# There are shavings and then there are SHAVINGS!!



## jimi43 (20 Sep 2010)

If you haven't read Konrad's blog lately on the Sauer and Steiner website....you will have missed this....







Amazing is an understatement!

Gobsmacking is more accurate!!!

Read the rest HERE.

Cheers

Jim


----------



## Blister (20 Sep 2010)

Jim

its not shavings , its wet toilet paper :wink: 

If it is shavings :shock: :shock: :shock:


----------



## stevebuk (20 Sep 2010)

i dont own a plane nor do i know how to use one properly, but i read that blog and really enjoyed it, got to admire the enthusiasm these guys have..


----------



## matthewwh (20 Sep 2010)

He's done a nice job with his Aled kit as well I see......




.

Where on earth does he get lumps of box that big????


----------



## Waka (22 Sep 2010)

Jolly good shavings what, not sure I can get my planes to take them that thin.


----------



## woodbloke (22 Sep 2010)

Waka":abvwt5br said:


> Jolly good shavings what, not sure I can get my planes to take them that thin.


For the uninitiated, there's a gloat in there somewhere :lol: - Rob


----------



## Alf (22 Sep 2010)

Too subtle for me... :lol: 

Amazing shaving, but it's appearance is reminding me of tripe for some reason, so my enthusiasm for it is irretrievably dampened.


----------



## yetloh (22 Sep 2010)

If you think that's a big lump of box, Matthew, have a look at Karl Holtey's site. No idea where he gets it from and I don't blame him for being unwilling to tell.

Jim


----------



## jimi43 (22 Sep 2010)

His whole work is out of the "box" Jim!!

  

That's not a shaving...that's a botanical slide sample!

Jim


----------



## woodbloke (23 Sep 2010)

I've mentioned this before as it's one of my pet hobby horses, but this sort of thing is _not_ difficult to achieve. The timber looks to be a nice piece of very mild, straight grained maple. In fact I used a S&S plane at the last Axminster show some years ago now and a very similar piece of timber was provided for the test.
It is a pleasant experience to produce a shaving(s) like this but bears no relation (in my view anyway) to the true capabilities of the tool. A well set up Record No4 with a decent blade will produce the same sort of result - Rob


----------



## Karl (23 Sep 2010)

Is this more to your liking Rob?






Nice half thou shaving from some q/s oak (with a nice Clifton No7).

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Argus (23 Sep 2010)

.


Why?

I can't get excited about what comes out of the top of a plane.


Shavings of any description end up in the "rubbish" (no, not rubbish, I originally wrote c-r-a-p box) and then on to the fire.

The planed finish is more to the point - he forgot to take a photo of that.


.


----------



## woodbrains (23 Sep 2010)

I think you'll find the S&S shaving is endgrain, which does make it a little more remarkable, maple or not. It is not too difficult to do if your plane iron is extremely sharp and the mouth tiny. I regularly do the same with a well tuned Stanley block plane, admitedly with a Hock iron, sharpened on a 6000 Japanese water stone. It is important to produce good shavings, rubbish bin fodder excepted. A plane tuned well enough to do this gives the best finished surfaces. If the shavings are poor, so is the surface.

Mike.


----------



## newt (24 Sep 2010)

I don't see why you need a tight mouth for end grain. My Veritas apron plane has a fixed mouth of several mm, and it is very very good on end grain.


----------



## woodbrains (25 Sep 2010)

> I don't see why you need a tight mouth for end grain.



Planes for endgrain, such as shoulder planes and LA block planes have traditionally had adjustable mouths, to keep the opening slight. It is funny that isn't it?

I'm amazed at how many people make comments about not seeing the point of needing the cutter 'that sharp' or the plane's sole 'that flat' or the mouth 'that tight'. etc. etc. Once tried, however, they usually comment on having never before done work 'that good'. Also amusing!

Mike.


----------



## newt (25 Sep 2010)

woodbrains":1yqjrg6o said:


> > I don't see why you need a tight mouth for end grain.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok woodbrains you can then tell why you need a tight mouth for end grain. The pros state that you need to optimise the mouth for long grain, tight particularly when smoothing and all the theory supports that. But I can see no reason for a tight mouth for end grain, you are slicing across the fibres not lifting them like long grain. Several books that state this Gareth Hack being one, I guess they are wrong. I find your comments confusing and not funny, if you always need a tight mouth ( clearly one reason for adjustment is for different thickness shavings) which you imply why then make it adjustable. I don't think you have really understood or have not thought about the question, I am asking why.


