+- Woodnet Forums (https://forums.woodnet.net)
+-- Thread: Lie-Nielsen workbench impressions (/showthread.php?tid=7342324)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Lie-Nielsen workbench impressions - Ricky - 10-25-2018
I played with that bench at the Lie Neilsen summer event in Maine. Rock solid bench.
RE: Lie-Nielsen workbench impressions - 5thumbs - 10-25-2018
I've read this thread with interest. Thanks, Adam, for your insights and comments. As noted in another post, I just finished a Roubo style split top bench and have been using it to build a mudroom bench as my first project. So far, I'm pretty happy with my bench and it's ability to hold work for joinery.
I guess there's no perfect bench - witness the various styles out there. I think the most important attributes of a good bench are rock solid stability, a variety of clamping options, flush legs, and a level top. Mine has a 4" thick birch top and I planned it flat then roughened it with 60 grit sandpaper, finished with BLOr. So far, I've not had any problems with boards "jumping" or sliding when planning. I installed a Benchcrafted leg vice (St. Peter's cross version) and their Tail vice. I also use a Moxon vice for some work such as dovetailing.
Adam's point about edge planning is well taken; I jointed some 2" thick birch from rough cut using my hand planes and a leg vice. The bench held everything very well.
Like I said earlier, there's no perfect bench and I think most of us learn to work around the shortcomings. Certainly, I've seen some beautiful pieces produced by Woodnetters, regardless of the bench style they use.
Thanks to the OP for this post!
RE: Lie-Nielsen workbench impressions - Handplanesandmore - 10-25-2018
(09-14-2018, 01:01 PM)a adamcherubini Wrote: I guess I feel like not enough people qualified their statements when I was learning the craft and I feel/felt misled to some degree. When I later encountered these various authors, I found that they wrote about things that maybe that really didn't have that much experience with.Good user feedback on the bench!
Here's one I'll bet will find its way into someone's book or magazine article unattributed. Let me know when you see it!
What you said is generally true about tool reviews we see in magazines these days. After a week or a month of the arrival of the new tool being reviewed, the author would magically be able to tell the readers that "it is worth the [premium] price." To make his or her review look more credible, some cosmetic issue might be included. Sometimes, word for word, the review is a repeat of the product description given by the manufacturer.
Many unpaid/user reviews fall into a different type of trap: who wants to feel bad after spending time and money on a big ticket purchase? The feel good factor, not supported by prolonged use, drives the review, often resulting in superficial assessments. If someone tells me this-and-that is great after using it for month or for a couple of projects, and could not point out anything bad about it, I keep a wait-and-see attitude. If they tell me the same story after a year or two, I trust their review.
Speaking of books, these days, almost every woodworker popular on the social media is qualified to write a book. "As long as you have a social media following, you are a good author" seems to be the modern day criterion for publishing. In the old days, books were produced to push the acquisition of knowledge, techniques and skills. Nowadays...for the publishers, the goal is to push the sales of books as an additional revenue stream.
Simon
RE: Lie-Nielsen workbench impressions - Mike Brady - 10-25-2018
I agree with Simon that most of the reviews posted here fall into a couple of categories: Those written by a customer who has just received the tool and can't wait to share his good fortune with fellow readers despite no real breadth of product experience; and two, the person who has received the tool at no cost as part of the beta testing process conducted by the manufacturer. There are some reviewers (not necessarily posting here) that maintain scrupulous standards and buy their tools at full price.
I have not offered many reviews because I don't feel qualified to judge some products, and I have a pronounced bias towards a couple of makers; one very positive and the other sometimes negative. Bias and preference should not come into play, in my opinion (there's a bias right there!).
The final reason I don't offer reviews is that the owners of some of the companies that produce products for the woodworking trade/hobby are sometimes readers of this forum, and who wants to tick off nice people?
That said, I enjoyed the posts above regarding the Lie-Nielsen bench and enjoyed trying the benches on several occasions where they were available for use.
RE: Lie-Nielsen workbench impressions - Skip J. - 10-26-2018
[quote pid='7681283' dateline='1540511709']
That said, I enjoyed the posts above regarding the Lie-Nielsen bench and enjoyed trying the benches on several occasions where they were available for use.
