Oh, yeah. We're diving into the controversy today. So let's go. Yeah,
we're diving into a very controversial topic today,
namely the router plane from Jonathan Katz-Moses. I have said it before, I'll say it
again and I will continue to say it. The router plane is one of the most
versatile tools in the shop. Whether you are a machine woodworker
or a hand tool woodworker exclusively, I do think that you should have
a router plane in your arsenal because it can do so many things so well
and the micro adjustments are so easy to make on something like a mortise
and tenon, a rabbet, a dado. So they are a useful tool to have. And to that end, I have my Veritas version, which is one of the first tools
I ever bought with my own money. And it is served me
well for 12, 13, 15 years. I don't know. It has been a workhorse
for a long, long time and I love it. But there are, of course,
other router planes on the market. For example, the Nielsen, this is one of the more popular
router planes out there. It is a brilliant tool,
but there are some key differences between this tool and these two
and we're going to discuss those at length as well as how
all three of these tools pull from this tool. The O.G.,
the original, the Stanley Router plane. We are going to compare and contrast
all four of these to help you understand what one you need what one you don't need, if there are any
that are better than the rest. So let's dive into it. Now very briefly,
before we dive into the comparisons, let's talk about the history
of the router plane for just a second and a very unofficial in Erik heresay off the top of my head
history of the router plane. This tool was invented in the late 1800s
somewhere in the 1880s I believe I'm going to say 1884. That may or may not be true. Originally it was the closed throat type,
meaning that this horn didn't exist. It was flat across the same way
that all the other ones are now. It wasn't until about ten years later or
so that they came out with the open throat variation
which, sidebar, I hate the open throat. Don't buy the open throat,
but that's just my opinion. You live your life. But the reason I started back in the late
1800s is because it's important to realize that
this tool was not invented by Stanley. There are any number of variations
of wood and metal types that were made before this tool was mass produced by Stanley
and that's an important thing to remember when we're talking about design, design
variations, ripping people off. We're going to dive into all of that. But just remember that this tool has been
around for, at a minimum, centuries. And in more or less this same shape:
a flat sole, a blade that's held in place
that you can adjust the depth of and you can adjust the depth of your dado,
the depth of your rabbet, the cheek of your tenon,
whatever it is that you're working on. Now, to my knowledge, what Stanley did
invent in this may or may not be true, but at least this is the first time in popular
woodworking culture that we know of it is the depth adjustment right here. This is clutch. This is a huge improvement
rather than a tap set. So I can unlock this collar,
I can make a depth adjustment and I can lock this back down. And it's really easy
to get a micro adjustment. Now, in this video, there are three topics
I'm going to discuss. The first of which is design. So let's compare and contrast this design
with the other three. So right off the jump we're going to set aside
the Katz-Moses for a brief second because it's a little bit
of a controversial topic. So we're going to start with the design evolution of the big three here. With our Stanley plane, a couple of things to note: First of all,
we have a straight up and down handle. That's because that makes this
casting much, much easier to produce back in the 1800s where you can
just pop these handles on at 90 degrees. You don't have to worry
about any angles right there. Let’s get the blade out of here. This is a dumb tool. Now, as far as our blade in depth
adjustment goes, we have the casting ended with this threaded rod
that's inserted after the fact. We have a blade
that sits in the groove for this casting. We have a collet which slips right
around that and that locks it in place. And then of course
we have our depth adjustment knob, so that's four pieces that get added on
to the casting after it's done. Now, one thing I've always really liked about
the Stanley is the blade assembly and collet. I think this system holds it really well. However, one thing I've never really liked
is the fact that it always confuses me whether the knob goes like that
or like that. And the thing
is, there's not really a right or wrong. However, if the knob is upside down, it's much easier to raise this blade up
past the sole. So I've always installed it upside down. It's one of those things. It's
just a nit picky thing. I don't like, it feel sloppy. But also this design is 150 years old,
so there is that. Now, one other thing to note
is the threads on the depth adjustment are much larger than they are
on the contemporary versions. So what that means is one full rotation
of the depth adjustment is going to adjust you much further down than it would
on either of these two tools. I don't remember the exact number. I want to say a full turn is somewhere
in the range of a 16th, give or take, whereas on the contemporary versions
of full turn of the knob is a 32nd, So something to note. Now one last thing to note. I said it before, I'll say it again
I hate an open toe (open throat) To my understanding, the thought behind
that open toe is the fact that you'll be allowed to clear chips
better or see your cut better. But first of all, it's a plane. If you're taking chips that are so big,
they can't clear that hole, you're taking way too big a cut and you're probably not going to be able
to actually utilize the tool. So in reality,
all this does is limit my ability to use this tool on edge because
it wants to dip down into that hole. And Stanley figured this out,
which is why in later editions they added the shoe
so that you could close the toe. So it's just it's a silly design. I don't understand
why people still buy them. That's a personal opinion, though. So if you prefer an open
toe, live your life. Don’t let me yuck your yum. Now that's the Stanley. Onward. Let's take a look at the Lie-Nielsen variation.
