Which Number 6 plane?

[Andy Kev.]

Good Afternoon,

I'm new to this forum and woodworking (as of about May this year) and I'm slowly building up a tool kit more or less according to the advice given by Christopher Schwarz in his book The Anarchist's Tool Chest. I've got to the point where I'm about to have a go at building my own bench (I got the wood yesterday) and I'm also looking at getting what will probably be my longest plane. (I currently have a block plane, a No 4 smoother and a jack plane. At the moment I'm umming and ahhing over the Veritas and Lie-Nielsen No 6 Low Angle planes.

I'd be grateful for the opinions of anybody who has tried either or both. Or should I be looking at something even longer? I expect that the longest boards I'd need to use it on would be about 6 foot.

Edit: I might have got into a bit of a muddle here. Another look at the various websites has got me wondering if I should have called this thread "Which Number 7 Plane?"

 

[G S Haydon]

Hello Andy,

Welcome to the forum. Both a 7 or a 6 would work. A 7 would be best if your working on long stuff regularly. If I had to buy a 6 or a 7 I would go for the 7. What style of bench are you planning to build?
Both brands of plane you mention are very high end tools and should work flawlessly out of the box (if they don't send them back).

Graham

 

[Scouse]

I've got the Veritas low angle jointer and the Lie Nielsen low angle jack.

Both are superb, equivalent quality, the LN jack doesn't sound like what you are after, but out of curiosity, it is very good.

The Veritas jointer looks a bit more modern and allows the fitting of a fence if you require; I chose the Veritas jointer over the LN low angle jointer purely because the mouth adjustment seemed to be a bit of a faff on the LN.

Either make is just personal preference, you can't really go wrong with either. I was going to suggest a trip to your local Axminster store, but I've just seen your location so that might be a bit of a mission for you!

 

[Harbo]

I've got the LVBU smoother, jack and jointer.
Excellent planes, usable straight out of the box.
They all take the same blade so very easy to hone different effective angles for different woods.

Rod

 

[dunbarhamlin]

Since you only mention LV/LN, I presume you prefer the heft of the premium offerings over their lighter forbears. In which case, should British Racing Green appeal, also consider Clifton, which are a little heftier still, and Sheffield made. In your neck of the woods, Dieter Schmid stock them.

 

[Andy Kev.]

Gentlemen,

thanks for the replies. I'll probably try to get my hands on both at the Dictum shop in Munich before making a final choice. The ability to fit a fence to the Veritas jointer could be a decider for a beginner like me who is still getting to grips with planing (albeit slowly improving).

Graham: I'm going to try and build a bench based on the Holtzapffel design as described by Christopher Schwarz in his book on workbenches but with a wagon vice as opposed to a projecting end vice.

That's an interesting point about weight. I compared the Veritas No 4 smoother to an old (circa 1980) Stanley No 4 which I inherited and the Stanley felt like a toy and somehow less serious. I reckon I'll probably get it in proper working order and then sell it. So it looks like weight is positive factor for me and therefore I will look into the Clifton.

 

[Paul Chapman]

So it looks like weight is positive factor for me and therefore I will look into the Clifton.

Do have a look at the Clifton. I have the #6 and #7 (and a few others) and they are superb.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Richard T]

wondering if I should have called this thread "Which Number 7 Plane?"


Yes, I think so. For jointing stuff as long as is needed for a bench top; I don't know the metric off hand but 22 - 1/2" (or thereabouts) is the traditional jointer length.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Andy - "an old (c. 1980) No. 4 Stanley"? You need to go a at least 2 or 3 decades older than that to get anything worthwhile.

 

[marcros]

Gentlemen,

thanks for the replies. I'll probably try to get my hands on both at the Dictum shop in Munich before making a final choice. The ability to fit a fence to the Veritas jointer could be a decider for a beginner like me who is still getting to grips with planing (albeit slowly improving).

Graham: I'm going to try and build a bench based on the Holtzapffel design as described by Christopher Schwarz in his book on workbenches but with a wagon vice as opposed to a projecting end vice.

