I have a Stanley #80...which works great on hard woods...and not-so-great
on soft woods...but I think thats the way they respond to scraping
anyways...I have one of David Charlesworths books and he seems to think
that the veritas insert is pretty good tool...he did write that the blade
would make a snapping sound when it went past the end of the stock..but
other than that it worked as well as any other scraper...
hope this helps...
I picked one up since I was having problems finding a 112 at bottom
feeder prices and put it on a Sargent body that I had lying around.
Works just fine. I'm still looking for that 112 though.
Dave in Fairfax
reply-to doesn't work
daveldr at att dot net
Hmmm ... as someone who does roughly 99% neander woodworking, I see
nothing wrong with that statement.
As the owner of an old #80, the new LV #80 knockoff, a LN #112, and
a dozen or so various thicknesses, sizes and contours of card
scrapers, I can honestly say that I only turn to my scrapers when my
smoothers experience some problems/tearout (or I am dealing with
curves where a plane or spokeshave won't work).
I honestly don't intend this to be nasty, but to use your own
words, "if you really believe what you have said above, I have to say
that you have never used a properly sharpened" [and set] plane. "I
get my best surfaces by using my" smoothers (maybe 95% of the time;
the other 5% I turn to a scraper).
As for the original question about the LV scraper insert: Saw it in
the catalog, bought it, used it, sold it. It can be made to work (buy
the optional heavy blade for best results), but it is prone to
chatter. I prefer the #80 or card scrapers for most of my work.
And in general, scrapers do not work well on softwoods.
Yep, that's basically what I found. Combine that with the thin
blade, and you get a blade that is flexing all the way through the
planing stroke. Buying the thicker blade helps some, but it's still
too easy to get ripples on the work surface as the blade catches and
FWIW, I am a *huge* fan of Lee Valley/Veritas and their line of
handtools, but this particular design just seems to have a basic flaw.
I didn't mean to start a teat pulling contest. Everyones experiences with
specific tools and processes differ. In my case, I seldom have a project
where a surface is big enough to be able to use one of my (I think!)
reasonably well tuned and scary sharpened planes.
Most of the time I just grab the always handy scraper to smooth out a
I appologize if I ruffled any feathers, to each his own.
If so, you might have chosen a different wording than:
I'm sure you can see how that might be taken as a slight teat-pull.
Agreed. For example, I know folks who have no luck with a
low-angled smoother on tricky grain, while I turn to one all the time.
Interesting. I use my smoothers for just about any surface. If I
can figure out how to clamp it in place, I'll give it a final pass
with a smoother. If the smoother leaves tearout, I'll grab a scraper.
No need for apologies. If it works for you, go for it. I just
wanted to present a different perspective, since it seemed that you
were making a pretty broad statement (neanders do such and such, and
scrapers leave a better surface than planes).
This thread has brought out some interesting observations, as a few
folks have said that they follow the plane with a scraper. IME, the
surface produced by a plane (assuming no tearout) is superior to a
scraped surface, so I aim to to make the last passes with a plane.
But by the time the finish goes on, I don't expect there's really much
difference in the two.
The main thing I hope to get across in all of this is that there's
no need to be afraid to use a plane or scraper for getting a surface
ready for finishing.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.