Traditional
Tools
___________
Home
Lyn Mangiameli
ALF 
Chris Schwarz
Forums
| |
   
Lee Valley Low Angle Review
by Lyn J. Mangiameli
April 10 2002
The New LVLA with reference to the L-N LA
Well, my first impression was one of disappointment, not
for what it is (a cheaper and generally equivalent alternative to the Lie
Nielsen Low Angle Plane), but for what it failed to be (a more innovative and
distinguishable LA plane). Taking it for what it is (as opposed to what I hoped
it might be), and seeing the final production model, I now view the Lee Valley
Low Angle smoothing plane (LVLA) quite favorably. For one thing, most people
will be considering this plane as an alternative to the much more expensive L-N
version, rather than an addition to it; and in this role, it is a very good
plane indeed.
Still, I’m going to take a paragraph to give an
idea of what my hopes were -- perhaps someone may consider applying them to a
future plane. Early rumors had
suggested the LVLA would be on a chassis roughly comparable to a #4.5. I thought
that was a great idea. That would have offered something new and distinguishable
from the existing L-N and Stanley versions. The associated greater mass would
have enhanced its function when used for shooting. Who knows the other added
function that might have been found by having that greater width and mass? I
thought maybe there would be screw feed of the front sole plate to allow fine
adjustment of the mouth, and reduce the chance of accidentally banging the plate
against the blade during adjustment. Maybe we would finally see some
consideration of a grip arrangement that would break out of the good, but hardly
optimal Bailey round knob/vertically angled tote pattern. Given the track record
of the LV #4.5, and their earlier block plane, I expected at least one new
advancement. I wanted to see reasons why one would want this plane over its
competitors, for any reason other than price (not that that isn’t a prime
feature for a manufacturer and most buyers). Certainly if one already has a L-N
LA or the rare Stanley #164, there is not a lot of reason to want to add this
plane.
Well, I realize I was likely hoping for too much, and
it is the bane of the innovator that their advancements are soon seen as
commonplace and expected. Here in this new Lee Valley Low Angle smoother one has
a LA plane with lateral adjustment/restraint screws, an excellent Norris style
adjuster, a thick A2 steel blade, a precisely machined body and a rigid single
attachment point tote (that even is mildly original), and I’m complaining. I
suspect that few will have sympathy for my complaints, and quite rightly see the
LVLA as the excellent and affordable plane that is truly is.
Here’s my specific observations on the LVLA.
-
External
Appearance:
(click on thumbnails for larger view)
 
The LVLA, to my eyes, provides a
nice initial appearance, except for what I find to be discordant machined
circles on the sides. I've never liked those drilled out circles on the sides
of their block plane, and I still don't. IMO it is out of keeping with the
rest of the lines and for me they offer no functional advantage. But overall,
the plane looks good in a low slung sort of way. I actually think the
asymmetrical lines on this plane are more appealing than the L-N LA. One’s
eye is drawn to the center mechanism and there one finds a nice balance of
brass: tote screws, level cap screw and adjuster, adjustment knob and an
attractive and well designed brass trim washer under the front knob. The front
knob has a pleasing shape, as does the tote. The front knob has no visible
attachment bolt, thus leading to a cleaner and more comfortable front grip.
The finish on the wood continues to improve, and the color is a pleasing
compliment to the rest of the plane. I know this is a lot of comment on the
appearance, buy hey, why can’t we have aesthetically pleasing as well as
functional tools, and this plane manages both.
The plane is well machined. The production model came
with a sole that is quite flat and most would not find it to require lapping.
There is a very slight discrepancy between the surface of the mouth plate and
the sole of the plane, but nothing that wasn’t able to be matched up with
just a few minutes of time and some 280 grit sandpaper. Otherwise, the fit of
the mouth plate is very precise and almost the equal of that found on my L-N
LA, which I consider to be absolute perfection. The sides on both the
preproduction and final production planes have been perfectly square to the
sole (which is nice since many will use this as a shooting plane). They are
slightly taller on the LVLA, which should allow for more stable registration
to the orthogonal surface when shooting.
The sole of the LVLA is slightly longer than the
L-N, and has a greater proportion of it’s sole forward of the mouth. This
has worked really well for their LV 5.25W, allowing better registration of the
sole of the plane to the surface of the wood prior to first contact with the
blade. The preproduction model, like the L-N LA, had openings in the casting
over the top of the movable front sole plate. I assume it is easier to machine
the front plate this way, but these forward notches break up the lines of a
plane, and most of all provide a space to capture miscellaneous chips, dust,
allow hidden rust to develop and gunk to build up to interfere with smooth
adjustment. LV has changed this in the final production model and now we have
a lip across the front to keep things out. A small, but real improvement over
the L-N.
