# Face side



## Bluekingfisher (16 Nov 2015)

Just clarification required really - For years I have been marking my face side of boards on what will be the eventual outer face of the board, primarly because I thought the better side, or "face side" would face outwards where it could be seen?

Recently I was reading an article where the face side was shown on what would be the inside of the component ( a drawer in this case).

I suspect it doesn't really matter where the face side is providing a consistent approach is taken?

David


----------



## marcros (16 Nov 2015)

My thoughts... 

if it were the inside of boards that was the reference side, then joints would be reference side to reference side. Your way would be the opposite.

In practice, it probably doesn't matter if you are consistent and the boards are flat and square.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (16 Nov 2015)

Bluekingfisher":b33pas85 said:


> I suspect it doesn't really matter where the face side is providing a consistent approach is taken?
> 
> David



I think that's pretty much the nub of it - a method that works for YOU, and don't bother too much about anybody else's quirks. 

Years ago, my woodwork teacher at school told us that the better face was selected as the 'show' side of the board, and marked as the face side. The other side, which may have more or worse defects, was thus hidden. I suppose in that case, the outer faces of a carcase or the top face of a table-top would be the 'face' side, but the inner faces of a drawer because more of them would be seen in normal use.


----------



## AndyT (16 Nov 2015)

I think the logic for something like a drawer is that the face sides go inside because they can't practically have any more finishing done to them. The outside surfaces get more planing done, to fit each drawer to its own opening. Leastways the front and sides do. The back doesn't matter.
There is a similar logic for frame and panel, where the face edges go inside and the outer perimeter is then planed to fit the doorframe or whatever.


----------



## AndyT (16 Nov 2015)

Just to add some evidence of old working practices. ..

I looked at drawers on three old handmade pieces of furniture. Ordinary old stuff from the late C19th.
All had face marks on the end / back of the drawers, all on the outside, unseen face.

So much for my logic!


----------



## Bluekingfisher (16 Nov 2015)

Interesting, particularly the point of a face side being on the inside of a drawer box. That would make perfect sense as finishing the inside is difficult after assembly.

I am not formerly trained, just as with CC, my instruction was taken from my school woodwork teacher and it has just stuck since then.

David


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Nov 2015)

Formally?


----------



## Bluekingfisher (16 Nov 2015)

Well done Wilson, you spotted my deliberate mistake. =D>


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Nov 2015)

Who's Wilson?


----------



## blackrodd (16 Nov 2015)

I was taught that the face side and face edge were seen at the job's end, so were the best, 
Also face side and edge went against the fence for all the work, either by hand or machine.
Regards Rodders


----------



## blackrodd (16 Nov 2015)

phil.p":pzdjgs5s said:


> Who's Wilson?


Sherlock Gnome's sidekick, innit!
Rodders


----------



## David C (16 Nov 2015)

I was taught and have always insisted that face sides go inside.

They are a datum, i.e. accurate surface. These are the ones we should test for wind.

If we make a drawer or any single lap dovetail it is essential that the true face goes inside. This is the one we gauge from and any wind results in loss of height. In general exterior surfaces are planed after glue up.

When making a table, face sides and edges of legs point inwards.

I suspect that face side out is a nasty American perversion!

David

PS Now Wearing says some constructions have face side out, and some in. I would like to hear about ones which are better with face sides out, please.


----------



## Mr T (16 Nov 2015)

> I was taught and have always insisted that face sides go inside.
> 
> They are a datum, i.e. accurate surface. These are the ones we should test for wind.
> 
> ...



I'm with David C. on this.It's what I was taught in woodwork class at Swanmore Secondary School in 1964 and it's what I teach now. 

Good face and edge discipline is absolutely vital, it means the project should turn out square. But it also saves time puzzling which joint goes where and avoids that embarrassing realization that you have morticed on the wrong side. However students seem to find it rather boring when I go off on one about face side and edge!

Chris


----------



## custard (16 Nov 2015)

David C":41cize7y said:


> I would like to hear about ones which are better with face sides out, please.



I agree the _face_ is the the _datum_ rather than the _show face_ and should therefore generally be inside. One exception is drawer boxes where I was taught to mark the outside faces. The drawer sides have a quadrant in the outside front lower corners, the drawer front has a semi circle down by the outside lower edge, and the back has a semi circle with a vertical line through it, again on the outside lower edge. The components retain these marks until after glue up, and it would be difficult to remove them if they were on the inside.


