Thread: Opinions on Henry Eckert low angle jack?

I was recently given a Henry Eckert Low Angle Jack Plane. Mine has the 10,000 year old Black Red Gum tote and knob. If I am going to get a plane like this, I might as well go for bragging rights as well.

The plane arrived in good order and was packed well. After removing the bubble wrap, I found the plane was wrapped in a lightly waxed paper. The box was a surprise. The corners of the two part (a top and bottom box) have metal reinforced corners, reminiscent of the old Stanley boxes, which was a pleasant surprise and a nice touch. The plane had a bottle of mystery oil included in the box. The bottle had leaked, but Henry Eckert had thoughtfully sealed the bottle in a zip lock bag, so the leak caused no harm. I am uncertain if the oil is for the plane or the ancient wood.

HE - LAJ - In box 1.jpeg

HE - LAJ - In box 2.jpeg

I pulled the plane apart to inspect it and then reassembled it.

HE - LAJ - On bench.jpeg

HE - LAJ - Front Knob and lever cap.jpeg

I noted the following:

The plane is heavy - it is heavier than most others of it's type, including the Woodriver and Lie-Nielsen versions, and approximately (I originally miscalculated and said 100 ounces) 0.05 ounces lighter than the Veritas version.

The casting is clean, and the paint is a matt black. It is thin. I assume it is paint as with a little use (I found out afterward) it started to flake off under the front knob. I am not certain this would have occurred with powder coating, but I could be wrong.

HE - LAJ - Wear on mouth adjuster.jpeg


The frog area for the blade appeared to have had a minor imperfection (but turned out to be overspray), and the mouth of the plane on the inside as well (also overspray). The base of the plane and the sides were dead flat and at 90 degrees - exactly what I'd hoped for, and great for use on a shooting board.

HE - LAJ - Poor masking during painting process.jpeg

The inside of the adjustable mouth plate also has a small defect with one of the four rectangular recesses being slightly misshapen. Again, this has no impact upon performance and is cosmetic only, and is pretty nit-picky on my part.

HE - LAJ - Irregular recesses.jpeg


The mouth of the plane required some work, but was fixed quickly with a file and some fine sandpaper. The edges of the plane were sharp and required a little relief with some fine sandpaper as well.

HE - LAJ - Mouth after fixing.jpeg

The brass lever cap is beautiful - on the top - underneath it was a bit of a mess, as it was unfinished, roughly sanded and didn't sit flat. That was easily fixed on a diamond stone and then polished up a little to tidy it up. This was also a minor issue.

HE - LAJ - Underneat Lever Cap - after fixing.jpeg

The Howard adjuster is a joy to use and performed exactly as hoped.

HE - LAJ - Frog and adjuster.jpeg

The tote and knob are beautiful. The 10,000 year old wood caused a chorus of Oooohs and Ahhhhhhs when I showed it to my boys and explained how old the wood is. The wood feels wonderful and the handle is shaped well for my large hands. I found the choice of the brass machine screw at the front of the tote odd, and with it sitting proud of the handle, it looks as though it is poorly fitted. I found that to be an odd choice, especially after the effort that Henry Eckert has gone to to select the woods used.

HE - LAJ - Screw in Tote.jpeg

There is very little room for lateral blade adjustment, and the nature of the casting means that there is approximately 1mm available. This is restricted by what appears to be part of the 12 degree frog material that was not removed during machining. On my plane, it does not look particularly neat, so I was uncertain of this is deliberate or not. (I later found out that it was likely deliberate, as with use, the paint flaked off revealing the full appearance) The effect is that the blade has no room to move near the base and only 1mm at the top. When I tried setting up and using the plane, it worked out well. Some of the extra metal used in the plane to increase mass is found on the sides near the top of the blade, leaving very little room to use a small hammer to adjust the blade laterally.

The blade was not quite flat on the back, but was fixed after about 20 minutes of work. When I first tried the blade straight out of the box, it was sharpened at 25 degrees with a small nick at one end. I sharpened the blade at 25 degrees, and removed the nick (finishing on a 6000 grit Japanese water stone) and added a 30 degree microbevel.