----------



## woodbrains (26 Sep 2010)

There is clearly a contradiction here, that is lost on some people. You simply cannot have it both ways. If a veritas apron plane has a wide mouth and you argue that endgrain is not fussy about this, then you cannot pursue the logic that adjustable mouth planes are to accommodate different thicknesses of shaving. We are talking about endgrain specific planes here (Shoulder and LA block) not ones that are used with long grain. As with many things, there are often more than one reason for a thing to be the way it is. A slight mouth opening is not just to support the wood ahead of the lifting shaving (to minimise tearout). It is also to prevent the wedge shaped cutter for its natural tendency to want to burrow deeper into the wood. Obviously it cannot do this as the planes sole following behind prevents it, but if the mouth is wide, the pressure drop ahead of the cutter as the shaving is produced will encourage the cutter to try to dig deeper. When this tendency is checked and then dug again then checked again, in rapid succession, is what causes chatter (one of the causes at least). A fine mouth also allows more control at the beginning and end of the cut. On endgrain especially there is a tendancy for the plane to try to take a large bite, when starting the cut, if the mouth is gaping. 

I guarantee that the S&S plane that produced the endgrain shaving which prompted the thread will have a very sharp blade and an extremely tight mouth opening. As are planes by Karl Holtey, Steve knight, HNT Gordon and all other high quality, high performance tools. There is no reason for us not to make our tools as good as they can be, too. 

As for Garret Hack, I'm not sure that he was not in fact talking about cross grain planing, such as planing a tenon cheek to fit it's mortice, when the planes mouth opening would not be critical. If he truly does believe that a plane's mouth has no bearing on its performance when planing end grain, then I am saying he is wrong, absolutely. I have had enough experience (25+ years) and know enough professional fine furniture makers, both in Britain and America that bears out the fact. Incidentally, Garret Hack is a big fan of Holtey planes and I'm not sure he would start telling him that his formula is all wrong.

Mike.


----------



## newt (26 Sep 2010)

Mike I have just planed some end grain cherry with a veritas medium shoulder plane with the mouth set very tight to produce a 1 thou shaving. I opened up the mouth to 1.5 mm and produced the same 1 thou shaving ( not a very scientific experiment I accept). You will have to take my word for this no camera at present. I guess it is a matter of degree, also I assume the SS plane was a fixed mouth so no way of establishing if it would work with a wider mouth. I am only interested from a theory perspective as there clearly is a difference in how a blade will behave when cutting long grain v endgrain. I take your point about cross grain. I am not saying that a tight mouth will not produce good results on end grain, of course it will, all I am suggesting is that it is not as critical when you are dealing with a problem long grain.


----------



## woodbloke (26 Sep 2010)

woodbrains":j6tkqrhl said:


> ... and an extremely tight mouth opening. As are planes by Karl Holtey
> 
> Mike.


Wrong. I used David Charlesworth's low angle Holtey smoother at Rycotwood recently. The mouth on it was not adustable and was around 2mm wide - Rob


----------



## Aled Dafis (27 Sep 2010)

woodbloke":24fo8l4l said:


> woodbrains":24fo8l4l said:
> 
> 
> > ... and an extremely tight mouth opening. As are planes by Karl Holtey
> ...



I was just about to say exactly the same, Karl Holtey's planes are known to have fairly wide mouths, but perform amazingly, as do Konrad Sauer's.

Cheers
Aled

P.S. I've not been around here for a long while, so "Hi!"


----------



## Aled Dafis (27 Sep 2010)

woodbrains":1ajkrju5 said:


> I guarantee that the S&S plane that produced the endgrain shaving which prompted the thread will have a very sharp blade and an extremely tight mouth opening.



What makes you so sure that this is an end grain shaving? I'm almost certain that it isn't. As mentioned earlier in this thread Konrad usually uses straight grained Maple to test his planes, but I did once see him effortlessly smooth the nastiest piece of rock maple I've ever seen with one of his panel planes.

Cheers

Aled


----------



## woodbrains (28 Sep 2010)

It looks like endgrain to me; it certainly isn't long grain from a piece of mild mannered maple. If it is long grain from a piece which is wild and curly, then it is even more likely that the planes mouth is minute. The finest long grain shavings I generally produce are immeasurably thin, though, and certainly can't be un-rolled flat to measure with a mic. (as if I could be bothered) Just as an aside, slightly, the best Japanese planes have no mouth opening at all, relying on some compliance in the blade seating to let the gossamer like shavings through. 

