth opening irrelevant.

So why do mitre planes (another task I'll use LA block for) have very fine mouths and low angle (sometimes skewed) irons? I've heard this argument before and all I'll say is that an adjustable (fine) mouth in conjunction with a finely set blade certainly seems to give better control over chip formation on end grain than a wide mouth. Certainly the chance of break-out at the end of the cut are much reduced. Also there is a natural tendency to pick-up and use a tool such as a block plane for a wide variety of tasks. I don't know about you but I no longer find it essential to have 9 or 10 planes around me on the bench - less is more (or at least faster) - and the longer I do woodworking the less need I seem to have of many of Stanley's more esoteric offerings

I dislike bronze tools because unless used regularly they will leave dark, semi-indellible marks on light timbers such as maple or sycamore.

Ah, come now, Scrit, an occasional wipe of the sole and sides with Brasso eliminates that problem. Sure unless iron planes are used regularly they'll rust and that'll also leave marks on light timbers.

Brasso contaminates surfaces so I prefer to avoid it. I've experienced fish-eyes in the past from contamination by Brasso and I do wonder if there is some trace silicone in it. For the same reason I'm no fan of patent, silicone-loaded oils and certain waxes. My feeling is that the more specialized a plane the less often it will be used and in the case of a bronze plane the more it will tend to oxidise. I use planes as part of my living - they're kept sharpened, relatively clean and rust free - but there's rarely a need to oil then as they get used. They do need oiling when I'm out installing as they can get damp from condensation when in the van (did I say it was often wet up here in the Pennines?) But as for polishing a tool? Come off it! I'd get laughed off site in some places....... Hmm I think you are into collecting here, rather than using

And much of what a #140 does can equally be achieved using a £5 wooden skew rebate

But you won't get a wooden skew rebate with a bed angle low enough to match the #140 on cross grain rebates.

Maybe so, but in real world use surely that's not really an everyday task for many woodworkers, hence the relative rarity of antique #140s and it's early demise. Where I'm trimmimg "cross grain rebates" it's often the case that I'm fitting a tenon and for that there are other more useful tools at my disposal such as paring chisels, shoulder planes and the carriage rebate plane (#10). To my mind they're all more useful than a #140

Please remember that I'm arguing this from the point of view of a working woodworker as opposed to a hand tool collector or neander so my take is based purely on commercial necessity. Why not just get it off your chest and admit that you want a #140 to add to your collection? :wink: (and this is from someone who is now down to a mere 10 block planes, only two of which ever get used)

Scrit

 

[Mirboo]

But despite having wibbled on about all this I'll probably end up with all three planes - #60 1/2 or Veritas equivalent, #140 and LAJ - in the long run. :roll:

No, you'll buy a left and right pair of 140's. That makes four planes, for a start. :wink:

I'll give you one major reason why the #140 can't do what a LA block can do - the mouth isn't adjustable which can be critical on some cuts to avoid break-out. (The other problem with skew planes is that I always think you should have a left-right hand set, after that's how side rebate planes work, isn't it? ). As to a LA jack being able to replace a LA block, absolutely no way. I've got the #62 and I've had the #164 and neither can replace a good block because they are fundamentally far too large and heavy for all those niggly little trim jobs a block plane does so well. And whilst my LA block is often to be found in my apron pocket (yes, I know, a "pinny" wearer ) I doubt that either of the other pair would fit in there. From my point of view the #62 is wonderful, but the LA block is much, much more useful.

I pretty much agree with Scrit here, except the bit about the "pinny". I have a pair of iron 140's and a 62 and I would never consider them replacements for my 60-1/2.

Because I've had a shoulder plane for a loo.....oong time I just felt that the #140 was a tool with no real purpose - a solution in search of a problem. A #60-1/2 (or for that matter a #65) is a better block plane because of the mouth, a shoulder plane works better on shoulders or in rebates (and many have adjustable mouths), so what advantage is there in having a #140?

I find that a pair of 140's is better for trimming tenon cheeks than a shoulder plane. I plane almost to the edge with one plane and then grab the other plane and plane in the opposite direction to clean up the bit I missed with the first plane. This helps to prevent the edge splintering that can occur if you use one plane to go all the way across the cheek.

I only have one shoulder plane, a LN 042, so maybe a different shoulder plane would do the cheeks better and eliminate the need for the 140's. An advantage of the 140's over a shoulder plane in relation to tenon cheeks is the lower centre of gravity of the 140's.

Why is that detachable stainless steel plate necessary - couldn't the rebating side just have been left open as with the LA rabbet block plane LN produce? Furthermore, why not join the rear of the base on the rebate side to the front of the base, again as on the LA rabbet, and thus remove the problem of the bed flexing at the unsupported side with too much pressure from the cap? Finally, why not have the blade coming out flush to the edge of the plane on both sides as on the LA rabbet - albeit with staggered openings given the blade's skew? There could have been a hole to take the fence on each side too thus eliminating the need for two planes.