The plane is
nicely machined on the inside as well. Bedding for the blade is not as great
as that available on the L-N LA (which is excellent), but still seems quite
acceptable for coupling the blade to the sole (at least for a LA metal body
plane). The LV A2 blade is 1/8 inch thick, with the L-N being 3/16 (in my
earlier model it is of traditional steel, supposedly future L-N planes will
all have A2 blades, cryo’d as well). The differences in bedding surface and
blade thickness are clearly in L-N’s favor, but I’m not sure most would
find them worth the extra cost of the L-N, particularly given the comparable
performance of the two planes (discussed below and elsewhere).
The lateral adjustment/limiting screws remain a
nice feature, but don’t offer the advantage over the competition on this
plane as it did on the bench planes, since the L-N LA has such a close fit
between its blade and the body. The LV Norris style adjuster remains very
precise, with lateral adjustment capability and almost non existent backlash.
In contrast, the upright adjuster of the L-N model has a lot of backlash (at
least relatively speaking), and has no provisions for lateral adjustment. I
think it is somewhat of a matter of personal preference whether you desire the
ability for lateral adjustment at the same time as making vertical/extension
adjustments. Both blades remove easily, but many will find the Lee Valley
blade easier to sharpen as there is no adjuster adapter plate as there is on
the L-N (this is a small plate that attaches like a chip breaker, but is
located only on the upper end of the blade where it creates a slot for the
vertical adjuster leg to fit within). Cosmetically, I find the Lee Valley
blade to integrate more cleanly with the overall lines of the plane.
The blade clamping mechanism is solid and secure on
both planes, but I have a preference for the Lee Valley version, as it can be
adjusted more smoothly and tightly by hand. The LV version also clamps the
blade down both near the edge and again over the adjuster, while the L-N only
clamps near the edge. Both adjusters are aesthetically pleasing and sturdy,
the L-N being of solid brass and LV version a mix of black aluminum and brass.
The bottom of both caps are well machined and fitted.
Lee Valley makes the point their
plane has been designed to be comfortable for use on its side as a shooting
plane. I found their suggested grip for shooting board use works quite well,
indeed very well. But, and it's a fairly big "but," the L-N Low
Angle Smoother feels just as good with that grip and it neither has an
"uniquely shaped lever cap" nor the "thumb recess." If it
were me, I'd keep the lever cap and give up the ugly
circular "recess" on the sides.
I find the more rounded lines of the L-N tote to be
visually pleasing, but the shape of the LV tote fits my hands marginally
better. Both are good, but the LV is slightly better for my hands, and because
it offers greater height, I suspect it will be better for most hands. There
are two bolts running the length of the tote, and while initially surprising,
I find them to be a great idea as they make the handle noticeably more rigid
than the L-N. My experience has been that such rigidity allows for better
translation of body forces into the plane, and better feedback from the wood.
The mounting stud for the front knob is hidden on the LV, but seems well
seated. This allows for a smooth perfectly rounded top, and, at least
potentially offers greater extended use comfort that the exposed bolt on the
L-N.
The L-N LA adjuster is fully accessible,
easy to use and, once the backlash is taken out, precise in adjustment.
I really like that I can keep the plane on the wood with a functional grip
while reaching forward with one finger to make minor adjustments of blade
extension. The LV adjuster is
more precise than the L-N, having essentially no backlash, but is hard to
adjust while maintaining a functional grip (granted I have somewhat shorter
fingers). Held upside down to sight along the sole to establish blade
extension, I still find the L-N to be easier to use, though both are adequate.
In contrast to blade adjustment, I much prefer the Lee
Valley method of adjusting the mouth, compared to the L-N LA. With the Lee
Valley I just loosen the front knob and move the toe piece directly where and
how much I want it. With the L-N I have to loosen the knob, then used a cam
lever to move the toe piece. I am always getting this wrong, particularly when
the plane is upside down. For me, there is no intuitive direction to move the
L-N lever, so I'm always running the mouth into the blade. (My ideal would be
a precise screw driven adjustment of the mouth—we do this with better
frogs).
Let me start by saying that I’ve
never been one who has had great success using a LA plane for general
smoothing. There are a few woods, usually those that have incipient random
endgrain, like knots and “eyes,” or burls that have mixed side and end
grain where the LA has worked well for me. But in general, I haven’t found
LA planes desirable as face grain smoothers, perhaps because most of my
planing is of rather dense, unusual and/or “exotic” woods such as
blackwood acacia, padauk and cocobolo. I, like the Stanley originators, see
the primary function of a LA “smoother”as smoothing large expanses of
endgrain such as cutting boards (not that this isn’t a lot of work), and as
the ideal tool for cleaning up dovetails. For those that don’t have a #9, it
can also be a fairly good shooting board plane for trimming miters and
squaring ends.
Now using a low angle smoother for its original intended
purpose is a lot of work, ask anyone who actually has used a plane to flatten
a large end grain cutting board. I’ve done so more than once, and know I
would be a much stronger person if I did so regularly.
