(01-16-2019, 02:42 PM)wmickley Wrote: Lie Nielsen would have done better copying Stanley planes than making fake improvements. He made the planes heavier because he thought that extra weight was helpful. It is not. If more weight were better, 18th century craftsmen would have added weight to their wooden planes.

He made the irons thicker because he thought they would work better. They are more work to sharpen and offer no advantage. 18th century irons are rather thin. He used A2 steel for the irons, a downgrade from what Stanley used. And he redesigned the cap iron to make it ineffective because he had no idea how to use a double iron plane. High angle frog? Useless to those who know how to use a plane. 

There are certainly a lot of faults to the Stanley rabbet planes. They are not very comfortable to use in a production situation. 

However, a fillister plane (fenced rabbet) is very helpful. That is why we have been using both common fillisters and moving fillisters for centuries. Fast and repeatable. And we sometimes make rabbets wider than one inch. And a square mouth rabbet is helpful when we clean up a rabbet in the left handed direction. A skew rabbet will only work in one direction. That is why both kinds are historic. And we sometimes have rabbets on show surfaces. On mouldings as an example.

(01-16-2019, 03:44 PM)stillgotten Wrote: Interesting take on LN tools. I've only read the positives here and elsewhere on his planes, I have a few and have nothing bad to say of their usefulness.

You state that the weight of his planes is of no use but what of the argument that moving more mass through the workpiece ultimately results in less work for the user. You only state that if it were better to do so then the craftsmen of the 18th century would have done it, hardly a factual argument but there may be some merit to it 

Also, it's been said the thicker iron helps reduce chatter, I take it you disagree. 
If we are to say that plane chatter is caused by a flexing iron(among other factors) under load then wouldn't a thicker iron help in that regard

I'm far from a woodworking hand tool expert, just regurgitating what I have read and talking from my limited experience with them. But like I said your's is an interesting take, one I haven't read before, That doesn't mean it isn't true just that I haven't run across your view of it.

Not here to be a LN fanboy just discussing differing views, maybe I can learn something from it.

(01-16-2019, 03:44 PM)stillgotten Wrote: Interesting take on LN tools. I've only read the positives here and elsewhere on his planes, I have a few and have nothing bad to say of their usefulness.

You state that the weight of his planes is of no use but what of the argument that moving more mass through the workpiece ultimately results in less work for the user. You only state that if it were better to do so then the craftsmen of the 18th century would have done it, hardly a factual argument but there may be some merit to it 

Also, it's been said the thicker iron helps reduce chatter, I take it you disagree. 
If we are to say that plane chatter is caused by a flexing iron(among other factors) under load then wouldn't a thicker iron help in that regard

I'm far from a woodworking hand tool expert, just regurgitating what I have read and talking from my limited experience with them. But like I said your's is an interesting take, one I haven't read before, That doesn't mean it isn't true just that I haven't run across your view of it.

Not here to be a LN fanboy just discussing differing views, maybe I can learn something from it.