Sign in to follow this  
Violinum

Veritas № 6 Fore plane opinion?

Recommended Posts

One thing always to keep in mind when evaluating planes for flattening or jointing is how the wood is held.  Once released,a twisted bit of wood held in a long vise will always show a distortion on the planed surface as will something cramped in the wrong way between bench dogs. Often it is the holding method of the piece of wood rather than the plane that is to blame....indeed a proper synthesis of the wood holding method and the plane set up is required for the fastest good outcome.

Yes, I agree. That's why I don't clamp the wood, then plane the wood

 

9422061207_a0cc3030e0_z.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lie Nielsen #7 looks like a keeper.

Initially on unpacking, I was skeptical, because I think they could  have used a whole lot more metal in the casting. But with nothing more than grinding and sharpening the blade, I gave it my acid test, surfacing the bottom of an ebony fingerboard. When it bridged hollow spots, there was hardly any discernible "notch" where the blade stopped cutting, and where it resumed cutting on the other side of the hollow. This means that cutting force doesn't move or deflect the blade very much, such as pulling it into the work when it starts to cut.

 

This thing has a massively thick blade and chipbreaker, which is probably part of why it works well. And the blade is quite flat... didn't need a bunch of time on a stone or diamond plate, like most blades I've purchased have. Didn't need to do any flattening at all.

 

Considering all the work time I've lost setting up other planes (hundreds of dollars worth or much more just to set up one plane), and the fact that they still didn't work as well as this, this looks like a pretty good deal. At least these are my impressions so far.

 

One minor gripe: The blade is mildly magnetic, and I'd rather that a blade didn't hold particles from grinding or honing, or attract steel wool shards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can demagnetize it by placing the steel blade against an electromagnet (door bell type coil). Then pull the steel away diminishing the oscillating field. The working physics word is "hysteresis". A few passes like that does the trick. The problem is finding an electromagnet. <_< These things have gone the way of the horse and buggy.

 

One caveat: Protect the sharp edge from getting nicked. We used to put a piece of thin cardboard between the electromagnet and steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bulk magnetic tape eraser works well for this; I don't think the solenoid coil from a doorbell would have a strong enough field to do much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lie Nielsen #7 looks like a keeper.

Initially on unpacking, I was skeptical, because I think they could  have used a whole lot more metal in the casting. 

 

One minor gripe: The blade is mildly magnetic, and I'd rather that a blade didn't hold particles from grinding or honing, or attract steel wool shards.

 

Yes, they are a bit on the thin side but looking on the forums "out there" I saw amateurs want light tools. And amateur hobbyists are their market.

 

The blade is magnetic from the magnetic chuck of the surface grinder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Violinum, I own the Veritas #6 plane that you asked about in the OP.  It is excellent.  I bought it because I was struggling to get a perfect joint in my cello plates with my Record #5 plane, and thought the longer #6 would make the job easier.  It did. 

 

I have just a few tools which I really treasure as high quality machines, and this Veritas plane is one of them.

 

I haven't got a huge body of experience with various planes to compare with this Veritas, but it seems to be excellent.  If you haven't got access to close-ups, and want to see it in greater detail, I can take photos of it for you at whatever angles or distances you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lie Nielson bench planes are based on the old Stanley Bedrock planes. David are you saying that the casting is the same thickness as your old Bailey No.7?

In a side by side comparison, my old Bailey No.5 had a much lighter/thinner body casting than the LN. But my Bailey No.5 was not a Bedrock plane.

It would be really helpful if you could post a side by side photo of your old No.7 and the LN No.7's body to get an idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was surfing on Ebay for old Stanley/Bailey #7s, I found new Silverline #7s, 238104, for $52.74 total, shipped from the UK. These Silverlines are also available from Amazon. They may be the same as the Quangsheng's sold under a different name. With a quick look, they seem to be a copy of the Stanley/Bailey #7s. I would expect to pay the same for a used Stanley/Bailey #7.

 

Anyone have experience with a Silverline #7 ?

 

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was surfing on Ebay for old Stanley/Bailey #7s, I found new Silverline #7s, 238104, for $52.74 total, shipped from the UK. These Silverlines are also available from Amazon. They may be the same as the Quangsheng's sold under a different name. With a quick look, they seem to be a copy of the Stanley/Bailey #7s. I would expect to pay the same for a used Stanley/Bailey #7.

 

Anyone have experience with a Silverline #7 ?

 

Scott

Hi Scott,

That Silverline is nothing like the excellent Quangsheng No 6 that I bought and use daily. ( OK I know its a 7 not a 6 but even so)

My experience of Silverline brand tools in general is that they are generally not really up to the job falling into the category of cheap gear that actually ends up costing us more than expensive stuff in the long run ie. coping saw blades that don't cut & break, carbide planer blades that chip and don't last digital calipers that fail as soon as the warranty expires etc....

 

http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Quangsheng_No_7_Bedrock_Pattern_Jointer_Plane.html#SID=4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Melvin, thanks for the feedback. The searches that I've done on Silverline give me the same opinions as you have, but not specific to this plane. I think it is comparable to our Harbor Freight, some good tools (not great), some decent and some real junk.