----------



## David C (16 Nov 2015)

However these marks are an aid to keeping pieces in the right place. They are nothing to do with accuracy.

It is essential that the inside surface of a drawer has no wind.

Also we want our internal shoulder lines to meet seamlessly. Hence inside surfaces are datum.

The exterior is planed to fit the carcase opening which may well be crooked!

David


----------



## Sgian Dubh (16 Nov 2015)

In examining old tables it's not too uncommon to see the inside face of rails are rough, either straight off a reciprocating saw of some sort, or even rough hewn, even sometimes tapered in width. It has to be assumed therefore that the workers only concerned themselves with the 'face side', and 'face edge', with the second edge also planed true off the face side and face edge. It also has to be assumed the marking of the mortice and tenons was taken from these faces which, of course, were also the 'money' side. I've observed similar shortcuts in wood preparation in old cabinets too, so my conclusion is that in hand woodworking choosing the face side and edge of a rough board was a critical first stage of the process.

As to my usage of face side and edge marks, I simply use them as indicating which ones were planed flat first in the machining process in order to keep track of where I am in the squaring up routine. This work method doesn't really correspond to exclusive hand tool working I know, but because I generally use machines to square up the wood, it's really only later I decide which is the show face, e.g., for making up a table top, or arranging the grain pattern of legs, rails, drawer parts, etc. Slainte.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (17 Nov 2015)

phil.p":1cbnffos said:


> Who's Wilson?




- As in Dads Army, c'mon, wakey wakey! :wink:


----------



## Bluekingfisher (17 Nov 2015)

Interesting responses for what I would have thought would have been a fundemental ?

Anyway, thanks to all, much appreciated.

David


----------



## Zeddedhed (17 Nov 2015)

I'm with Sgian Dubh on this one. Until I've got my timber down to size I don't really know which boards will look best together. We mark Face Side and Edge for machining references and then once the timber is thicknessed and finished to width we layout our boards and then re-mark everything prior to the joinery and assembly.


----------



## rwyoung (17 Nov 2015)

David C":3gqod21j said:


> ... snip to address only the postscript ...
> PS Now Wearing says some constructions have face side out, and some in. I would like to hear about ones which are better with face sides out, please.



In "The Essential Woodworker", R.W. makes it a point to call it the "true face" to distinguish it from a "show face" or "show surface". Same goes for "true edge".

I think this terminology eliminates most of the confusion about the purpose of the edge/face.

Later in illustrations showing how to layout for a mortise and tenon in a small table, he has the true face and true edge of the leg facing out so they are the show faces. As this is a table with a small reveal between the leg surface and the apron, it makes some sense. 

The legs should obviously be very CLOSE to the same size (if not identical but hey, whose counting molecules anyway?). Otherwise the aprons would be of different length shoulder-to-shoulder and that can't be good practice!

In his illustrations, the aprons would also have their true face out (and I would have though true edge up to meet the table-top but it is shown DOWN). Now the absolute thickness of the aprons isn't critical as any variance is thrown to the inside. However it would look odd to have one aprons 1/2" thick and the rest 7/8" thick. Throwing the waste to the inside isn't an excuse for being excessively sloppy either.

Is this the absolute, be-all and end-all method for preparing stock and laying out? Probably not. But it does work. As with most methods, one must engage brain before engaging the work. Thinking through the process is the key.

(I shall go find a comfy chair in which to sit while being politely eviscerated by David C. and others.)

((edited to clarify remark about face edge orientation))


----------



## RobinBHM (17 Nov 2015)

Different workshops will chose different conventions and face and edge marks are used for different reasons.

In joinery face and edge marks are chosen for machining reference. For example a pair of door stiles will be paired up with any bow mirrored and the face and edges marked. Consistency is key so that the mark on a component will always face the same way each time the machining operations for a job is done. That way the face mark will always face the morticer fence, or down onto the spindle moulder bed, or down to tenoner bed.

Consistency is the key, it is one less thing to think about and get wrong! For example, when I write cutting lists for veneered boards, the first dimension is always grain direction not the longest dimension. Window and door frames are width x height.


