Thread: Veritas LA Jack Plane

is this the one?
http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?p=63262

Derek had a thread a while back on a guy in the States who makes handles:
https://www.woodworkforums.com/showth...does+nice+work

Funny, from everything I'd read about people not liking the V handles as supplied I thought I might dislike it when I received my BU Jointer about 6 months - however, I find it quite a good fit to my hand. Horses for courses I guess.

Btw, I recently fitted a 50° blade to said jointer - the finish on some curly Tallow wood is unbelievable! Nil tearout, and glassy.

Greg

That is the one. thank you for your help.

Regards

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Derek had a thread a while back on a guy in the States who makes handles:
https://www.woodworkforums.com/showth...does+nice+work

Funny, from everything I'd read about people not liking the V handles as supplied I thought I might dislike it when I received my BU Jointer about 6 months - however, I find it quite a good fit to my hand. Horses for courses I guess.

Btw, I recently fitted a 50° blade to said jointer - the finish on some curly Tallow wood is unbelievable! Nil tearout, and glassy.

Brett

IMHO there are several issues with the Veritas Handle. They are designed to suit a higher bench favoured by some but not me, and the handle is tilted at 15 degrees to suit someone using a " high " bench.

I made my bench to suit the maxim," bench height equals the distance from the floor to your palm when this is extended at 90 degrees with your arm straight down by your side". in my case this is 810mm.

Using a Veritas plane on a bench such as mine means that if I stand as I normally do to plane, my wrist is cocked back 15 degrees more than using a Stanley which has a handle at 30 degrees and is also shaped to suit the hand. this I find very uncomfortable and after a short period it starts to get painful.

Then there is the aesthetics to consider, and IMHO the Veritas is about as attractive as a cement block. In short I do not like the handle, or it could be said I did not make my bench to suit the use of a Veritas Plane.

In defence of Veritas I do find it uncomfortable to use a Stanley on a " high " bench, and for that reason have not used them much on high benches. Additionally I am not saying the plane is no good, quite the opposite it is a very good plane.

I guess my options are, put boots on the bench and by a set of Veritas planes . or make, or buy a new handle, or use the Veritas on one of my other higher benches i usually use for things other than planing.

I suppose I could spend my time only using the " ideal " tools, equipment, and wood ,at least then I would only need a very, very, small workshop


Regards

Originally Posted by Basilg

..... ,at least then I would only need a very, very, small workshop .....

Take that back. Small workshop...... indeed.

Yes, that all makes sense David. My bench is closer to 900 (885 IIRC). I agree with you about the aesthetics - a traditional Stanley handle has a much nicer look. That's always secondary to performance of course, and it's even better when you can have both.

I have the a LV LAJ and the LN, I always reach for the LN, the LV just sits in the back of the draw. A new handle might help.
I would have sold it off but have left it set up the 50deg blade in it for the odd occasion I use it.

The reasons I have changed all the rear handles on my Veritas planes & scraper are precisely those Basilq gives. That huge lump of wood must be made for people with fists the size of watermelons. After 50 plus years of holding Stanley & Record totes, I automatically wrap three fingers around the wood, & my pointer finds the back of the frog, & away we go. When I wrap three fingers around a Veritas tote, there is room for at least 4 more, and my pointer waves about in mid air, with no point of contact to help me feel how the plane is sitting. When I start to plane with it, it gets worse. My hand slides around on the tote instead of being located by the horn & the shape of the tote, and my wrist is cocked up at an uncomfortable angle. It's just plain awkward, & takes any fun out of hand planing, for me.

I don't think elevating your bench is a good solution, either (I know Bas was joking, but there are a lot of high benches out there). There is a bench height which is the most comfortable for the sort of long planing sessions I often indulge in, because I can get my whole body into the game. Go much above that height and you'll find that your arms are doing all the work, which may be ok for short sessions, but not much fun for an ageing galoot like me. I learnt during several seasons of wielding a cane-knife, that even a tiny amount of effort saved in each stroke of the knife added up to a very big difference at the end of the day.

I've posted on my tote replacements a couple of times. The first time I was a bit cautious and didn't go for the full lean. The reason for that is because I didn't think I could fit the double studs through without getting the holes too close to the edges. I had to bend the studs forward at the sole, to match the angle of the holes in the handle, which is actually quite easy to do. About the same time as I did the first one, UKAlf was blogging about changing the tote on one of her Veritas planes. I can't find the reference atm, but as I recall, she solved the problem by doing away with one of the studs, but I like the idea of two, being a belts and braces sort of bloke.

However, I subsequently found that with a bit of care, you can go the whole hog, and fit the 'standard' full Stanley style tote if you are careful with laying out & drilling the stud holes, so I went back & 'fixed' my smoother. There is a pretty complete coverage of how I went about fitting the new wood in the two posts, if anyone is interested in giving it a go.

Biggest problem I had was getting the brass nuts off the original studs - dunno why they are screwed on so tightly! In fact, the last one I did was so tight I was afraid I'd wreck the nuts getting them off, so I just made a couple of new ones...