Immediately you can see the similarities, right? They're more or less the same tool. A couple of adjustments that were made. Number one, a slot in the bottom wherein
you can add a fence that stays perpendicular to the blade versus
having just the hole tapped. So that fence can kind of go
willy nilly wherever it wants to go. So that's a nice improvement
in the casting. Number two, the blade housing
is actually cast into the tool itself. Now, this may be a controversial opinion. I actually don't like that. I think all it does is it makes it more
difficult to get the blade out of the tool because in order to get the blade out now,
I have to loosen that up. I have to adjust my depth adjustment
all the way to the point where I have to take that out
and then I can slide that out of the casting,
which fine, it's not the end of the world, but it's just an extra step
that's kind of a pain in the butt. Now, the third and final kind of major
difference between this tool and the Stanley is the fact that the blade
is square to the front of the cut, which doesn't really matter. It doesn't affect the cutting action
and it makes more sense for the casting. But I do think it makes for a little bit
more of a pain in the butt when you go to sharpen, not much. It's negligible,
but a little bit now, one other thing that this tool has
that the Stanley doesn't is a depth stop. So I can take this little bit here,
raise it up and lock that down wherever I need to make a depth stop
and then I can adjust down to that depth over and over repeatedly,
and it will bottom out. I did that wrong. As I was saying,
what I'm going to do is I'm actually going to set my depth, lock my piece, take a cut, and lock my depth of cut
right there. Now, when I go to adjust, my depth adjustment
is going to raise with the blade. And when I hit my final depth, it's
going to bottom out on the casting. And that's how I know
I can make repeated cuts. So that’s the Lie-Nielsen. Let's briefly
look at the Veritas variation. Most of this is the same. It's kind of in between these two. First of all, the major difference
is the fact that the handles are splayed out at 45, which again
this may be a controversial opinion. I actually prefer.
We are also on this version and back to the collet system
rather than the locking mechanism that's integrated
into the casting like on the Lie-Nielson. And one thing I really do like about this
collet system is it's spring loaded. That's a nice little adjustment by Veritas
that the Stanley didn't have. So the blade is always under pressure
from the collet. So when you loosen this up, it's
not just going to automatically fall out a la the Stanley. I like the adjustment lever
a little bit better because I know which way goes up and down. Unlike this tool. Same design on the Lie-Nielsen here, the depth adjustment is more
or less the same. The reason I got it wrong on this tool
is because on the Veritas you do set your depth stop to be adjusted So that your adjustment lever
actually bottoms out on your depth stop rather than your depth stop
bottoming out on your casting. So, all right, there was a reason, but
otherwise this is more or less identical to this. And this is basically the same
as this as well. These are two different flavors
of the same treat. Let us not forget that when we talk about this. Okay, so let's dive into the controversy
a little bit. There is some controversy
in the furniture world about the fact that Jonathan Katz-Moses
is producing tools now. From my standpoint,
from my vantage point as a furniture maker who also resides in the YouTube space, I'm friends with people
on both sides of this argument. And I think as a furniture maker
that the arguments made by furniture
makers are a little bit elitist. I know some of them are friends
and that's fine. They're allowed to have differing opinions
than I do. That's that's
what makes this conversation lively. And that's
what makes our country wonderful. Allow other people
to have differing opinions. But but I believe the reason that they
are upset about it is because two-fold. Number one, they feel like
the castings are being outsourced cheaply, which is upsetting for companies
like Lie-Nielsen, who does all of their castings in the U.S.