----------



## David C (17 Nov 2015)

It seems to me that the accurate square surfaces of a table leg need to be inside.

If not the rails are less likely to be square and the shoulders less likely to fit nicely.

External surfaces are for show, but require less accuracy.

David


----------



## rwyoung (17 Nov 2015)

David C":3hd449sl said:


> It seems to me that the accurate square surfaces of a table leg need to be inside.
> 
> If not the rails are less likely to be square and the shoulders less likely to fit nicely.
> 
> ...



The original postscripted question was asking for an example where the true face was the same as the show face (i.e. on the outside) and the recent discussion of The Essential Woodworker put W.R.'s terminology and this marking out example to mind.

Yes, to have a square table, one needs accurately sized legs (at the top) and opposite aprons to have matching lengths shoulder-to-shoulder.

But it would seem from W.R.'s marking out convention, he prefers the true face and true edge to be the outside of the leg. Which must mean he intends that the leg be accurately dimensioned and properly squared all the way around. Otherwise the table would be wonky. For visual appeal, the aprons should be reasonably closely dimentioned too but certainly the thickness can be a bit off from one to another. And the inside faces of the aprons can be left as rough or as finished as pleases your delicate sensibilities.

I obviously don't have insight into W.R.'s though processes or teaching methods. As written in his book, they seem reasonable and I've used his method for making several small tables. Works just fine. Other methods do exist and do work, no argument from me on that point. 

Also no argument that W.R.'s marking out method is the among the best. As an untrained amateur, it's the one I've latched onto because it works for me. Simple and effective with a minimum of fuss. And certainly less confusing than the ad-hoc methods I've seen others use. Cabinet maker's triangle, the fancy F, the V, good knife and gauge technique goes a long way.

By the way, here's the illustration to which I am referring. p59 of the PDF from L.A.P.






(some edits for clarity)


----------



## rwyoung (18 Nov 2015)

Thinking some more about the face side / show side, if one was to make something with flush aprons such as anything "Chipendale" or "Queen Anne" it would be advantageous to have the face side of the legs to the INSIDE when marking out. Likewise the aprons (but maybe less so). Then when it comes time to clean up the legpost and flush them to the apron, you just work one down to the other.

And again, the leg stock would be reasonably square and equal all the way around. But certainly when tracing on the pattern for the cabriole leg, the pattern would be referenced to the inside corners and those should be square.

Leads me back to making sure one thinks through the entire process before beginning and doing those things during the marking out and layout that minimize headaches later.


----------



## David C (18 Nov 2015)

"Leads me back to making sure one thinks through the entire process before beginning and doing those things during the marking out and layout that minimize headaches later."

Very sound advice.

David


----------



## Bluekingfisher (18 Nov 2015)

rwyoung":bslzm1kk said:


> David C":bslzm1kk said:
> 
> 
> > ... snip to address only the postscript ...
> ...




The above is my recollection of instruction given by my old school woodwork teacher. The face side would have been the eventual show side. In the example given, the table apron face side would have faced out with the face edge directed towards the floor rather than up toward the table top.

Of course the accuracy of non referenced face/edge would not have been relevant, we were not allowd to progress until the remaining faces/edges were accurately referenced and prepared from the face side/edge. Of course I understand teachings given to school childred would differ from the commercial world where time is money. Perhaps the time taken to accurately reference the eventual show face is not necessary at the prep stage.

David


----------



## CStanford (18 Nov 2015)

It is certainly helpful if the two faces of the legs which are to be mortised are dead square to each other. When I do these, one face is Face1 which is the first one treated. The next is Face2 and made square to Face1. I check cosmetics to make sure the faces that should show to the world are the best looking ones and then prepare and mark Face1 and Face2 accordingly.


----------



## custard (18 Nov 2015)

I think there's a more significant truth behind all this.

You apply marks to furniture components for six main reasons,

1. Indicating location of components in a finished piece (all these drawer components are for the left top drawer, and this is the right drawer side).
2. Indicating the most attractive layout (a cabinet maker's triangle on a table top before jointing)
3. Indicating true face side and a related true edge (interestingly, if you use a Domino machine you may well want to add a mark for a true end)
4. Indicating the direction for planing or feeding through a machine
5. Indicating the location of a fastening or a joint (i.e. a mortice "squiggle" so you don't mix things up)
6. Indicating a master reference position (in jointed chairmaking, especially with curved components, you'll often have a datum position marked from which all measurements are taken)

Depending upon individual circumstances you might need all, or none, of these marks. So just apply some common sense, they're conventions that are there to assist, not iron rules that mustn't be broken.

