|
|
Traditional
|
    The New Lee Valley No. 6 Foreplane(With reference to the L-N #6 and L-N #7)by Lyn MangiameliApril, 2003 Click on thumbnails to see larger pictures.
OverviewLee Valley has come out with its first “big plane” in a form roughly comparable in style and dimensions to the Stanley #6; accordingly LV has named their new offering the Veritas #6 plane. While smoothers are dear to my heart, I also have a fondness for the big iron and it is good to see Lee Valley extend their plane offerings in this direction. I think that most would consider the Stanley designations of #6, #7 and #8 to make up the family of “big planes,” though I imagine some might also include a #5.5 in this group. These longer, heavier planes offer much of the dimensioning and edge jointing functions that power planers and jointers provide, yet also retain the refinement to serve in the role of smoothing. Indeed, their long length can assist in achieving a flatter final surface than the shorter smoothing planes, and their added weight will provide the authority to deal with smoothing larger expanses of dense woods, or when trimming end grain. The LV #6 is not just another reproduction of a big plane design, however. I find it to be a distinctive plane that has added something to the plane landscape. Nonetheless, because I find comparative reviews to be more informative and to better place features and performance in context, and since new Stanley and Record offerings having faded from the scene, I’m going to discuss Lee Valley’s new offering with referenced to the Lie-Nielsen #6 (and to a lesser extent, their #7) following a format similar to that I have used in previous plane reviews.
External AppearanceThe LV #6, to my eyes, is an immediately appealing plane with regards to visuals. The now signature asymmetrical sidewall lines are continued on this plane, but I find them to work better here than they do on the shorter LV planes. To my eyes, the sidewall lines appear sleeker, more modern and somewhat more aggressive than the more massive classic Bedrock lines of the L-N. Absent are the ugly circular depressions that mar the appearance of some of the LV planes (their LA for example). Tote and knob placement are visually more balanced than on the L-N version, though the tote does not have lines as elegant as those of the more traditional Bailey style used on the L-N. Both planes have brass parts that make for nice visual accents, but I find the LV accents to stand out more pleasingly against their black lever cap. For those familiar with earlier LV planes, a difference will be
apparent immediately. Gone are the dark stained knobs and totes, and in their
place are plantation grown rosewood handles. It’s not the classiest rosewood I’ve
seen, but they have a nice feel and an even coloration, the latter having been a
problem with glaze on many of the earlier handles. I think most will feel they
are a substantial upgrade from the previous wood (an upgrade I expect will soon
be carried over to the other LV bench planes). The LV has a somewhat darker
overall appearance, while the L-N with its use of nicely figured Cherry wood and
greater expanse of brass has a lighter colored look.
Both are visually desirable planes, but for different reasons. Both planes are well machined on the outside. The planes have soles that are flat (I found no need to lap either one), and on both the sidewalls were even in thickness and square to the sole. The tops of the sidewalls on the LV are more rounded, while the L-N are machined flat, which provides a more defined look. The Bedrock style sidewalls of the L-N #6 offer a lot more registration surface than the LV version, which theoretically allows for more stable registration to the orthogonal surface when shooting, but in use I have found both are adequate for the purpose. Still, if shooting will be one of the principle uses of this size plane, I think the added mass of the L-N tips the balance in its favor. This is a good time to get into some of the significant differences between the layout of the two planes. Refer to the photos and note the dimensional similarities and differences in the table below.