That's an interesting point about weight. I compared the Veritas No 4 smoother to an old (circa 1980) Stanley No 4 which I inherited and the Stanley felt like a toy and somehow less serious. I reckon I'll probably get it in proper working order and then sell it. So it looks like weight is positive factor for me and therefore I will look into the Clifton.

An interesting point on the jointer fence. Whilst the veritas jointed planes are not common on the forum, i have never seen a post where the fence is referred to. Personally, in your position (and I am jointer planeless, searching for a no 8) I would practice the traditional technique using a couple of fingers and save a bit of cash on the fence. It is a technique that can be used on other planes that the fence wont fit!

 

[Paul Chapman]

I would practice the traditional technique using a couple of fingers and save a bit of cash on the fence. It is a technique that can be used on other planes that the fence wont fit!

I agree. Jointing boards using a long plane is not difficult. If you are unclear about the technique (using your fingers as a fence; stop shavings in order to plane the boards slightly hollow; the benefits of a slightly cambered blade; etc), there are plenty of excellent DVDs available (Charlesworth; David Savage; etc etc) which will guide you through it in easy steps.

Jointing boards is one of the most enjoyable aspects of planing, IMHO.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[AndyT]

Andy - "an old (c. 1980) No. 4 Stanley"? You need to go a at least 2 or 3 decades older than that to get anything worthwhile.

Phil, I know that is often said but I disagree.

I have a Stanley no 4 which I bought new, probably in 1979, maybe 1980. It is flat, square and reliable. The parts all fit together as they should. It is a'proper' no 4 and IIRC there were disposable blade diy versions on sale at the time which I had the sense not to buy. I use this plane in preference to other,older no 4s that I have bought since.

That said, I've not used any Stanley plane newer than this one -1980 counts as recent in my mind. But I suspect the rot really set in when manufacture was moved away from Sheffield.

 

[Jacob]

...
That's an interesting point about weight. I compared the Veritas No 4 smoother to an old (circa 1980) Stanley No 4 which I inherited and the Stanley felt like a toy and somehow less serious. I reckon I'll probably get it in proper working order and then sell it. So it looks like weight is positive factor for me and therefore I will look into the Clifton.

If weight was a positive factor it would be easy enough to add weights to a light plane. But nobody does this as it is pointless. In fact weight is disadvantage if you are actually doing a lot of work with a plane. More metal does not mean better plane.
In fact for rapid stock removal (if I didn't have a machine) I would use my little light-weight wooden scrub. If the power went altogether I'd be getting out all the old woodies

 

[Cheshirechappie]

In agreement with AndyT - I still have the receipt for the Record 07 I bought new by mail order from Tabwell Tools in November 1989 (£37.50 including VAT and carriage). It's a perfectly good plane. Flat sole, well finished. Frog seated on machined pads.

I've subsequently given it a Clifton iron and stay-set capiron and rosewood handles, but that's all the tuning it's had and it still works fine. (I might at some point replace the adjuster yoke with a slightly longer one to reduce the backlash that the thicker Clifton iron results in, but that's about it's only real failing.)

It's interesting to look at secondhand prices for Record 07s - around £80 - £100. Mine was a fair financial stretch at the time, but in retrospect a bargain!

There is however, a fairly significant contrast between this plane and the Record 04 I bought in August 1986 (£25.36 inc. VAT). The 04 was significantly hollow in length on the sole, and the sole finish was terrible compared to the 07. The frog seats on what seem to be painted surfaces on the sole casting. This plane - my first 'proper' plane - set back my woodworking development by a couple of years as I struggled to get it to work. (A work contact subsequently surface ground the sole and sides for me, and it's been a decent enough plane since then.)

I therefore surmise the Record kept their production standards for "high end" planes for some time after they'd reduced production standards for the more bulk-selling lines.

Returning to the OP's original question - anything by Lie-Nielsen, Veritas or Clifton will give every satisfaction. Quangsheng from a reputable retailer will also serve very well. Secondhand Record and Stanley from a reputable secondhand dealer will also be excellent if you ask for a good user tool, ditto if you get a good one from Ebay (you do take your chances a bit with internet auctions). Avoid the budget new offerings, which can be OK but are more usually not.