As Sgian Dubh pointed out, in the machine age having square components is almost free of cost and therefore standard practise, so there's less requirement to be fussy about marking. In a hand tool workshop square faces are expensive in terms of labour costs, so you have as few as necessary and mark them carefully.


----------



## David C (19 Nov 2015)

Point 4 is crucial to my mind and not often mentioned.

I have a modified version of face mark, which gives planing direction of that surface. It is combined with a "Fibre" mark, which represents the lie of the tubes in that surface.

Thus all information for the component is store on face and on edge. If one is planed or machined away it can be replaced without having to squint at the grain "Tubes" again.

This is explained in my third book.

David


----------



## CStanford (19 Nov 2015)

The act of hand planing to a certain thickness essentially produces the equivalent of a machined board if one registers the gauge to the true face when marking to thickness (as of course one should).

I always mark the direction of the grain as best as it can be determined, especially on panel glue-ups. 

I'm not so sure that the militant cap iron crowd wouldn't assert this as totally unnecessary, since one can *supposedly* plane in any and all directions with nary a bit of tearout if one 'learns the capiron.' :roll:


----------



## David C (19 Nov 2015)

That's funny..

David


----------



## CStanford (19 Nov 2015)

I guess the folks who claim to have not used sandpaper or a scraper in 40 years just pick a board up and go. They'll tell you that grain direction doesn't matter if you have a cap iron equipped hand plane so one assumes that in their shop it really doesn't, and therefore determining grain direction is a quaint relic of the past.

So David you can strike No. 4 off your list. :wink:


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (19 Nov 2015)

?


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (19 Nov 2015)

I'm not sure it qualifies as a crowd, I thought there were only three people in the world who are initiated in "the secret of the capiron",


----------



## D_W (19 Nov 2015)

If there are only three, i'm certainly not in that group (though I recognize the effectiveness off it). Of all of the things that could be planed without sanding or scraping though, I would think drawer fronts would be at the top of the list. 

Panels, etc, with poorly arranged grain....certainly you'd rather be able to plane everything with the grain (only sanding will make those uniform at the joint - scraping won't unless the wood is relatively hard).


----------



## Sgian Dubh (19 Nov 2015)

CStanford":da8cm2s1 said:


> I always mark the direction of the grain as best as it can be determined, especially on panel glue-ups.
> 
> I'm not so sure that the militant cap iron crowd wouldn't assert this as totally unnecessary, since one can *supposedly* plane in any and all directions with nary a bit of tearout if one 'learns the capiron.'


Yes, and all those planing masters apparently finish straight over their planed perfection - never a need for a scraper or a bit of abrasive paper. Which suggests to me they might live in some sort of dream world, or they're good at spinning a yarn to those of a credulous disposition. I've yet to witness a woodworker actually achieve such planing nirvana in a commercial setting. Slainte.


----------



## D_W (19 Nov 2015)

Richard, stop in my side of the States if you come over here again. 

I will say, it's not something I can claim I've done on curved surfaces, but that's fine. Otherwise, anything flat that's not veneer (perhaps that would be fine, too) is fair game for plane and then nothing. 

We're talking about drawer fronts in this case. To not be able to plane them, they'd have to be something really awful. And it takes longer to do something else other than plane them, that's the part I don't get about why sanding is such a winning strategy. 

(I sanded my kitchen cabinets, by the way, and I've sanded some small mouldings where I didn't feel like making a scraper, but they do look pretty dull compared to the adjacent surfaces. )

I'm a little bit baffled by all of you guys who are many times more accomplished than me ..but can't seem to regularly rely on planing to finish most surfaces (and all of the flat ones). If you don't want to, that's fine, but to say that it can't be done? Baffling.


----------



## CStanford (19 Nov 2015)

Paddy Roxburgh":28x50ng6 said:


> I'm not sure it qualifies as a crowd, I thought there were only three people in the world who are initiated in "the secret of the capiron",



It is certainly an elite group of people you've never heard of. This much is for sure.