and that's fair. And they also feel like
the design has been ripped off. And this is the reason I wanted to dive into design in the first part of this
video, because as you've already seen, all of the tools are just rip
offs of this tool and that's fine. There's no intellectual property or there
shouldn't be around something like this. All of these things, this is a functional
object that's been around for centuries. And so I don't think one can fairly
make the argument that this has ripped anything off, because if you're making the argument that
nothing has been improved in this tool, well, you can point to the Veritas
for the exact same reason outside of adding a spring to the collet,
it's the same tool. Or you can point to the Lie-Nielsen
and you know, you can say it's the same tool
outside of the fact that the housing is now in the casting also,
I'm going to argue that there actually is one really good innovation in this
that I really do like. So let's dive into it. So we come to the Katz-Moses
couple of design points. Number one, the handles are flared out
much like the Veritas. You have a depth adjustment
readout down here which the Stanley
also has printed on their blade. Now you also have this kind of dual piston locking mechanism up here,
which at first glance I thought was a little bit superfluous
and didn't really make any sense. And I still don't know
that it's necessary. However, what it does
do is allow you to integrate what I think is the major improvement on this piece,
which is the depth stop. What I have found to be endlessly
frustrating on both of these tools with their depth stops
is that they're not super accurate. Right?
They may be. a few thou off here and there, now a few thou may not sound like that much,
but when you're dealing with shavings that are ten thousandths of an inch
and you're trying to micro fit a piece, a couple of thou
can be a big difference. And so having a depth stop like this,
which is essentially a locking mechanism with a rare earth magnet in it
that slides up to this piece and then I can adjust
down to my final depth, lock it in place. And now I have a really nice positive
stop that bottoms out super cleanly on that magnet. It feels to me and this is just by feel. It feels to me to be much more accurate and does not slide
the way that both of these tend to do. And so currently I'm very impressed
with that depth stop. That I think is not something
to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But outside of that
same kind of thing in the back here with a spring loaded locking mechanism,
which I really like, keeps the blade from just flopping around
when you loosen it up. And overall it seems pretty clean. So from a design perspective,
I think that this is more or less on par with the other
two. The one visual flaw of this tool. I think from a personal standpoint,
these big old hex bolts in the top of the head,
I don't care for those. I think it's an ugly look. I know Lie-Nielsen also has these screws
coming through the top. I also think that's an ugly look. But at least these are brass screws
that are slotted. Maybe this is me just being an elitist. I get it. But I don't particularly care for that. Look, another thing
that I'm not altogether crazy about is the fact
that you have to remove the blade using a tool,
using an Allen key right here. And that just feels like an extra
step to me. I don't particularly care for it. However, if you're sharpening this blade, you are using an Allen wrench
to remove the head from the stem anyway. So it's not the end of the world. But maybe that's just me being a little nit picky,
but I don't particularly care for that. That is, from a design perspective,
the breakdown of these four tools. The second thing we're going to cover
is how they actually work. So let's cut some dadoes. ERIK..... Dude what the... Hey, man, how you doing? What are you doing? I'm averting my eyes, bro. Bro I’m not God, you don't have to avert your gaze. No dude, it's scientifically proven that it's
irresponsible to look directly at the sun. Oh, stop it.
I'm not going to burn your eyes. You sure? Yes, just, I want to have a real conversation. Oh come on, man. I got you. I was just kidding. All right, look, I got things to do. What do you want? Jeez, somebody can take a joke today. Look, Erik,
I'm going to cut straight to the point. I've been up in the sky for 5 billion years waiting for somebody
to come and harness me. Dude, What? Use my power. I literally have no idea what that means. Oh, boy Do I have to spell everything out for you. Dude just go solar. Oh, that's actually super convenient. I've been meaning to look into that. Let me tell you about it then. Did you know that residential energy
use accounts for roughly 20% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US? That includes cooling your home on hot summer days
to powering all of your appliances and yes, running those incessant
woodworking machines. But with solar you can power your home
with energy you feel good about. Now let's be real here. Utility rates are rising sharply. So all that stuff you keep plugging in
costs more all the time, right? Great googly moogly Solar is one of the least
expensive forms of energy, and saving money is actually the number
one reason people choose to go solar. But I can hear you saying, listen,
you live in Philly. Pennsylvania is not exactly
the Arizona of the Northeast. But solar isn't just for the sunniest
states or large suburban homes, depending on your system and location. Solar can work well in cloudy conditions, cold conditions, and on homes
with smaller footprints just like yours. Dude, are
you even listening or you just making dumb faces right now? No, no, not at all. You keep going. If you're interested in learning more