 

[Mike Wingate]

I prefer my No.7 to my No.6 in use. The 6 was one of my first planes ( the other was a No. 4 1/2, both bought in '69) Try a Quangsheng model, great blade and chipbreaker and bedrock style, so you can adjust the throat without removing the blade. Great price and better that a Record/Stanley models, older versions will need fettling, I have done so to mine, they have Smoothcut/QS blades with QS chipbreakers and Bubinga woodwork, flat soles, sides at 90 degrees, shiny metal and a joy to use. If I was starting from scratch I would purchase QS planes. (I have their No.62, large chisel plane and low angle block planes).

 

[Scouse]

In fact weight is disadvantage if you are actually doing a lot of work with a plane.

Agreed. I bought an old (1910 era) Stanley no8 last year which fairly quickly took the place of my LN no8. It's lighter which gives it a nicer feel, personal preference I suppose, but it surprised me since I had assumed that extra inertia would carry the plane through and be easier to use. I didn't account for the initial push on the heavy plane.

 

[Paul Chapman]

In fact weight is disadvantage if you are actually doing a lot of work with a plane.

Agreed. I bought an old (1910 era) Stanley no8 last year which fairly quickly took the place of my LN no8. It's lighter which gives it a nicer feel, personal preference I suppose, but it surprised me since I had assumed that extra inertia would carry the plane through and be easier to use. I didn't account for the initial push on the heavy plane.

Another area where personal preferences differ. I do all my planning by hand and prefer heavier planes. I'm not particularly big or strong, but I don't find the extra weight of heavier planes a problem and, in my experience, they tend to work better.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[morfa]

Andy - "an old (c. 1980) No. 4 Stanley"? You need to go a at least 2 or 3 decades older than that to get anything worthwhile.

Phil, I know that is often said but I disagree.

I have a Stanley no 4 which I bought new, probably in 1979, maybe 1980. It is flat, square and reliable. The parts all fit together as they should. It is a'proper' no 4 and IIRC there were disposable blade diy versions on sale at the time which I had the sense not to buy. I use this plane in preference to other,older no 4s that I have bought since.

That said, I've not used any Stanley plane newer than this one -1980 counts as recent in my mind. But I suspect the rot really set in when manufacture was moved away from Sheffield.

I have a very recent (3-4 year old, so 2010ish?) Stanley no 4 plane, which I have set up as a scrub plane. To be honest, I really can't fault it. It seems to have a slightly wider mouth than my 1930s no 4 and as a result takes massive shavings. I only use it for quickly taking the roughness off timber or for taking a few mm off quickly, but it's much better than expected (and much better than many say).

 

[MIGNAL]

In fact weight is disadvantage if you are actually doing a lot of work with a plane.

Agreed. I bought an old (1910 era) Stanley no8 last year which fairly quickly took the place of my LN no8. It's lighter which gives it a nicer feel, personal preference I suppose, but it surprised me since I had assumed that extra inertia would carry the plane through and be easier to use. I didn't account for the initial push on the heavy plane.

Another area where personal preferences differ. I do all my planning by hand and prefer heavier planes. I'm not particularly big or strong, but I don't find the extra weight of heavier planes a problem and, in my experience, they tend to work better.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

Nothing to do with personal preference. Larger, heavier Planes are more cumbersome, slower and tiring when you have a significant amount of planing to do. If it's just one short board it may not matter but the difference becomes very apparent when the workload increases. If you want an exaggerated example try planing quickly with a No.7 and then do the same with a wooden smoother. It's quite obvious really. I expect that's why wooden scrub planes are still relatively popular - quick removal of material with a lightweight plane.

 

[Andy Kev.]

Thanks for all the replies. I now have plenty to think about.

I think that in general terms I prefer tools to have a feeling of solidity and a bit of weight. Even my cameras are oldish and made of metal as opposed to modern plastic. Weight - up to a point - enhances stability, at least for me and I suppose that is a very personal thing.

By the way, I don't know if the Stanley No 4 I mentioned counts as a "proper" Stanley or not but I have just finished flattening the back of the cutter of it's companion of about the same vintage, a low angle block plane, also from Stanley. I was shocked at how much work was necessary: it had a massive low spot down one side and another one in the opposite corner. It would appear that quality control of blades was not considered to be a particularly big deal.