No-one has explained the *benefit *of a wide mouth for end grain, though. The best anyone has come up with essentially says it is no worse. But if, like me, you occasionally want to use your shoulder or LA block on long grain, the low angle blade will suck wind on anything more ornery than Konrad's mild mannered maple. It can only be helped with a narrow mouth, so why have anything else? You certainly do not need to ever open it up for coarse work, since these planes are meant for fine fitting and fettling of fine joints etc. I would contend that the most likely reason why adjustable mouth planes are produced is not for 'coarse or fine' work as much as a production expedient. It is very difficult to mass produce planes with such fine tolerances so having making them retro adjustable means the manufacturers don't have to make them fine in the first place. Most people I know (James Krenov for one) would adjust their LA block for a fine mouth and then remove the adjusting lever, essentially making it the fine fixed mouth plane it should have been to begin with.

Mike.


----------



## Aled Dafis (28 Sep 2010)

woodbrains":s05xojw0 said:


> It looks like endgrain to me; it certainly isn't long grain from a piece of mild mannered maple.



Really? Ron Brese managed a very similar shaving from one of his planes on a very similar wood.







This is a typical shaving i.e. showing a rippled texture, from a high angle smoother, the higher the pitch, the more rippled the shaving becomes IMHE. 

I'll give my smoother a go tomorrow night to see what I get, I don't think that I've ever used it on Sycamore (my Maple substitute) to be honest.

Cheers
Aled


----------



## woodbrains (29 Sep 2010)

I did kind of imply that if it were long grain, it would by curly figured and not plain maple, if it were not endgrain as I thought. It is fairly pointless demonstating how a high angle smoother will perform on mild timbers, as the partial scraping action wouldn't provide the best surfave in this instance. That shaving on the curly maple is rather satisfying though. 

Still no-one coming up with any thoughts on why wide mouths for endgrain is advantageous?

Mike.


----------



## newt (29 Sep 2010)

Still no-one coming up with any thoughts on why wide mouths for endgrain is advantageous?
Mike.[/quote said:


> Mike No one suggested there was an advantage, just that it may not be essential.


----------



## woodbrains (30 Sep 2010)

newt":3mh978p6 said:


> Mike No one suggested there was an advantage, just that it may not be essential.


 
Now this is confusing. I'm certain Karl Holtey doesn't do things without reason, so logically there must be a perceived advantage in wider mouths, or else his shoulder planes don't in fact have them, apart from the odd exception, or perhaps special request. If I was mad/lucky enough to spend those sorts of prices on a plane, I'm certain I'd want the mouth as finely detailed as the rest; otherwise a chisel driven into a block of wood would suffice, if there was no advantage. 

I regrettably gave away to a good friend in Vermont, a HNT Gordon shoulder plane. It is about as close to a chisel in a block of wood as you can get. Obviously a lot more refined. It had a high angle blade set bevel down, which is unusual and a fine mouth. It performed extremely well on end and long grain and cost less than 100 quid at the time, though are a bit pricier now. I should have kept it, as it had everything you could want, comfortable to use, gave great results and sensibly priced for an everyday tool. Not as fancy pants as a Holtey, but I like the look of them, too. 

mike.


----------



## bugbear (1 Oct 2010)

One of the reasons for a narrow(ish) mouth on a plane like a shoulder or rebate is NOT to do with how well it take shavings.

In a plane with no lateral margins (in Jeff Gorman's terminology) it is possible for the arris of the workpiece (at the start of the stroke) to jam into the planing aperture, if the plane isn't sitting down nicely flush/horizontal by that stage. The smaller the aperture, the less chance there is of this undesirable event occuring.

To be explicit, this argument may explain why a 1/32" mouth is to be preferred to a 1/8" mouth, but does not explain why a 2/1000" mouth would be preferred over a 1/32"

BugBear


----------



## Alf (1 Oct 2010)

woodbrains":2k0hb19r said:


> newt":2k0hb19r said:
> 
> 
> > Mike No one suggested there was an advantage, just that it may not be essential.
> ...



Um... if there's no perceived advantage in an incredibly _fine_ mouth, making said plane _with_ one would also be doing something for no reason, wouldn't it? I think I may have got lost in this discussion somewhere...


----------



## woodbloke (1 Oct 2010)

Alf":2r5nxhtj said:


> I think I may have got lost in this discussion somewhere...


+1..is it important, does it matter? The main thing is that you as an individual have a plane(s) that can remove shavings from end grain or whatever and more importantly (for me anyway) they can be used to actually make things - Rob


----------



## bugbear (1 Oct 2010)

woodbloke":293hilfu said:


> Alf":293hilfu said:
> 
> 
> > I think I may have got lost in this discussion somewhere...
> ...



It matters when you're making comparisons at point of purchase.