about solar, my friends over at SunPower are the top rated
residential solar company in the U.S. Really? SunPower provides
an ecosystem of home energy solutions that enable American families to easily
electrify their lives,. Well I’ll be jingled. SunPower is actually known for their high
quality products that you can trust. And they're an American company
established in 1985, making them the only U.S. residential solar company
that's been around longer than their 25 year warranty. Oh, that was easy. Oh, you uhh That was fast. Yeah. And I offset 126% of my energy
needs, meaning that not only is now all of my energy renewable, but I'm also going to get paid back
by the electric company. Dude, it kind of
sounds like you made out like a bandit. Yeah, it was kind of a win win. Well, I guess my job here is done. I'll just go back to feeding trees now. Right on. Thanks, my dude. So a huge, huge thanks to SunPower for helping me go solar
and for partnering with me on this video. So if you want to learn more about what
going solar would look like for you, how much it could save you
in the long run. And about SunPower as a company,
click the link down in the description. Now let's get back to router planes
shall we? So what I've got here is a board of Poplar with four knife walls
on it, ready to be turned into dadoes. Each one is marked very clearly
with which tool I'm going to use, so I'm just going to cut a dado
maybe an eighth of an inch deep. Something like that. With all four of these tools
to see how they function, see how they feel in the hand,
and then we can compare and contrast. All right. So from a tool in hand
functional perspective, there are a few very minor differences
between the four tools. So let's start with the worst,
in my opinion, the old Stanley. Now, I'm not trying to be controversial when I say that
as just a personal preference. The castings are old. I've already told you I really dislike this shoe from a functional standpoint,
and the locking mechanism and the threads are so coarse and so unrefined that I find
the depth adjustment is really difficult. There are times where I don't even adjust
the depth, I just loosen the locking mechanism and relaxed
and that adjusts the depth. For better or for worse
and while on these three, I would tend to take like a quarter
of a turn or maybe a light half a turn, this one is so coarse
that it really is like a 32nd of a turn to go down just enough to be able
to continue making cuts. So for what it's worth, that's
why I don't like this one. That's why
this one sits over here in last place. The differences between these three tools are so minor, it's really quite difficult
to actually rank them best to worst. I've already said I prefer the splayed out
handles for some reason. I just think that I have better leverage. It may be a preference thing. It may be that I've been using this tool for over a decade
and so that's now what my body prefers. But when I'm actually making a cut and
when I'm rotating the tool, I feel like I have a better ability to rotate
with more leverage on a wider angle. That's just me. Consequently,
I feel the same about this tool. I feel like
I have really good leverage out here. I think these handles are ever
so slightly further in than the Veritas,
but we're talking a negligible amount. I still find the depth adjustment
on these two tools to be... eh and to the point where I never use them. When I'm actually working,
I just make all of my rough cuts and then I set it and I take my final
depth pass on all of my surfaces. The depth adjustment on this
I do think is really good. I do like it. I think that's a really big positive
there. If you're making repeated cuts
over and over again. Now, my one big gripe with this tool,
well, I suppose it's two big gripes. Number one, the threads are reversed. And so this is just a muscle memory thing. But when I was going
to make my depth adjustments, I constantly would turn clockwise
and that would raise the blade up versus on these two tools
that would lower the blade. So that's just a minor thing
that my hand would have to get used to. Or if this is the only route or plane that you own,
of course you won't know any difference. My other thing that I noticed
about this plane, which I wasn't picking up on originally, is
the threads are coarser. Now they're not quite as coarse
as the Stanley. But what I did find is
I'm not quite taking almost a half turn like I do on these two. It's more of a quarter turn,
which it's a negligible difference, but it is a difference. I noticed, aside from those minor
nitpicky things, I think as far as the quality of cut
goes, the ability to use the tool, I think these are all very much on the same level
from an initial use perspective. Been using this for a decade. I've been around this for a decade. This is brand spanking new, but it seems
to do just as well as the other two. And frankly, I think this blade is sharper
out of the box than either of these two tools were. Now, lastly, from a sharpening angle,
both of these tools require you to sharpen
the blade as a single unit. It's not that hard,
but you don't have the ability to separate the cutting head
from the shaft. Whereas on these two tools you can see
that there's a hex screw in there. You can actually remove the blade from the shaft
and then sharpen it like a normal quarter inch chisel or three eight inch chisel,
whatever that blade width is. So that is, in my opinion, for a beginner
a major benefit because it is a muscle memory thing again. Right. It's much easier to do the thing your body
already knows than to learn a new skill. So from that perspective,
if you're just getting in the hand tools and you only know how to sharpen a chisel
