Thread: Review: The Veritas Jack Rabbet Plane

Thanks for the review Derek.

I'm intrigued by the #51 adaption. I really like that.. Maybe I do need one

A couple of questions (bearing in mind that interchangeable parts can skew the financial case - as with BUS, LAJ & BUJ).

1. Does the rabbet plane iron fit the LAJ? We all know that the LAJ is most versatile with an extra iron or two at different EPs - so I'm thinking: if I bought a rabbet iron instead for my LAJ, it would help justify the rabbet plane purchase at a later date.

2. Are the screw-in arms the same thread and diameter as those on the Skew Rabbet?

Cheers, Vann.

Hi Vann

Obviously the blade for the LAJ cannot be used in the Jack Rabbet (although they are the same width). In theory - I have not tried this out - the Jack Rabbet blade could be used in the LAJ. However this is just theoretical and I cannot see any benefit in doing so. It is not possible to make a rabbet out of a solid side.

And, yes, the rods and fittings for the Skew Rabbet and Jack Rabbet are interchangeable. Thanks for the reminder - I meant to mention this. The set up I used for the raised panel came from the Skew Rabbet.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by derekcohen

In theory - I have not tried this out - the Jack Rabbet blade could be used in the LAJ. However this is just theoretical and I cannot see any benefit in doing so.

My thoughts were: If I was planning to buy both the LAJ and the Jack Rabbet, instead of buying the LAJ with two additional irons to cover the range of EPs, buy two additional Jack Rabbet irons as these could (possibly) be used to provide different EPs in both planes.

It's all theoretical anyway as I already have 3 irons for my LAJ. Thanks for the confirmation on the arms.

Cheers, Vann.

Derek,

Are these plane available in Australia yet, and if so, where can you buy one from?

Thanks,

Craig

Hi Craig

Carba-tec stocks Lee Valley and Veritas planes and products. I am sure they would order one in if they do not have stock (the plane has been out a couple of months now). Otherwise you will need to order it direct from Lee Valley.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Thanks Derek!

I'll try Carba-Tec and see what they are asking for one of these first up

Craig

You've given this one an A+, Derek - I almost started wanting one myself by the time I reached the end of the review, but quickly closed the page & the urge went away.. It is a tool that could replace many separate planes and fill each role better than most 'all-rounders', by the looks. If I had to go back to owning just one bench plane (perish the thought!), it would be a very strong contender to be it. I particularly liked your shooting-board solution, & the more I think about it, the more I think that could be touted as one of this plane's big roles, becaue of the way it can be adapted to run in a guide like you made. You would need a more intrusive modification to fit most other planes with an auxillary 'side-sole'.

I still think Veritas could do themsselves an immense favour by putting a bit more work into those rear handles! The crude things just shout "soul-less machine work". I guess having someone hand-finish handles would just cost too much, & the proportion of peeople who are offended by them too small to make it worthwhile getting any fussier. It's a bit of a spurious whinge on my part, in any case, since I have discovered how simple it is to fix the problem...

Like your plane-box - looks like you found a good use for some of the leftovers from your Oak bench top? I have a problem with the plane box I made for my plough (and a few friends) - no wall space to mount it. It;s sitting on top of another cupboard at the moment, but I will have to figure out a more convenient spot, somehow....

Cheers,

I am sure Derek has done a great review.

I am sure the plane is functional, it looks functional but I find many of the Veritas designs rather too 'functional' - shapes of totes, connecting points, lines , grooves and designs just never to my liking - they commonly seem more odd looking more than anything (they better work well then). they do make a couple that are ok - skew rabbets' ok, there may be another, nothing else comes to mind quickly though....

Originally Posted by Vann

My thoughts were: If I was planning to buy both the LAJ and the Jack Rabbet, instead of buying the LAJ with two additional irons to cover the range of EPs, buy two additional Jack Rabbet irons as these could (possibly) be used to provide different EPs in both planes.

It's all theoretical anyway as I already have 3 irons for my LAJ. Thanks for the confirmation on the arms.

Cheers, Vann.

Vann, if you did as you are thinking I think you'd find the result very frustrating
the tiny side to side adjustment necessary to get the blade square in the mouth would be difficult with most of the blade hidden under the lever cap.

Originally Posted by ian

Vann, if you did as you are thinking I think you'd find the result very frustrating
the tiny side to side adjustment necessary to get the blade square in the mouth would be difficult with most of the blade hidden under the lever cap.

Hmm (thinks)...

In the LAJ, the blade set screws should locate the rabbet iron in the mouth same as they would for the LAJ iron (both types of iron being 2¼” wide in that vicinity). As for the iron being square in the mouth - I turn the plane over and sight along the sole to adjust that - so I don't see a problem there either.

The likely problem is the size and/or location of the locating pin on the LAJ "Norris" adjuster. It might be completely wrong - but it might be just right. Unfortunately Derek has not found the time (or the inclination) to see if the rabbet iron will fit the LAJ and it's "Norris" pin.

Cheers, Vann.

edit: I've just noticed that the rabbet irons are bevelled along both sides - that may make the set screws useless on the LAJ - but then Lie-Nielsen, Stanley, et al, don't have set screws either, so that shouldn't matter too much.

Hi Vann

I am not sure why you want to place the Jack Rabbet blade in the LA Jack? It works completely transferable int the LAJ, but the reverse is not.

Here is the LAJ with the JR blade ...







Hi Steve

One man's meat ... and all that. Here is a picture for you - the JR handle in front of a Stanley pattern...



What you can see is that the angle is the same, and that they are almost exactly the same size (the Stanley is a touch longer). The only real difference is the length of the horn, and that does not affect the function.

Regards from Perth

Derek

"What you can see is that the angle is the same, and that they are almost exactly the same size (the Stanley is a touch longer). The only real difference is the length of the horn, and that does not affect the function."
Derek, I'm only going on that one photograph comparing the handles so this might not be a valid criticism.
However, for a plane that is designed with such flowing lines the handle does look as if it is just stuck on top. The mounting point on the plane actually seems smaller than the base of the handle. Obviously it is functional but aesthetically not so pleasing.

Hi Jim

The handle is stuck on top. In this case there is no other way since there is a mechanism to tilt it to the sides.





This is the same handle that is on the Small Plow, Skew Rabbet, Small BU Smoother ...



The handle that came in for so much criticism was the one on the LA Jack and BU Smoother/Jointer. It was upright and better suited to high benches (where, I must say, it does work very well).

Not the best of photos, but here you can see the later versions (BUJ and BUS) flanking the original on the LAJ ...



Here are the same planes with a replacement handle and a LN #3 for comparison ..

[img]

.. and a comparison of the LN #3 and Veritas SBUS ...

[img]

I'm not sure how many here have actually used the planes/handles alongside one another as I have - happy to hear from you - but, looks aside, they are very similar in feel. In fact, in the case of the #3 and SBUS, the SBUS wins for more hand space. Consequently, I changed the #3 handle for a larger #4 (there is space behind the blade as the frog is a 55 degree version).

Which looks better? Well, I've grown up with the Stanley, and so I gravitate to it. I prefer their flowing lines.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Thanks Derek. Shows you how easy it is to jump to conclusions from one picture.