Veritas Bevel Up Jointer vs. Stanley Bedrock 607
#11
  Re: (...)
I'm mulling over the purchase of a Veritas BUJ. My conundrum is whether I will have a better and more useful tool than my 607C Bedrock which has been upgraded with a Hock iron and cap iron. In my research I read Derek's review, Nov. 2005, of the Veritas BUJ and also Paul Seller's comments on his blog.

Derek's concluding comments:

"There is no doubt in my mind that the LV Bevel Up Jointer Plane far outclasses the Stanley #7, a plane that has been the benchmark for many. The BUJ feels balanced in use, is capable of the widest range of planing settings and the highest level of performance, and generally is a well thought out and quality piece of equipment."

Comment by Paul Sellers:

"....if a bevel-up plane is going to go wrong in the grain it often goes very wrong big time. More so than the bevel-down planes for reasons of physics. When a bevel-up plane begins to tear out the grain it can and indeed does rip the grain out at the very root mercilessly and not rarely but commonly. Unfortunately, at shows, where salesmen sell planes, they never show this plane reality even though this is the reality of why bevel-up planes differ from bevel-downs and why they never replaced the bevel-down planes through the centuries or came anywhere close to them. Now then, that said and out of the way, the reason I do like them some of the time is for the relatively restricted practice of low-angle work, edge-grain work and jointing boards for lamination. I find that it is practical to keep these planes available and sharp and dedicated to end and edge-grain work. I have found the Veritas bevel-up range of planes from the tiny apron planes and block planes to the long jacks and jointers unparalleled if so dedicated."

I am wondering if Derek has any change of opinion in the years since? Anyone have any comments regarding Seller's comment regarding tear out or your experience with the BUJ, Veritas or LN? As I understand Sellers he believes the BUJ to be useful only for end grain and jointing edges, and inferior for face grain.

I do have the Veritas bevel up jack and smoother. All three planes use the same iron which provides a lot of flexibility since I have several irons with various angles and also a couple different toothed irons.

One thing that puzzles me is why a cap iron is important in a bevel down plane while a bevel up doesn't have one.

Any comments on experiences you have had appreciated.
Reply
#12
  Re: Veritas Bevel Up Jointer vs. Stanley Bedrock 607 by HomerLee (I'm mulling over the...)
It may not be advisable to stimulate such a conversation this early.

in a perfect world I'd have every plane ever made. Oh wait, Rob Lee does and they still sell bevel ups....hmmm


"Life is too short for bad tools.".-- Pedder 7/22/11
Reply
#13
  Re: Veritas Bevel Up Jointer vs. Stanley Bedrock 607 by HomerLee (I'm mulling over the...)



In all seriousness, you need to review all the discussions about the use of the cap iron to control tearout - this is no longer controversial. Paul Sellers and his pronouncements are. I have the BU jointer (and its fence) and love it. Probably my most used plane. I also have a TablesawTom roundside 608 with a PM-V11 blade and cap iron in it. Both work well. I've not been able to make either work on some really brittle African Mahogany that I have.
Thanks,  Curt
-----------------
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."
      -- Soren Kierkegaard
Reply
#14
  Re: Re: Veritas Bevel Up Jointer vs. Stanley Bedrock 607 by cputnam ([url=http://s1098.ph...)
Thanks Curt! If I'm only going to have one, which would you choose, the Veritas BUJ or Bedrock with Hock iron and cap. Seems I shouldn't need both as I also have a 608 Bedrock.

I've had a problem with tool-a-holicism and trying to minimize it. Times past it was power tools and now this!
Reply
#15
  Re: Re: Veritas Bevel Up Jointer vs. Stanley Bedrock 607 by HomerLee (Thanks Curt! If I'm ...)
HomerLee said:


Seems I shouldn't need both as I also have a 608 Bedrock.

I've had a problem with tool-a-holicism and trying to minimize it.




Then you probably have all the jointers you need.
Reply
#16
  Re: Re: Veritas Bevel Up Jointer vs. Stanley Bedrock 607 by JimBelair ([blockquote]HomerLee...)
JimBelair said:


[blockquote]HomerLee said:


Seems I shouldn't need both as I also have a 608 Bedrock.

I've had a problem with tool-a-holicism and trying to minimize it.




Then you probably have all the jointers you need.


[/blockquote]

This^

I think it would be redundant to have a 608 and a 607 (or the BU jointer). One jointer is all you need.

But since you asked...In the circumstances you describe, I would take the BU jointer over the 607, for one reason only: I've never come across a vintage Stanley jointer that is actually flat - and I mean well and truly flat. Never.

Now, if you gave me the option of a 607 that has been machined flat by someone like tablesawtom, I would choose it in a heartbeat over the BU jointer, even without the upgraded iron. I just don't care much for BU bench planes.

I have the BU smoother but I never use it. I would sell it, but it was my wife's first anniversary present to me and I couldn't bear to part with it. I do have the toothed iron for it, and it came in handy for flattening some gnarly cherry grain...one time...so at least I can use that as another excuse for keeping it...
"If I had eight hours to cut down a tree, I'd spend six hours sharpening my axe."

My Woodworking Blog: A Riving Home
Reply
#17
  Re: Re: Veritas Bevel Up Jointer vs. Stanley Bedrock 607 by cputnam ([url=http://s1098.ph...)
cputnam said:


I've not been able to make either work on some really brittle African Mahogany that I have.



A nightmare. I bought some African Mahogany not realizing how absurd it would be to work with. I finally gave up and put it aside. Never again.