 

Scott  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Violinum, I own the Veritas #6 plane that you asked about in the OP.  It is excellent.  I bought it because I was struggling to get a perfect joint in my cello plates with my Record #5 plane, and thought the longer #6 would make the job easier.  It did. 

 

I have just a few tools which I really treasure as high quality machines, and this Veritas plane is one of them.

 

I haven't got a huge body of experience with various planes to compare with this Veritas, but it seems to be excellent.  If you haven't got access to close-ups, and want to see it in greater detail, I can take photos of it for you at whatever angles or distances you want.

I was wondering if the sole is flat on your Veritas №6?  I went to the store and didn't get this plane because the sole was not perfectly flat and they had only one in stock. The price was around 370$ (In EU)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering if the sole is flat on your Veritas №6?  I went to the store and didn't get this plane because the sole was not perfectly flat and they had only one in stock. The price was around 370$ (In EU)

I think it's flatter than my straight-edge is straight.  It was flat enough that I was able to get a perfect joint on my thick and long maple and spruce cello plates, after struggling to get that with my #5*.  I don't know what a machinist would call flat, but it's certainly flat enough.

 

*btw, this #5 was surface-ground flat to within the tolerances acceptable to a crotchety older machinist who agreed to true it up for me, and then spent at least twice as long trying to make it perfect than I thought he should have.  The man was a true perfectionist, and did a fantastic job on that plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lie Nielson bench planes are based on the old Stanley Bedrock planes. David are you saying that the casting is the same thickness as your old Bailey No.7?

In a side by side comparison, my old Bailey No.5 had a much lighter/thinner body casting than the LN. But my Bailey No.5 was not a Bedrock plane.

It would be really helpful if you could post a side by side photo of your old No.7 and the LN No.7's body to get an idea.

Thicknesses measure about the same, but you can see that the Bailey also has some reinforcing webs on top of the sole.

Check out the difference in blade thickness! (the old one has the Stanley blade it came with)

 

The LN appears to have a much more solid frog support though, with both sides milled flat to support the frog across the entire width. The front of the Bailey frog sits on a couple of pedestals, and the area beneath the pedestals looks like it could flex pretty easily.

 

024a.jpg

 

A kind of bizarre thing I've run across, when I've offered feedback, is that most toolmakers don't care very much about what working pros think. Either they think they know everything already, or they've found a satisfactory money niche. There are some exceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reference to "Thumb planes excepted", what kind do you prefer to work with.  I am quite new to working on instruments, and would appreciate your opinion. Thanks

 

Sorry for the wait dstring...

I prefer the Ibex thumb plane by far. (in front) I have a couple of toothed blades for cutting against and across the grain, and a couple of plane blades for it. That size plane can do a ton of work quickly on a front or back plate.

 

But they all work well when sharpened properly - it's just that the old Ibex really gets worked well and often.

 

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3773/9532436947_a5b1f4325f_z.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thicknesses measure about the same, but you can see that the Bailey also has some reinforcing webs on top of the sole.

Check out the difference in blade thickness! (the old one has the Stanley blade it came with)

 

The LN appears to have a much more solid frog support though, with both sides milled flat to support the frog across the entire width. The front of the Bailey frog sits on a couple of pedestals, and the area beneath the pedestals looks like it could flex pretty easily.

 

024a.jpg

 

A kind of bizarre thing I've run across, when I've offered feedback, is that most toolmakers don't care very much about what working pros think. Either they think they know everything already, or they've found a satisfactory money niche. There are some exceptions.

The LN №7 looks fantastic!  Have you ever used a LN 71/2 Low angle plane?   What would be the difference in №7 and №7.1/2 LA palnes for jointing? Which plane would be more practical for jointing in your opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally got around to doing some centerjoints with this plane. It made the violin centerjoints practically idiot-proof. It was actually hard to get a bad joint.

 

The cello joints still required some skill. It was possible to get some twist, or have the surface end up concave or convex, so it was necessary to hold the halves together, examine the joint, and do a little followup work with the plane. A big improvement over the Bailey though.

 

I suppose it would be possible to have a plane work as well on the cello joints as this does on the violin joints, if it was twice as long and weighed 100 pounds. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...if it was twice as long and weighed 100 pounds. ;)

 

You'd never get that to stick to your velcro rack. :)

 

It's a shame the cello joint wasn't so easy, I have the LN low angle 7 1/2 which makes joining violin and viola plates a breeze, I don't need a shooting board. I was wanting to start a cello later this year and hoped the joint would be just as easy. When I made cellos before, I worked in a workshop with a machine jointer, and the joints were done with that. It'll be my first cello with a hand planed center join.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was surfing on Ebay for old Stanley/Bailey #7s, I found new Silverline #7s, 238104, for $52.74 total, shipped from the UK. These Silverlines are also available from Amazon. They may be the same as the Quangsheng's sold under a different name. With a quick look, they seem to be a copy of the Stanley/Bailey #7s. I would expect to pay the same for a used Stanley/Bailey #7.

 

Anyone have experience with a Silverline #7 ?

 

Scott

I had the misfortune of a direct encounter with a Silverline plane earlier this week. An absolute piece of junk and totally unfit for purpose. Made a bog standard diy store Stanley Handyman (which wasn't that much more expensive) seem like a Holtey in comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.