What quickly becomes apparent is that though the LV#6
and L-N#6 are the same length and width, and thus qualify for the #6
designation, the LV is in some ways configured more like a #7 than a #6. For
example, grip distance (from front knob to rear tote) is identical between the
LV#6 and the longer soled L-N #7. Sole distance of the LV#6 forward of the mouth
is midway between the L-N#6 and #7. This set back mouth has become another
signature feature of the LV planes, having first appeared on their #5.25W plane
and reappearing on their LA. Theoretically
this allows better registration of the sole of the plane to the surface of the
wood prior to first contact with the blade, and in the case of the LV#6 allows
it to come closer to the registration surface of the usual standard for
jointing, a #7. In contrast to physical dimensions that generally trend towards its larger cousins, the LV#6 is considerably lighter than the other big iron. The figures in the table were taken directly from my planes as measured on a digital postal scale (and thus may differ slightly from published specs). What is obvious is that the LV#6 is approximately 3/4 of a pound lighter than the L-N#6 and approaches being 2 pounds lighter than a LN-#7. These are significant weight differences which I will discuss further in following sections. "Under the Hood"Both planes are as nicely machined on the inside as they
are on the more visible surfaces. L-N
planes have long been renowned for their excellent machining, and my #6 is no
exception. LV has purchased some
very expensive CNC machines, and users of their planes are definitely benefiting
from the LV investment. As a result, for both planes, there was no need to
flatten the underside edge of the lever cap, no need to clean up the frog, no
need to level the end of the cap iron, indeed, very little need to tune or
fettle at all. I think few will find fault with either manufacturer when it
comes to machining of these planes. The frogs of each plane provide a 45 degree bedding angle
for the blade (L-N also makes a 50 degree frog that is available as a
substitution or addition to the usual 45 degree frog). In the past, I have
sometimes faulted LV for not offering as much bedding surface for the blade as
is available on the L-N offerings (which are consistently excellent in this
regard). With this plane, however, I find the amount of bedding surface to be
quite comparable between the two, and perhaps even a bit better distributed on
the LV. As most already know, the LV uses a frog system that is different from
either the Bailey or Bedrock designs in that it extends all the way down to the
sole, and actually is the sole in the area behind the blade. The frog is part of
a rigid triangular structure that includes the tote handle. This structure moves
along the top of the sole and is held to the sole by two screws, one that can be
loosened by hand and one that requires a screwdriver. The forward-back placement
of the frog is adjusted by a thumbwheel, once the two screws are loosened. This
allows the blade depth to be set and then the mouth opening to be established
quickly and easily. This is well described in illustrations and text provided at
the Lee Valley website. The blade clamping mechanism is solid and secure on both planes with each system being aesthetically pleasing as well as sturdy. The L-N is of solid brass while the LV version is a mix of black aluminum and brass. I have a slight preference for the Lee Valley version, as it allows for easier adjustment of clamping pressure, but I doubt there is really any functional difference when the plane is in use. The LV A2 blade is .125 (1/8) inch thick, with the L-N being slightly thicker at 1.45 (almost 5/32). The L-N blade is also made of A2, but is also cryogenically treated. The differences in blades appear in L-N’s favor, but I’m not sure how much they translate into superior performance. Aesthetically, I prefer the clean angular lines at the top of the L-N blade and cap iron over the rounded and less crisp edges of the LV. Otherwise, the blades and cap irons are quite similar; you could interchange the blades between the two planes if the L-N blade was just a little shorter (its height interferes with the LV adjuster). Speaking of adjusters, most are aware by now that the L-N uses a close tolerance Bailey style adjustment system while the LV uses a Norris style adjuster which allows for simultaneous lateral and extension adjustment. It is likely to be a matter of personal preference whether one desires the ability for lateral adjustment at the same time as making vertical/extension adjustments. Lateral placement of the blade can be locked in by two slotted screws set low in the sides of the plane near the mouth of the sole. These lateral locking screws were introduced several years ago on the Veritas block plane and have been included on all of their bench planes. The lateral adjustment/limiting screws remain a nice feature, and I think are of even greater value on the big planes where large forces can be generated. Ergonomics