Before I corrected any of the minor issues that I have noted above, I tried out the plane as it was, coming straight out of the box. There was no grease or oil evident, so I didn't even have to wipe it down.

HE - LAJ - Shavings before fettling and sharpening.jpeg

I used an old dry piece of recycled red gum, and I managed to take some shavings off that were a little thicker than I was happy with. I tried to surface the board and ended up with a lot of tear out. It took me an hour to completely tune the plane, and when I had finished I retried the red gum. The shavings were as thin as I had hoped, thinner than tissue paper, and I quickly surfaced both sides of the board without any tear out. When I had done both sides of the board, I found that I did not even need to use a scraper or sandpaper to finish the board - it was smooth and flat, ready for a finish!

HE - LAJ - Shavings after fettling.jpeg

Suggested improvements:

Replace the machine screw on the tote with something that looks better fitted. The current screw detracts from the look of the plane and those unfamiliar with it may be misled into thinking that the plane is poorly constructed. That would be an unfair assumption to make.

The casting at the mouth of the plane that restricts lateral movement should look deliberate, the painting process detracts from the clean lines and made it (only) look like the casting was slightly deformed. More care in masking when painting is recommended. With improved masking, less paint is likely to flake off through use. Please also consider masking the wear points under the front knob. Powder coating is another option.

Please consider including some instructions. There's not a word in the box about what that mystery oil is for. Is it for the 10,000 year old wood, or is it to lubricate the adjustable mouth plate, or the Howard adjuster? Is it for overall rust prevention? It would cost so little to add a few pages of instructions, some maintenance and sharpening instructions. Even the design history of the plane! Father's Day is coming up and there are plenty of wood-working Dads who'd enjoy something like this, especially if it comes with some tips for use and a back story of how an Australian plane was made

Overall - the plane is excellent, but requires a little work to get it there. If you don't take the time to tune it, you will likely miss out on being able to use it to half of its potential. I will certainly be picking up some of their other planes. I am really impressed and happy with the plane.

The Henry Eckert Low Angle Jack Plane info page is here.

The Henry Eckert Low Angle Jack Plane sales page is here.

I'd love to see photos of the box and the plane itself. I happened across the planes on his site this morning looking for other stuff, was interested to see if anyone had any experiences. Thanks for sharing.

I'll try to grab photos today! Done and added in to the original post.

Originally Posted by Morbius

...... The plane is heavy - it is heavier than most others of it's type, including the Woodriver and Lie-Nielsen versions, and approximately 100 ounces lighter than the Veritas version......

Um, is that a typo, Mrbius? 100oz. = approx. 2.8kg - is the Veritas that hefty??

Originally Posted by Morbius

......The brass lever cap is beautiful - on the top - underneath it was a bit of a mess, as it was unfinished, roughly sanded and didn't sit flat. That was easily fixed on a diamond stone and then polished up a little to tidy it up. This was also a minor issue.....

As you say, easily enough fixed by those with the skill, but on a high-end product it seems a bit sloppy & careless to leave a mess just because it's not immediately visible - bit like wearing dirty underwear under your tux...

Originally Posted by Morbius

...... There is very little room for lateral blade adjustment, and the nature of the casting means that there is approximately 1mm available....

This is a problem with very low-angle blades, as I soon discovered when I started making planes with 12-15 degree beds. Any deviation of the cutting edge from square requires considerably more lateral rotation to correct at 12 degrees than it does at 45. You could make the body wider, so there is several mm of clearance either side, but that looks a bit like someone washed the blade & it shrank. So you have to compromise, but 1mm either side is rather tight for such a low-angle bed; you are going to have to be careful when grinding & sharpening that you keep that blade very close to spot-on....

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

Um, is that a typo, Mrbius? 100oz. = approx. 2.8kg - is the Veritas that hefty??