Not wishing to risk my wife’s ire by planing her cutting board, I
found a neighbor who had a big endgrain maple cutting board (roughly 19 x 14
inches) and offered to rejuvenate it. I flattened and polished both backs
(both my LV blades came slightly warped) and sharpened the blades to .5 micron
with the same angles. The completeness and accuracy of the sharpening was
confirmed with a 5X lens. An hour after sharpening, I had completed the
cutting board and had a renewed familiarity with both planes (in this case I’m
referring to my L-N and the new production version of the LVLA I just
received). Both planes were comfortable to use and both planes made comparable
cuts, cutting the maple endgrain fibers cleanly, though not without resistance
(it is at moments like this that I wonder why I would have ever wanted a wider
version of these planes). Frankly, I could tell no difference what so ever
between the cuts made by them.
I have also tested the planes on face and side smoothing
of oak and cocobolo, making up some through dovetails in oak and trimming
them, and squaring the ends of oak, maple and pine on a shooting board. Both
planes (LV LA and L-N LA) did an
adequate but not outstanding job smoothing face and side grain oak, but both
left considerable and unacceptable tearout on the cocobolo (easily cleaned up
later with a York pitch plane). Though comparable, the L-N LA blade left an
arguably better surface on all these woods when viewed under a 3X lens, but I’m
not sure one would have detected any difference by unassisted visual
examination of the wood.
When trimming the ends of oak dovetails, both planes
performed comparably with respect to surface left
to the unaided eye, but the L-N LA showed a better surface under 3X and
5X magnification. However, I found I mildly preferred using the LV LA. Coming
onto the surface with the LV was aided by the longer front sole/set back
mouth. This seems to be an emerging characteristic of the LV planes and is one
that I like. The mass of both of these planes just makes trimming dovetails so
much easier than when done with a block plane.
Shooting with both planes was comparable. The LV has
slightly greater registration surface, but this doesn’t really show in use.
Squaring pine was a breeze with both planes and they left essentially
identical surfaces, even when viewed under magnification. With the Oak and
Maple, it was not comfortable or easy to take but the barest of shavings with
either plane. They seemed to leave a visually similar surface on most boards,
though the earlier preproduction version LV did not achieve a consistent
surface across the end of 3 inch maple boards. Under magnification it appeared
that some chatter was present in the last 1 inch of the maple ends. With the
new production version there was no evidence of that chatter. Whether this was
due to increased bedding surface, a slightly different blade extension setting
or something else, I really can’t say, but the current production version of
the LV plane does seem to perform very slightly, but perceptibly better on
these types of cuts. Earlier, I dug out my LN#9 and compared it to the
preproduction Lee Valley and the L-N LA. The #9 was easier to use, and made
better cuts than either of the above. I’m sure any of the LA “Smoothers”
would be adequate for trimming on a shooting board, but there’s no doubt
from my experience that if one is serious about it, the #9 is the tool to use.
The balance of the two LA smoothers is different, with
the LV being more forward weighted, though I don’t notice much difference
when they are in use. The totes clearly feel different when planing, but I can’t
come to any clear preference with respect to comfort over extended use. What I
do notice is a feeling of greater coupling to the wood with the LV plane,
maybe this is due to the more rigid tote of the LV or perhaps something else.
I have noted this before with the LV #4.5.
I don’t want to say too much more about performance for
several reasons. One, as I said above, I don’t have an affinity for a LA
plane as a smoother. Second, even though I have had a preproduction model for
several months, I have only had the improved final production model for a few
days. This obviously has limited my ability to use the new plane with a
variety of woods or compare it to a full range of planes. Third, I really am
closing in on completing my high angle plane comparative review (yah, the one
I’ve been promising for a year) and will make some more comments about the
LVLA then.
The Lee Valley LA is a worthy
alternative to the Lie-Nielsen regardless of cost. It exceeds the LN in a few
areas (overall appearance to my eyes, the long sole with set back mouth,
rigidity of the tote, lack of backlash, and the front sole plate adjustment),
is comparable in a couple (general ergonomics in use both upright and on its
side for shooting), but also trails the LN in several (blade thickness, ease
of blade adjustment, general elegance and refinement of appearance). In the
most important areas of quality of cut and ease of adjustment, they appear to
tie on the first and it is a split decision on the second (backlash vs. ease
of adjustment). However, keep in mind that perhaps a person with greater
affinity for LA smoothers may be able to coax better performance from one of
these planes, and matters of adjustment often reflect body characteristics and
simple preference. So that leaves us with price. The LV comes in at
approximately 100 US dollars less than the comparable L-N. For 139 US dollars,
it’s hard not to find the Lee Valley the better value for the typical user.
It certainly means that a lot more people will be able to justify owning a LA
smoother. However, I do not feel that price puts the L-N out of the running.
Even at its higher price, it is not so expensive that it is out of the reach
of plane connoisseurs and serious hand tool craftsmen, and there are many
characteristics of personal preference which might cause one to willingly
choose to spend the extra money. I’m not being wishy washy about this (I’ve
minced no words in the particulars above). Rather, what we have are two very
good planes, that are credible alternatives to each other. And when that
happens, I think we all win.
Now about those changes I’d like to see in grip styles…………
Lyn
|