As for the OP, I agree with Justin. For flattening faces, I don't think there's anything better or more versatile than a flat #7. If you can't get a flat one, the LV BUJ is an incredible plane. I have a #7, #8, and the LV BUJ. I'm sure they're redundant, but I love using the LV BUJ with the fence. The LV fence for the #7 and #8 not so much. As for the redundancy, I find that when doing something that requires a lot of face planing, I find that it feels like less work if I switch back and forth between a Bevel Up and Bevel Down plane. I'm not sure it's any less work, but it feels that way. It might be different muscles used, maybe it's just having two sharp blades, or maybe it's between my ears. Either way it works for me.

Steve
Reply
#18
  Re: Re: Veritas Bevel Up Jointer vs. Stanley Bedrock 607 by HomerLee (Thanks Curt! If I'm ...)
HomerLee said:


Thanks Curt! If I'm only going to have one, which would you choose, the Veritas BUJ or Bedrock with Hock iron and cap. Seems I shouldn't need both as I also have a 608 Bedrock.

I've had a problem with tool-a-holicism and trying to minimize it. Times past it was power tools and now this!




Well, you certainly do not NEED another jointer. However, that said, if it were this OR that (not both) I'll take the Veritas BU Jointer for the following reasons:

1) - Tote (handle) fits my hand, the Stanley's do not.
2) - Swapping irons is so much easier with side adjustment screws and no cap iron fiddling.
3) - The fence. It screws on and is adjustable for square. I use it that way for the final pass(es) prior to gluing up.
4) - Adjustable mouth allows one to take fine shavings as well as coarse, thick ones.
5) - It's overall much easier for me. Cap iron fiddling is an issue for me with my hand tremors. Then there is the issue of all the backlash in the depth adjuster as well as the angle adjustment. Don't get me wrong, there are folks at there to whom all that fiddling with the BD stuff is second nature - Warren Mickley and others come to mind. But for the occasional user, it never will become second nature so for those guys (like me) the bevel up is easier.

JMO & YMWV
Thanks,  Curt
-----------------
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."
      -- Soren Kierkegaard
Reply
#19
  Re: Re: Veritas Bevel Up Jointer vs. Stanley Bedrock 607 by cputnam ([blockquote]HomerLee...)
cputnam said:


1) - Tote (handle) fits my hand, the Stanley's do not.
2) - Swapping irons is so much easier with side adjustment screws and no cap iron fiddling.
3) - The fence. It screws on and is adjustable for square. I use it that way for the final pass(es) prior to gluing up.
4) - Adjustable mouth allows one to take fine shavings as well as coarse, thick ones.
5) - It's overall much easier for me. Cap iron fiddling is an issue for me with my hand tremors. Then there is the issue of all the backlash in the depth adjuster as well as the angle adjustment.





Well, in response to your list:
1) Can't argue with that. You must have huge hands. I find Stanley handles to be much more comfortable, but that's a personal thing.
2) Why would you need to swap out an iron? My irons are married to my planes. I would never swap them (obvious exception being the toothing iron that I mentioned above, but only because I don't have a dedicated toothing plane)
3) Never used a fence for jointing. Not sure I would like it. Maybe?
4) To cut a deeper shaving, adjust the iron deeper. No need to fool with the mouth. It ain't a smoothing plane, but I rarely get tearout anyway.
5) I don't set the cap iron on my jointer as closely as I do on my smoother, so it's not very fiddly. I also don't have to sharpen my jointer very frequently, because the bulk of the work is done with other planes. I find the backlash argument to be a silly one. It's no issue at to adjust the depth. The bigger annoyance for me is that a BU plane doesn't allow me to adjust the depth - or the side-to-side blade projection - without removing my hand from the rear handle. I find BU planes to be much more finicky to adjust, since I can't do it on the fly.
"If I had eight hours to cut down a tree, I'd spend six hours sharpening my axe."

My Woodworking Blog: A Riving Home
Reply
#20
  Re: Veritas Bevel Up Jointer vs. Stanley Bedrock 607 by HomerLee (I'm mulling over the...)
HomerLee said:


One thing that puzzles me is why a cap iron is important in a bevel down plane while a bevel up doesn't have one.




I will answer the only question you actually asked in your post. The angle where the cap iron meets the blade and how closely you set it to the edge of the blade is particularly important to how you control tearout. A properly set up cap iron should have an angle of 50-55 deg between the cap iron and the blade. Then, if set VERY close (like 0.1mm) to the edge of the blade, the cap iron functions to direct the shaving directly up and then back toward the front of the plane. This will cause the wood fibers to be cut before a splinter lifts out. There are folks in this forum who've been woodworking longer than I've been alive who knew this long before it was rediscovered a couple of years ago. Part of the reasons this knowledge was lost is because Lie-Nielsen's "improved" chip breaker doesn't mate at a high enough angle, so it could never function properly in planing figured woods. (The chip breaker also needs to be set VERY close (like 0.1mm) to the edge for figured woods.) The other reason is the proliferation of bevel up planes, where a high bevel angle functionally achieves the same purpose - directing the chip up and back toward the front.

While I'm not convinced Paul Sellers' comments about a bevel up plane exacerbating tearout are universally true, there is an advantage to having one jointer with one blade that can tackle all kinds of woods - figured or not - by merely adjusting the mouth opening and/or the chip breaker setting vs. needing multiple blades on a bevel up plane.
Still Learning,

Allan Hill
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Product Recommendations

Here are some supplies and tools we find essential in our everyday work around the shop. We may receive a commission from sales referred by our links; however, we have carefully selected these products for their usefulness and quality.