Cheers,

Ian

We are likeminded on this, the handles are without a doubt Fugly and cumbersome. You are correct I have no intention of changing my bench, in fact I foresee a Viking type burial when the time comes , but no doubt the authorities will veto that.

I prefer to have a proper handle, which many appear to, and I therefore don't understand why Veritas don't offer at least an optional handle.

I shall explore you method, and have also emailed Bill Rittner.


the link for Alf's method is http://www.cornishworkshop.co.uk/planetote.html

Regards

Basil makes the point here, and I have mentioned this over the years, that the more upright handles of the Veritas suit a higher-than-normal bench. In fact, most planes should be pushed from behind with the palm than held like a pistol. When I moved to a lower bench it became less comfortable to use the Veritas handles, and I swapped over to Bailey designs ...



What needs to be added is that I went back-and-forth between the original Veritas and Bailey type over a few years on my old bench (which was higher). I decided that the Veritas handles were preferred on that bench. It was only when I moved to my current (lowish) bench that the Bailey style stayed.

The interaction between plane design and handle angle is important and related to how the plane is used. It can alter the centre of effort. With a forward handle I would expect a LA Jack to become a little harder to push as the vector of force is shifted down towards the blade, where the higher angled handle drives across the blade.

I have a HNT Gordon Trying Plane which I am particularly fond of. The only problem is that it is fatiguing to hold, because I would grip it across the body like a Krenov plane.



I decided to make a Bailey-type handle for this ...



Using the handle as if the plane was a Stanley (that is, holding the handle up hight) created a monster - it was flighty and lacked control. The high handle was just too far back for this design (which has a mouth that is far back). However as soon as I dropped the push low and used my palm the control returned and the plane became more comfortable to use. The top of the handle is just decoration; it would would just as well with a stub to push against.

Moral of the story is that changing the handle can change the characteristics of the plane. This can be both good and bad.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by derekcohen

........Moral of the story is that changing the handle can change the characteristics of the plane. This can be both good and bad.....

Agreed, Derek, though I would say the change is mostly for the good...

Of course, I'm thinking lower benches & planes that have the sole arranged in the way most western planes seem to be, i.e., the toe is about 1/3rd or less of the total sole length. Planes with very long toes like you used as your example are out of my experience, so I will take your word on those. But I do identify with the high tote causing instability - that's one of the reasons I dislike the Veritas totes. My hand wanted to slide up the handle to snug up to the horn, which meant I was holding it far too high.

While I can see your point about altered vectors with the more sloped handle, I'm not sure it translates into a significant increase in "push" effort, if you are using it at a comfortable height. To my mind, the ergonomics are dominated by the comfort factor, which is largely determined by my wrist angle under load. It would certainly be just as uncomfortable for me using Bailey type handles on a high bench as it is using the upright Veritas handles on a low bench.

And Basil, one answer to your question as to why Veritas don't offer alternative handles may be that it would be rather awkward for them. To offer a Bailey type handle as a retro-fit, they would have to include studs pre-bent to fit the more sloped grip (or at least send out straight studs & instructions on how a user could do it). The alternative would be to drill the stud holes in the sole at different angles, which would mean you would have to order your plane as 'high' or 'low' instead of a retro-fit handle. It seems to me that most people either don't care, or like FF, actually like them the way they are, & in fact, somewhere (might be the UKAlf thread), Rob Lee has said they did pre-market research & the current handle was the one most people preferred. Perhaps few people use planes for heavy work for long periods, nowadays, so don't find the handles as irksome as you & I do. I agree that the Bailey handles are far more aesthetically pleasing, too, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, innit?

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

or like FF, actually like them the way they are,

Eeee, I wouldn't go quite that far....they fit my hand ok and I don't have much to complain about there, but David nailed - they are definitely fugly. I might feel quite differently about them after a regular Stanley was fitted.

I must say that pushing the 50° BU blade through the curly Tallow was not difficult (more resistance than the 38°of course) and yielded very nice wispies. Honed with diamond paste on cast iron of course........Ian .

Originally Posted by IanW

...in fact, somewhere (might be the UKAlf thread), Rob Lee has said they did pre-market research & the current handle was the one most people preferred.

The problem is a lack of lumberjacks in this part of the world

Cheers, Vann

Originally Posted by IanW

Agreed, Derek, though I would say the change is mostly for the good...

Of course, I'm thinking lower benches & planes that have the sole arranged in the way most western planes seem to be, i.e., the toe is about 1/3rd or less of the total sole length. Planes with very long toes like you used as your example are out of my experience, so I will take your word on those. But I do identify with the high tote causing instability - that's one of the reasons I dislike the Veritas totes. My hand wanted to slide up the handle to snug up to the horn, which meant I was holding it far too high.

.........

Hi Ian

You may wish to comment again after reading my link to this thread: https://www.woodworkforums.com/f152/centre-effort-ii-182999

Regards from Perth

Derek