The LV#6 continues to use the tote introduced with their #4.5 plane. This tote is taller and less angled forward than the more traditional Bailey style tote reproduced by L-N. The greater height of the LV tote accommodates my hands somewhat more fully, and since my hands aren’t particularly large, I suspect it will be better for most hands. However, I wish the LV rear tote had a bit more of a "notch"/swing in the area near the top of the handle (before it swoops back) in order to better accommodate the webbing between one's thumb and first finger (just hold your hand as if it were grasping a vertical pole and observe how the web/thenar eminence area bulges inward relative to the lower palm). For those with shorter fingers the smaller circumference of the L-N tote is apt to allow for a more comfortable grip. Both totes are good; I find the L-N totes to look somewhat nicer, but the LV fits my hands marginally better. In the end, it will come down to your own preferences and hand shape. I also think some of the preference between them will
depend on bench height. The LV by having a more vertical tote that
puts the force more forward and less down is apt to work better for those
with taller bench heights (something I suspect many modern mixed power/hand tool
shop users will have) while the greater angle of the old Bailey style is a bit
more ergonomic for the lower bench heights that are specific to planing. In the
end, it will come down to personal
preference, but don’t assume that just because you are presently happy with a
Bailey style grip that you won’t like the LV version. I was pretty happy with
the Bailey style tote until getting to try the LV, but now I find the Bailey
style slightly cramped. As for the front knobs, they are pretty similar between the two planes, with the LV being slightly taller than the L-N. Both are comfortable to grip, with attachment bolts that do not chafe the hand (a problem with some planes). What can chafe and interfere is the forward edge of the Bedrock style sidewall found on the L-N. If you plane with your bench low such that you come from above your plane, the sidewall tends not to get in the way, but if you plane with a high bench (or your material requires you to plane closer to elbow height) it is easy to have the Bedrock sidewall interfere with your forward hand grip. This is not a problem with traditional Bailey style sidewalls, or those found on the LV planes. As for blade adjusters, I find the LV Norris style adjuster more intuitive to use, more accessible, with less backlash, and by far the easiest to manipulate when the plane is held upside down to sight down the sole. However, note my comments about adjusters in the Performance section below. As shown earlier in the table, the LV weighs approximately
3/4 of a pound less than the L-N#6 and a whole lot less that a L-N#7. The handle
system on all the planes lets one deal with this weight effectively, but still
that is a lot of weight to be maneuvering during extended planing sessions. The
LV not just measures but feels significantly lighter than the others. Though
this lack of mass can have its drawbacks, that I will discuss later, overall I
greatly appreciate the relatively light weight of the LV. The plane is just less
demanding to lift, move and carry. PerformanceLet me start by saying that my comments about performance are based more on the impressions I have developed while using the planes back and forth, rather than the sort of formal comparisons I reported in my high angle smoother study. Most of my experience comparing these number sixes has been to clean up and dimension wood that is being used in part two of the high angle study. This means the planes have been tried on numerous wood samples, including blackwood acacia, bloodwood, bubinga, padauk, cocobolo, oak, maple, teak, purpleheart, ebony, Lignum Vitae and several other dense woods. I also used the planes with a shooting board to clean up the endgrain of several of the wood samples. Finally, I put them to use flattening some large planks of blackwood acacia. With the blades honed to .5 micron on the Lee Valley Power Sharpening System, and the backs flattened and polished to 12000 using Shapton stones, both planes performed very well, providing a quality of cut not appreciably different from the standard pitch LV#4.5 I use as my benchmark smoother. There was tear out on areas of reversing figure on the more difficult woods like cocobolo and blackwood acacia, but no more so than that obtained by the smoother. For some of these samples where tear out occurred, I tried a back beveled blade in the LV#6, giving me an effective cutting angle of 60 degrees (if I had felt more industrious, I also could have moved a 50 degree frog over to the L-N). In every case, the higher angle was able to reduce the tearout left from the 45 degree effective cutting angle, though in at least half the cases it could not eliminate it. I don’t see this as a mark against these planes, but rather just a recognition that some woods are going to be a challenge to any plane, even a “super smoother” like the $2700 Stephen Thomas Infill. Anyway, that’s what we have scrapers for. One thing