#2 bench plane as a smoother?

[Mike Brady]

I read Chris Schwarz with the feeling he is not anyone's shill. He does a good job of staying objective. I also believe he has done great things for hand tool woodworking and we all owe him a huge debt of gratitude.

One thing he said back a few months ago was that he was devoting a year to trying a Lie-Nielsen No.2 bench plane as his final smoother. I hope I am paraphrasing him properly by saying that he felt the No.2 was close in size to the smoothing planes of old. I also recall he was making a rear handle for the plane that better fit 21st century hands.

Well it appears that experiment is nearing its premature end. In his Lost Art Press forum he comments that the No.2 as a smoother is not the answer in every situation and that he has trouble making the right hand grip of this plane work (for him). He goes on further by saying he could forego not only the No.2, but also the No.4 in his tool box, since an anarchist doesn't carry superfluous tools.

Just thought I would mention this in case you had missed it. The idea definitely got my attention when he first wrote about it.

We now return to your local programming.

[C. in Indy]

I read that also. I also read of one reply-er who is using a Sargent 407, which I use also . It is a longer plane than a Stanley or LN #2. Anyway I'm fortunate that I haven't restricted myself to fitting everything I use into a chest.

[Mark A Smith]

Yeah, a crazy idea to begin with. It wasn't made to fit an adult's hands, so why try it in the first place, unless you have a very small area to smooth and need a small smoother rather than a block plane to handle the chore?

Maybe I'm wrong, but it would seem the best sized smoother is one with a blade as wide as the board you are smoothing and with a length at least twice the length of that board. Once you get a full-sized shaving with that you are as smooth as you are going to get. Not too practical. Everything less is compromises (including making the plane usable), but going the exact opposite direction (as Chris did) doesn't make sense to me.

[Arlin Eastman]

Mike

Not to differ with you but the greatest one within our time would be Roy Underhill who has been the front man for over 30 years and Chris is just a New Be compared with him.

I think he does good work and he is making a living telling everyone about hand tools, but there are a lot of guys here who are just as good or better with hand tools.

I have seen his opinions change over the last 5 years and think he will change his mind even more in the next 20.

Arlin

[AHill]

No offense to Chris, because I do think his work with PWW helped bring a lot of attention to hand tools, but seriously, what was he thinking? In the first place, I don't think a No. 2 was close to the original size of the first hand planes. Maybe the width of the iron, but not the size of the body. You just don't find too many woodies out there smaller than a No. 4. Secondly, the very first thing he does is try to modify it to fit his hands. Well, that would make it closer to a No. 3, wouldn't it? Maybe he's running out of things to say about hand tools.

[Admiral]

+1.

He in the business of writing, and of finding something to write about. He chose this idea.

At work, I always say that I've earned my pay if I have one good idea each day, but I also add the postscript that to get one, I may have 6 hair brained ideas. This may be one of Chris' hair brained ideas. But he should keep on trucking.......

[Derek Cohen]

Chris was on the right track.

The reason for a #2 was its length and, to some extent, its width. Shorter planes are better able to follow the undulations of a board, and so smooth without removing unnecessary thickness. This matters less when you are working with boards surfaced by machinery, but is more evident when working with those that are hand prepared.

You will find that coffin smoothers are typically 7 1/2" long with a 1 5/8" wide blade. Getting a modern plane that short is tricky, especially in the Bailey style. This is due to the handle, since coffin smoothers did not use such (consider this is the reason why Bailey plane soles on the smoothers undercut the handles). I imagine that Chris saw the #2 as closest to this size, and attempted to adapt the handle to fit.

Personally, I prefer the #3 size for general smoothing. Compared to a #4 - and especially a #4 1/2! - the #3 is a nimble plane, and offers better feedback. Small woodies are best of all, however getting one with a double iron is the goal - single iron BD planes need to be high angle, which are harder to push. Still, look at the HNT Gordon smoothers, if interested. Excellent planes. Have another look at the LV SBUS.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Admiral]

Agree on the #3, it makes more sense to me. #2, however, is the "wrong" track . . . . at least as far as Stanley planes are concerned. But I find that in certain circumstances, I do use my #2 more than I thought I would.

[ZachDillinger]

My favorite smoother is my Old Street 55 deg. It is 6 5/8" long with a 1 5/8" wide iron. It works beautifully for me, and is a tad bit shorter (same width) as the #2. Different tastes and all that.

[ncosman]

Zach, I agree. My Old Street is 6-3/8 with a 1-5/8 blade is my favorite. It's a wonderful size which is extremely handy and versitile.
With metal bodied, I have been using a 603 for five years and just recently upgraded to a LN#3 (which I have yet to sharpen). Without modification, it's the great for 95% of smoothing tasks.
I think a no.2 can be made to work, I have in my spare-spare-time. I have been modelling an adapter plate (not unlike the LV block plane tote adaptor) that would allow you to attach a tote from a LN no.3 on to a LN no.2.
I think that's really the only solution of you are determine to make a no.2 work.