----------



## D_W (19 Nov 2015)

CStanford":2ru2m64m said:


> Paddy Roxburgh":2ru2m64m said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure it qualifies as a crowd, I thought there were only three people in the world who are initiated in "the secret of the capiron",
> ...



It's a pretty new (re-new) thing, eh? The only guy who is actually doing it makes a living off of his work. Certainly, he has no clue what he's talking about if he makes a living without needing subsidy from a spouse or museum or school/college/instructional job. 

Brian Holcombe does a pretty good job demonstrating a planed surface that's been worked up with a double iron. Certainly he doesn't complain about how hard it is to be a member of the secret society. It was pretty easy to put two planes in his hands, because I knew he'd know how to use them. 

The rest of you guys, I'm not sure if you could figure it out with the cap iron included and the adjuster excluded. Again...you guys are "so accomplished" but somehow you're in the weeds on something really simple. I don't get it, never will.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (19 Nov 2015)

David,
most of the boards I plane are just fine with a smoother, I also find that setting the cap iron close can help when the grain is unruly, however the last couple of days I've been planning loads of ash for a boat I'm fitting out. The boards are from quite small trees with many branches (loads of knots and swirl). The grain is often going in opposite directions on either side of the boards and there is no choice but to come from the other direction. Around the knots on some of the boards I revert to the no. 80 and sometimes the card scraper. Having read your threads lately about how you never get tearout because of some "new" development with the capiron placement I sometimes think of you when I encounter places of swirly grain that I cannot smooth with a no.4. I even watched your video about the capiron and as far as I could gather you said the same as I was taught at school in the early 80s, set it close but not too close. I never really turn to the belt sander in these situations, but the no.80 and card scrapers all the time. On the external decks we often use iroko which whilst being mostly knot free the grain is often alternating along the length of the boards, again there are bits that cannot be finished with a no.4. 
Recently I built a bed and some shelves in a boat from oak and sycamore. Both timbers had knots and swirl but both were totally doable with a smoothable with a no.4 and the no. 80 stayed in the cupboard. 
Up till now I have not commented on your threads, but it is just not realistic to claim that all boards can be planned without tearout, no matter how well the cap is set and how sharp the iron (this certainly seems to be what your claiming correct me if I'm wrong) some timber does not behave. Straight grained timber from large trees with few branches, fine, but that makes for some boring looking finished work. There are many on here (ukw) who are much more skilled woodworkers than me, I spend at least half my time at work shotblasting, welding and painting (although i really try, often unsuccessfully to avoid mechanics). All of them have strategies to deal with difficult timber, be it scraping, sanding, back bevels, high angle bevel ups. The reason for this is that they are dealing with timber that does not behave well. This is often the timber that is most attractive On another current thread Custard remarked that the no.80 doesn't work that well on softer hardwoods and pines, that made me reflect that on these timbers I generally don't need to scrape them as a well set sharp plane is usually sufficient. If you never need anything other than a number 4 to finish boards it is because the boards you are using are not problematic. The people you refer too I have never heard of, and the conversations on forums about capirons I have never read, until I started reading this form last year I had never posted on any internet forum of any description and not read many.
By the way I use stanley and record jacks and smoothers (two jacks with differing cambers, one is more like a scrub) and a wooden double iron jointer, I have no experience of premium planes and have never really believed they would make a big difference (although I do have a quangsheng block plane and it is very nice). I also prep most, but not all, of my boards on a planer thicknesser and have all the main workshop machines in big three phase versions. I do a lot of my work at the bench but it is not possible to do the work I do entirely by hand as sometimes great volumes of timber needs to be resawn and prepped. I am, in my limited free time making a ukulele for my daughter for Christmas and this I am resawing and planning by hand, 50 2 meter boards of ash for the boat fitout, no chance. 
As far as subsidys go I am a single parent who works like a dog for sod all money, my only subsidy is I'm kind of used to being poor.

Believe me I would love to be wrong about this as never having tearout would be great, that said picking up a no. 80 is no great hardship.
All the best Paddy


----------



## D_W (20 Nov 2015)

I do have an 80, certainly. I haven't used it in a while, but I've got it and a 212, which is a nice little plane (that one is lie nielsen). 

I guess the issue here is that it's not "new" (the cap iron), it just seems minimally mastered. 