BugBear


----------



## woodbloke (1 Oct 2010)

bugbear":31dxm8y8 said:


> It matters when you're making comparisons at point of purchase.
> 
> BugBear


It doesn't if you buy a plane with an adjustable mouth (LA Jack for example) or a LN or Veritas block with the same - Rob


----------



## bugbear (1 Oct 2010)

woodbloke":3nmweyip said:


> bugbear":3nmweyip said:
> 
> 
> > It matters when you're making comparisons at point of purchase.
> ...



Perhaps that would explain why shoulder and rebate planes have been mentioned in this thread 

It is mysterious that no-one has a justification for the hard-to-make super-tight mouths in vintage infill shoulder planes. They can't have been doing it for fun, surely?

BugBear


----------



## woodbrains (1 Oct 2010)

> Um... if there's no perceived advantage in an incredibly _fine_ mouth, making said plane _with_ one would also be doing something for no reason, wouldn't it? I think I may have got lost in this discussion somewhere...



Isn't the main point of a Holtey is that they are glouriously pointless? Everything is a celebration on doing things as close to perfection as possible. If a tight mouth is neither advantageous or disadvantageous, it seems to me that fudging it at the last by making a crudely coarse mouth is incongruous unless the maker has a good reason (and the 2mm that has been reported earlier IS crude compared to the fine tolerances elsewhere).

Bugbear, I also said myself that a fine mouth makes the plane more controllable at the beginning and end of the cut. I still believe that on rather uncompliant endgrain timbers (Rosewood, Swiss pear etc.), there is a more of a chance of chattering, which I have observed is reduced with a finer mouth. And there is still the chance of using the plane on long grain. Why preclude the plane from being able to do this, for no advantage elswhere?

Of course 2 tho is probably pedantic, but 1/32 is not what I'd call fine either. !/64 is the right sort of margin and does not hamper the planes use in any circumstances that I put it to, so that setting is never changed on my shoulder plane.

Mike.


----------



## Alf (1 Oct 2010)

woodbrains":38wrcxmq said:


> Isn't the main point of a Holtey is that they are glouriously pointless?


I believe that's the sound of a goal post being moved, so I'm outta here. :wink:


----------



## woodbloke (2 Oct 2010)

Alf":wkn4j71v said:


> woodbrains":wkn4j71v said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't the main point of a Holtey is that they are glouriously pointless?
> ...


Me too...another one of _'those_' :roll: discussions - Rob


----------



## GazPal (2 Oct 2010)

woodbrains":4a1ydb84 said:


> Isn't the main point of a Holtey is that they are glouriously pointless? Everything is a celebration on doing things as close to perfection as possible. If a tight mouth is neither advantageous or disadvantageous, it seems to me that fudging it at the last by making a crudely coarse mouth is incongruous unless the maker has a good reason (and the 2mm that has been reported earlier IS crude compared to the fine tolerances elsewhere).
> 
> Bugbear, I also said myself that a fine mouth makes the plane more controllable at the beginning and end of the cut. I still believe that on rather uncompliant endgrain timbers (Rosewood, Swiss pear etc.), there is a more of a chance of chattering, which I have observed is reduced with a finer mouth. And there is still the chance of using the plane on long grain. Why preclude the plane from being able to do this, for no advantage elswhere?
> 
> ...



Pedantic being the operative word. It seems very counter-productive for one to sing high praise of good quality tools - whilst name dropping left, right and centre - only to then label one maker's products as being "gloriously pointless" in the nature of the attention to detail paid during their production???? By definition, all maker's products could be considered pointless if we were to follow the same line of logic as yourself, but each user and maker has his/her own set of criteria and preferences in terms of tools and how they're made, set up and used.

Having a finer throat indeed reduces chatter on more exotically grained timbers, but blade orientation (Square or skew, bevel up or down), blade adjustment (Depth of cut and cant), bed angle, plane heft, etc., all contribute to the overall picture. The reasoning behind adjustable plane throats is flexibility to adapt the cut to the timber being worked and there's no "ideal" or holy grail when dealing with such an organically variable medium as timber. 

If the tool works well, use it, regardless of whether it's built by NASA or Bill Smith in his shed, or set to take shavings from a gnat's chin, but always be prepared to adjust settings - if the tool has such scope - to suit the work in hand.


----------



## jimi43 (2 Oct 2010)

I've got a "Bill Smith" shoulder plane!

    :wink: 

Jim


----------



## yetloh (2 Oct 2010)

I have always been sceptical about the traditional wisdom that a fine mouth reduces tear out and, unless I have misunderstood him, Karl Holtey and some other makers do not believe it either. If that is the case, we should look for another reason why top makers produce planes with fine mouths. I suggest that it may be that the received wisdom about their effect on tear out has led the market to perceive a fine mouth as a mark of quality, so that is what makers provide. The mouths on Holtey planes are indeed quite fine but he certainly does not take it to extremes.