IanW, you are right, I was incorrect. The difference is the HE is 5.7 lbs, the Veritas is 5.75 lbs. I got confused trying to convert between metric, imperial and 'decimalised imperial' and blew it. It's 0.05 lbs.

That's better! A difference of (approx) 23g is still appreciable, I suppose, but has a bit less of an impact than 100 oz.

Don't worry - a lot of us old-timers have trouble with shuffling weights from one system to t'other. They are a bit more difficult to convert in your head than linear measure. It has only been in the last few years that I've known my own weight in kg, and that was because the old set of scales with dual calibration died & was replaced with a decimal-only version.

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

...It has only been in the last few years that I've known my own weight in kg...

I have the same problem. Also with height (which I should be able to convert - but don't) I'm 6' 1/2" (or I was before I got old ).

Cheers, Vann.

Does anyone here know if the Henry Eckert #62 can use the Lie-Nielsen #62 blades?

I ask only because Lie-Nielsen offer a toothed blade, while Henry Eckert does not.

Hi Morbius, HE does sell a toothed blade for it. Give David a call if it’s not on the website.

Also the mystery bottle of oil would be camellia oil for rust prevention.

I've just come back from my shed, playing with the HE #62 on my shooting board. It does a really good job on a shooting board, but quickly becomes uncomfortable without the hotdog accessory (another future purchase, obviously ) I compared it with my Record T5 Technical Jack Plane, and the weight is similar, but the extra comfort of the T5's handle makes a big difference. Without the hotdog or a handle, I found my fingers dislodging the lever cap if I encountered any real resistance while planing.

I think it would be nice if on future versions, HE considered a T5 style handle as an option to the hotdog - I think the HE #62's frog would allow for that easily, without compromising strength in the plane. It would also be a distinctive difference from other competitors in the market.

I cannot recall if the HE/LN #62 has the same lever cap set up as the Veritas, but the Veritas is very comfortable to use without a hotdog handle if you use the correct grip. Several years ago I compared the LN #51, LN#9 and Veritas LA Jack on shooting boards at a LN Tool Event, and invited visitors to test them out. The LN#51 was head and shoulders best, but the LAJ beat out the #9 when used correctly.

The article is here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Furnitu...sCompared.html

This is the relevant extract ...

The correct way (in my opinion) of holding the LAJ (and shooting planes generally), is to exert downforce at a central point while simultaneously exerting low lateral sideforce. One must not attempt to simply push the plane against the sidewall to the shooting board. This will unbalance the plane and cause it to cant over.



Downforce is applied by the thumb directly into the dimpled fingerhole. Sideforce is applied by the four fingertips pushing from under the levercap.

This handhold is quite comfortable and makes the LAJ a practical user without a hotdog. Indeed, there is the potential for someone to grasp a hotdog (whether on the LV or LN LAJ planes) and attempt to push it against the fence from high (and not use their fingers to maintain sideways pressure from low).

Contributing to “tippiness” is the amount of “run up” to the board that is used. Many – both experienced and novices alike – would draw the plane back to the start of the runway, and then push it forward fast in an attempt to create momentum, as if this was necessary to power through the end grain. Shooting in this manner would lead to user losing control of the plane.

What is necessary for control is minimum run up. Place the plane with the blade nearly touching the near edge of the board, and then simply push the plane forward, with even pressure and firmly. Since the shaving removed is very fine, a plane with a sharp blade will cut without much effort. Once this was understood, the extra mass of the LAJ was an advantage over the more stable #9.

If you wish to make a hotdog handle, there are two versions on my website:

A Hotdog for the LV LAJ

Building the Hotdog Mk II for the LV LA Jack

Regards from Perth

Derek

Hi Derek. The technique you just described is the same that I discovered only very recently. Having to glean knowledge from YouTube means I am bound to repeat what I have seen and plenty of videos show users utilising big run ups and smashing into timber. My wooden shooting plane doesn't have the heft to get away with that. I was forced to try something else and found a better way. If I hadn't of read most of the articles on your site in one or two sittings I might have rembered your advice sooner