that became immediately apparent is that mass helps when you are dealing with hard dense woods, particularly when you have a 2.375 inch wide blade. The LV 4.5 smoother weighs just an ounce over 5 pounds. Both number sixes weigh over a pound and a half more. Planing down a length of dense wood was so much easier with the #6 planes compared to the #4.5, and the heavier L-N#6 was easier to maintain momentum with than the lighter LV#6. The mass of the L-N just carried it through dense wood better than either of the other planes. This also applied to endgrain shooting where the mass of the #6s was again advantageous when cutting across that resistive surface, and would further apply to using higher effective cutting angles where the cutting resistance goes up appreciably. As described earlier, compared to the L-N#6, the LV#6 has a greater proportion of its sole forward of the mouth. This allows for relatively greater registration of the sole of the plane to the surface of the wood prior to first contact with the blade. Moving the mouth back a distance midway between that of a traditional #6 and #7 definitely affects the functional characteristics of the plane, making it feel more like a #7, but without the weight. The LV#6 easily registers to the wood, which is desirable for edge jointing. I also suspect the increased registration will guide a less experienced user into properly shifting the distribution of force on the plane throughout a stroke. For reasons I never can quite explain, the L-N#6 can translate an adjuster change more precisely into a change in cutting than can the LV Norris style adjuster. This was a particularly interesting finding for me, as it echoes observations made during my first high angle plane study. At that time I commented: “The ability to achieve fine and consistent changes in planing performance as a result of changes in blade extension and alignment is what I call adjustment control…. To me, this is more than just a reflection of the refinement and precision of adjustment mechanisms, but also includes the ability of the plane to translate these changes in blade position into a change in cutting performance….. the plane that ranked second in this respect was the Lie-Nielsen #4.5. It was notably superior to the other planes. Even though the Lee Valley #4.5, in my experience, has the better adjuster, and I find it slightly more precise when comparing the two planes in their standard angle configuration, it did not show as great a degree of functional control over the plane’s cutting as did the Lie-Nielsen.” Now this is subtle thing, and both number sixes perform well with respect to adjustment control, but there is again a discernable difference in favor of the L-N. The Bottom Line
The more I work with these planes, the more I think of them as entirely different planes, even though they are both nominally #6's. It always amazes me that small differences in such similar tools can effect the character of the planes. There's not a problem with that, it is just kind of interesting. The L-N#6 seems more like a large smoothing plane, perhaps some might call it a panel plane. The extra mass of the L-N#6 makes it the better plane for end grain shooting and for use with denser exotic woods, particularly when its full blade width will come into play. But that same mass can make it relatively more fatiguing to use, and more difficult to control when jointing narrow edges. For more general dimensioning and jointing tasks and with common North American hard woods, I find the LV version of the #6 to be desirable. With its set back mouth, it is a particularly good edge jointer, especially when one considers that most recreational woodworkers only rarely joint boards over five feet long. The plane’s light weight is appealing for carpentry and general woodworking tasks. The LV #6, other than in overall length, comes in almost midway between a typical #6 and #7 and will ably serve the functions of both for the typical woodworker. I think a LV Veritas or L-N Adjustable Mouth Block Plane, the LV#4.5, and the LV#6 would handle the basic needs of typical woodworker wishing to acquire only a minimal number of quality planes with a moderate expenditure. I’ll even go out on a limb and state that if one was to buy only a single bench plane (or their first), the LV#6 is the plane to get because of the broad range of tasks it can ably perform for only a modest price. For someone who likes and regularly uses a wide variety of planes, these two number sixes are sufficiently different in character that it is not out of the question that one could justify having both. That said, I don’t want to over emphasize their differences. In the most important areas of quality of cut and precision of adjustment, they both do an excellent job. Their size, being at the small side of the big planes, makes them very suitable for a variety of tasks that will not be performed well by smaller planes, but tasks that are often required in the course of recreational woodworking. In my opinion, you won’t go wrong purchasing a #6 from either manufacturer |
Last Modified: 07/06/2004 |