To describe a wide mouth as crude is ridiculous; to an expert maker a narrow mouth is surely no more difficult to make or a sign of quality of making than a narrow one.

Jim


----------



## GazPal (2 Oct 2010)

jimi43":k88mt1j2 said:


> I've got a "Bill Smith" shoulder plane!
> 
> :wink:
> 
> Jim



Me too lol :lol:   :wink:


----------



## ali27 (3 May 2015)

Made some very nice thin shavings today. I have to share with you guys!






I think I can still improve. 

Enjoy.


----------



## matthewwh (3 May 2015)

Blimey, October 2010, you dug deep to find that thread Ali...!

 

Beautifully set up plane - I can almost hear the pfsssssht.


----------



## CStanford (3 May 2015)

A fine mouth absolutely helps reduce tearout and one can easily experiment with an ECE Primus smoother where all other settings can remain constant while the mouth aperture is adjusted. The effect varies in degree across species and grain orientation but it definitely exists.


----------



## ali27 (3 May 2015)

matthewwh":hh2m6y4g said:


> Blimey, October 2010, you dug deep to find that thread Ali...!
> 
> 
> 
> Beautifully set up plane - I can almost hear the pfsssssht.



Thanks Matthew!! Guess who I bought the plane from :wink: 

Ali


----------



## Corneel (3 May 2015)

Now you need to invest in better measuring equipement Ali. May I suggest the Mitutoyo 547-401:


----------



## bugbear (3 May 2015)

CStanford":38iot4vu said:


> A fine mouth absolutely helps reduce tearout and one can easily experiment with an ECE Primus smoother where all other settings can remain constant while the mouth aperture is adjusted. The effect varies in degree across species and grain orientation but it definitely exists.



Or any of the moving toe designs, e.g. many bevel up planes, or a BedRock.

BugBear


----------



## JohnPW (3 May 2015)

My thinnest shavings are about 0.00001mm but since that's thinner than the wood cells, they turn to dust as soon as they come out of the plane!


----------



## condeesteso (4 May 2015)

The usual top work from Mr Sauer! Jim knows my views on shavings, but quite by coincidence this happened yesterday:





That's a five quid jack that I modified (rather heavily) with the intention of finally making a scrub of the size. Every time, I get near the end and think... let's just see what it can do :lol: :lol: 
One day I will commit one of these things to being the scrub I need, but maybe not this one.


----------



## G S Haydon (4 May 2015)

All symptoms of thing going well and the potential for a well finished project


----------



## MIGNAL (4 May 2015)

OK you lot. Try that in figured Ebony.


----------



## G S Haydon (4 May 2015)

Lol, no chance!


----------



## ali27 (4 May 2015)

I really liked the camera setup that Mr Sellers used in one of his videos. So I tried to do
the same thing:

View My Video

Don't know how to embed unfortunately.

.....................................................

Very nice shavings Graham!

Ali


----------



## G S Haydon (4 May 2015)

Cheers Ali, I tried the same but the shavings are more "workaday" rather than the net curtains coming from yours https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlMfIGnqgS8


----------



## Bedrock (6 May 2015)

It would be helpful if, when we are showing shavings, we could always say what the timber is. Not trying to knock anyone, but having seen a couple of Japanese plane demonstrations, the timber seems to be something like Tulipwood, which in my limited experience, is a very forgiving timber to plane, being very straight grained, with few knots.

Mike


----------



## MIGNAL (6 May 2015)

I think it's a type of Cedar or Cypress. It's obvious that it's very straight grained, relatively soft and has a fairly homogeneous grain structure. Knots not allowed.


----------



## iNewbie (6 May 2015)

Port Orford Cedar - in japanese: "Hinoki"


----------



## condeesteso (7 May 2015)

danger of drifting off-topic here, but question for Graham. Saw the woodie smoother video, excellent and I was pleased that broadly I do most/all of that. But do you ever put anything on the sole once flattened? I have used hard Briwax before - partly to help reduce wear (if it actually does, unproven of course) and makes it nice n slippy. Maybe that's taboo but just wondering.


----------



## G S Haydon (7 May 2015)

Hi Douglas. Briwax sounds a great way to reduce friction and I would think the less friction there is the less wear? I tend to be in the habit of a touch of candle wax as and when required.


----------



## condeesteso (7 May 2015)

Excellent Graham, I shall carry on with Briwax on the woodies and I am a regular squiggler with the candle on the steel or bronze planes.


----------