[/quote]
Yes - this has been an interesting read from start to finish, one of the better threads on here....
All that said, some of us don't buy very many new tools or workbenches.... I can say that the few I have bought over the years are worth to me about what they cost. A number of the "vintage" tools have cost a bit more time to rehab than expected, so I can value just picking up a tool and using it without any extra effort beforehand. Building my bench was cheap - very cheap, but a lot of effort was required to make it work right in the end.
No regrets....
RE: Lie-Nielsen workbench impressions - Derek Cohen - 10-26-2018
Thanks for the review Aram and interesting comments from Adam. I am re-posting a response I made from another thread, since it likely will not be read by those here. The point is that benches, like saws, will need resurfacing after a while. The most expensive backsaw cuts only as well as the resharpening allows. The best bench is one that is flat and allows the surface to be used to align parts or hold work. Holding work is easier when the top is predictable, and flat is predictable. Having said this, I do not think that absolute flat is vital at all, just preferred. The fact is that my bench probably has not been flat in this manner for a few years. I recognise the value now that it is again so.
Incidentally, Adam, the dogs I made work - and have always worked - effortlessly. They slide in, and slide up, with a touch. They do not drop. The reason is the wooden spring. This is a picture of when new ...
![[Image: GoneToTheDogs_html_59b7fcdc.jpg]](http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/GoneToTheDogs_html_59b7fcdc.jpg)
There is a record of building these here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/GoneToTheDogs.html
On to the re-post ...
I am currently cleaning up the shop. I have too many hand tools and it is time to let the ones go that do not get used. This is the time to assess which are important, and which are not. I do not have duplicates of planes, other than a few smoothers, block planes and dovetail planes. OK, a few ploughs ... mmmm
Cleaned up and sold a bunch, including a Stanley #45 and Stanley #112. Time to sharpen bandsaw blades and backsaws, and to flatten the bench. The bench has not been flattened since I built it 6 1/2 years ago. The top is European oak and it was pretty flat ... slight hollow down the centre.
I brought out my 36" Dreadnought to re-surface my bench. I built this plane several years ago with a 3" wide Berg blade. It is a monster plane which, although technically intended as a cooper's plane, I added handles so that it may be pushed. It is big and heavy, and the momentum carries it through everything.
First traversed the top, then planed the length ...
![[Image: D1a.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/T2ctZ5Jj/D1a.jpg)
Here it is with a 24" long Veritas #7.
![[Image: D2a.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/sxKKSbgH/D2a.jpg)
This was followed by the Veritas with a toothing blade (taking a very fine shaving, just enough to remove the shine) ...
![[Image: D3a.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/g2x4XSF4/D3a.jpg)
One coat of danish oil - to enable spills to be cleaned up.
The result was a dead flat bench in all directions with a roughened, grippy top.
Regards from Perth
Derek
RE: Lie-Nielsen workbench impressions - Philip1231 - 10-27-2018
Well, I couldn't resist: while I was out in the shop this AM I decided to evaluate how my 2+ year old LN bench clone was holding up.
First, I checked the dogs: all seemed to be able to hold their own in the dog holes:
[attachment=14000]
Like Derek's dogs, wood springs keep them at whatever height you desire.
Then I checked for say in tail vise: no measurable sag when fully closed of when pinching workpiece between dogs:
[attachment=14001]
[attachment=14002]
When the vise is not under pressure from the screw, there is a small amount of sag, but I can live with that.
Finally, set up panel for smoothing: worked fine pinched between the dogs:
[attachment=14003]
I do all my preliminary stock prep at my jointer/planer/tablesaw: I don't even own, nor have I ever used, nor do I ever intend to
use a scrub plane. I think the vast majority of woodworkers (I say this with no proof whatsoever, just an educated guess) don't start with rough lumber on their bench. For all of those folks, I think the LN bench would more than meet their needs. I am only a hobbyist, so perhaps my limited experience has not exposed me to any of the weaknesses of this bench, yet. Until then, I will have to give the LN bench two thumbs up!