or a plane iron, these two may be a little bit easier
to sharpen for you for that reason. Now we come to our third and final topic:
price point. The window for these tools is all relative
similar, right? They're all more or less the same tool,
so you can find the cheapest one, which is probably going to be the Stanley
on the used market for maybe as low as 75 bucks. Maybe, and it
may be in pretty bad condition. You may need to do
some serious work to it. But if you like to restore old tools
or if you just like learning how old tools work and taking them apart
and figuring them out, that may be a really good option for you. But in order to get one
that is more or less functional, you're probably going to be in the 100
to 150 range, if not more, because they are collector's
items now. Just because it's old doesn't necessarily
make it cheap. You may have a better time finding a used
version of the Veritas or the Lie- Nielsen, probably in that same price point. And you're going to get, in my opinion,
a better tool for around the same price. And if you do try to find an old Stanley,
don't be surprised when you're seeing a boxed version with all three blades going for $250 to $350. They are collector's items. People will want to keep them unused
and try to sell them for more than they're worth. We as furniture makers and woodworkers
are looking for functional items. Now, on the other three,
they're all basically the same. I mean, we're talking
tens of dollars of difference, right? The Veritas runs for about $210
if you're getting the fence and the sharpening stem included. The JJ-Katz is running around $230,
I believe, $220 - $230,
and the Lie-Nielsen’s run into $250. You're looking at a window of $40
now. Yes. If you are very budget conscious,
you go for the cheaper option. Of course
you do. That just makes total sense. But realistically, on a grand scheme, on a
on a peeled back bird's eye view, it's negligible. So whichever brand
you are most comfortable with, whichever tool you think will do
the job best, they all seem to function equally well and they are negligible
when it comes to the price difference. Here's my final conclusion. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter which one you buy. You should buy the tool
that's the best fit for you. Whether that is, again,
from a budgetary perspective, you can buy the cheapest new one. If that's from a tool collection
perspective, Maybe you get the oldie
because you love old Stanleys. If you are a fan of Jonathan Katz-Moses
go support his business. He's a great dude. There's no reason
not to purchase this tool. And if you're just a Lie-Nielsen diehard,
this is a great tool. It's been a great tool for decades. There's no reason not to have this one. I should mention in full disclosure,
two things. Number one, I worked for Lie-Nielsen
for a number of years. I did their hand tool events.
I know Tom Lie-Nielsen personally. He has been a major supporter of my career
for over a decade. I have a tremendous amount of Lie-Nielsen tools
that I got at a discount as an employee. I will continue to support Lie-Nielsen because Tom has been a wonderful human
being to me over the years. I should also say that
I did not pay for this tool. Jonathan sent it to me. Jonathan is a friend of mine. He is a good dude. I really enjoy him and his channel. I tried to keep this test, these observations as neutral as possible
and take that out. I informed him of that before
I even had the idea to do this video. So this is as objective
as I can be considering those two things. Also, consider the fact that this is, I think, the second tool I ever bought,
the first being a Veritas Jack plane. So I have my biases towards Veritas
in that regard as well. And consider
I've owned and restored two different Stanley 71s over the years, and I sold both of them
because I just don't like them. So I have my biases as everyone does. I tried to be as neutral in this
observation and information as I can be. I hope that I was. On the controversy
one more time very briefly. I really do think that the negative
opinions of this tool
and of J-Katz producing tools in general is a bias of the furniture community
against the YouTube community. I'm not picking sides here. I belong to both communities
and I love both communities. But furniture makers, woodworkers,
properly educated joiners, however
you want to call them, we can be elitist. And I think this is a case of these
two have been around for a long time. There's a lot of people
in the furniture world who are struggling to make a living and really busting
their chops to make a name. And then J-Katz comes along
with a wildly successful YouTube channel
and then expands out into toolmaking. And I think it just rubs people
the wrong way. That may be an unpopular opinion
and that may be an incomplete opinion, but I don't think that it's unfair. I don't know how much more there is
to say on it. That's my opinion on the matter and I will
leave it there because it is what it is. So friends, that's that. I hope this video is interesting and
I hope it sheds some light on what I think is a little bit of a silly controversy
or at a minimum overblown. But I think I've said
all that needs to be said on the topic, and I will leave you with this
from a functional standpoint, there is no difference
between these tools. So whichever one fits your budget,
whichever one you think will make you the happiest to use,
and that's the one you should buy. Because at the end of the day,
if you don't enjoy using the tool, you're not going to pick it up and use it
when you need it. So it was a waste of money. So that's that. I got things to build,
so I'm going to go get to it. So friends, as always,
thanks for stopping by. Go make a thing. And until next week, cheers.