The detachable steel plate makes the plane easier to hold if you want to use the plane as a normal block plane.

I've never found bed flexing to be a problem with my 140's. In fact I haven't even noticed it at all.

I don't think a skewed rabbet plane would work very well on both sides. The way the planes are currently configured, before Thomas Lie-Nielsen puts your design changes into effect, the point of the skewed blade is exposed on the rabbeting side of the plane and in use tends to draw the plane into the rabbet. The other side of the blade would, I think, tend to push the plane away from the shoulder of the rabbet if it were 'exposed' for rabbeting. This same argument is a reason to not have a fence on both sides as well. Configured as they are at the moment, the blade tends to pull the fence up against whatever it has been set to ride against. If you could put the fence on the other side it would tend to be pushed away from the edge you wanted it to run against by the skew of the blade.

How do you find the lack of lateral adjustment*? My old Stanley has neither the lateral adjustment or the Veritas' type grub screws and as a result the blade can be fiddly enough to keep lined up when adjusting the depth of cut. It tends to squirm about. Have LN overcome this problem with their #60 1/2?

The Lie-Nielsen 60-1/2 doesn't have lateral adjustment or Veritas style grub screws. I haven't found that to be a problem. The plane is fairly easy to set up.

 

[pam niedermayer]

...
I find that a pair of 140's is better for trimming tenon cheeks than a shoulder plane. I plane almost to the edge with one plane and then grab the other plane and plane in the opposite direction to clean up the bit I missed with the first plane. This helps to prevent the edge splintering that can occur if you use one plane to go all the way across the cheek.

I only have one shoulder plane, a LN 042, so maybe a different shoulder plane would do the cheeks better and eliminate the need for the 140's. An advantage of the 140's over a shoulder plane in relation to tenon cheeks is the lower centre of gravity of the 140's...

I've never had a problem simply turning the shoulder plane, the LN large shoulder, to go in the opposite direction.

Pam

 

[Mirboo]

I've never had a problem simply turning the shoulder plane, the LN large shoulder, to go in the opposite direction.

Pam

Yes, that is what I do when trimming shoulders, for cheeks I use the 140's.

 

[JesseM]

I'll chime in here. I think the #140 is a kind of a problem solving plane. I've used it in a a bunch of different weird situations with the additional fence. For example trimming tenons, tenon shoulders, added a 10 degree fence for making a splayed saw bench. Haven't used the knickers much though. I don't think it would replace a nice block plane but it definitely has its purposes.

 

[Scrit]

I find that a pair of 140's is better for trimming tenon cheeks than a shoulder plane. I plane almost to the edge with one plane and then grab the other plane and plane in the opposite direction to clean up the bit I missed with the first plane. This helps to prevent the edge splintering that can occur if you use one plane to go all the way across the cheek.

I'm down to two shoulder planes on the bench, both Records, #042 and #072. The #072 has the advantage of the adjustable mouth for some situations (although I rarely adjust it). As others have said you simply turn it round at the end of the cut - and adjust the iron - job done with one plane. Centre of gravity makes no difference to me when the plane's being used on it's side. I used to know an old chap who had a set of Spiers skew shoulder planes to do the job. He used to do most of the cut with the skew then finish-off with a quick swipe from his bull-nose plane.

Other than tenon cheeks, something which are generally never seen once the joint is assembled, I'm still trying to see where a "cross-grained rebate" would occur in many pieces

In other words I think a #140 comes a long way down the line when one is buying planes

Scrit

 

[Alf]

In other words I think a #140 comes a long way down the line when one is buying planes

Agreed - but equally it's one of those planes I, personally, have found myself using rather more than previously envisioned. Not enough that I've felt compelled to buy "the other half", but enough to make me feel it wasn't just accumulation fever. And it's worth noting there are considerable improvements with the LN version over the Stanley and MF.

Anyway, a few points brought up in the thread thus far. First; do an archive search and I reckon you'll find every possible opinion on this under the sun - some good points worth consideration amongst them. Secondly; having more than a few block planes already, it's unlikely I'd be springing for a Clifton as well. Probably. Thirdly; welcome to the forum, Mister Loco Fourthly; as it happens the Veritas block wasn't pre-production, but the one I subsequently bought is similarly without the minor casting issue, so I think it was the review model curse striking again. Fifthly; I thought the bronze streaking issue only bothered collectors? Never had a problem myself... :wink: Sixthly; the non-adjustable, bronze, standard angle and generally non-ticking-of-any-boxes 103 is still the block plane that sits on the shelf above the bench and gets used the most, which tells you how much use theoretical choosing of block planes is.

Cheers, Alf

 

[Paul Chapman]

it's unlikely I'd be springing for a Clifton as well. Probably.

Little bit of doubt creeping in there :-k :lol:

Cheers :wink:

Paul