I agree that ash is troublesome to plane. You can plane it tearout free without trouble with a cap iron, sharpness isn't an issue - you can do it with a washita stone. Maybe the distinction here is that there is a difference between tearout free and complete uniformity at the surface. 

Aside from ash, I probably don't plane much similar to what you're describing - never been into boats. I did recently work with a lot of ash, though, and for what it looks like, it's a nuisance to get perfect surface uniformity (which I'd say is a higher standard than tearout free). 

You probably don't know the names of the people being discussed because they're in the states. I don't know who many people on here are, but that's OK.

I agree on the premium planes, they don't actually do anything better. They are guaranteed to work out of the box for a beginner, though.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (20 Nov 2015)

I even watched your video about the capiron and as far as I could gather you said the same as I was taught at school in the early 80s, set it close but not too close. 


I need to watch this, see what the fuss is about. Where do I find it? Youtube? under what title? 

David


----------



## CStanford (20 Nov 2015)

D_W":3hvacteh said:


> CStanford":3hvacteh said:
> 
> 
> > Paddy Roxburgh":3hvacteh said:
> ...



Who are you talking about in your first paragraph?


----------



## AndyT (20 Nov 2015)

CStanford":hppfmi69 said:


> Who are you talking about in your first paragraph?



And does he have any useful information on the concept of the Face Side, for those readers who don't want every hand tools thread to divert onto a few overplayed topics?


----------



## iNewbie (20 Nov 2015)

Bluekingfisher":2oigt3cs said:


> I even watched your video about the capiron and as far as I could gather you said the same as I was taught at school in the early 80s, set it close but not too close.
> 
> 
> I need to watch this, see what the fuss is about. Where do I find it? Youtube? under what title?
> ...



Ill assume its this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hylKg_7ZvY


----------



## D_W (20 Nov 2015)

Perhaps there are some a lot better and simpler than mine. Richard MacGuire, perhaps, I know a lot of people would rather get the message from him. 

I wasn't reading this board when all of this came up in the states, but it's strange that almost nobody on any of the other boards said anything about the cap iron. Perhaps I'm leaning on it more than most people do (but leaning on it has been very beneficial in terms of using it and narrowing kit under the bench).


----------



## D_W (20 Nov 2015)

AndyT":ekj001kl said:


> CStanford":ekj001kl said:
> 
> 
> > Who are you talking about in your first paragraph?
> ...



No worries, I'm not going to push it any further in this thread. It's not worth fighting about, or even mild disagreement at this point. I only responded because it was brought up - if you go back, you'll find I didn't initiate it.

(presumably the drawer front question has been answered pretty well...so well, in fact, that there was discussion of marking legs..)


----------



## Sgian Dubh (20 Nov 2015)

D_W":fho7qbt3 said:


> Richard, stop in my side of the States if you come over here again ...
> I'm a little bit baffled by all of you guys who are many times more accomplished than me ..but can't seem to regularly rely on planing to finish most surfaces (and all of the flat ones). If you don't want to, that's fine, but to say that it can't be done? Baffling.


I'm not saying planing to finish ready can't be done David. What I am saying is that for speed in most commercial environments, other strategies are used. When dealing with high volume work, it's more likely the strategy is to get the surface good enough for a similarly good quality finish, which is not necessarily the same as immaculately prepared and ready for a premium finish. (Ninety five per-cent of clients can't tell the difference between a good and immaculate finish anyway, and many are hugely impressed with merely shoddy) 

I can't recall all the items I've made this week (a lot), but polish/finish ready basically means smooth off the worst blemishes with coarse abrasive paper, fill the holes, and finish sand at 240 grit - job done, and off to the polisher/ painter.

It's a different story with one-off, low volume, high value custom furniture, where time is built in for a premium preparation job, but even here, I resort to scraping and sanding after planing to tease out those troublesome areas of ribbon figure, knots, reversed grain, etc. And once you sand a small show area, you're committed to sanding everything that's similarly on show to ensure a consistent surface under whatever polish is applied at the end.

I could do it all with only hand planes, but the time needed can really stretch on and on with particularly troublesome wood, and it becomes unprofitable to do so, and so the compromise has to be made of reaching out for the scraper(s), and abrasives, whether hand sanding or power sanding.

I certainly know how to tune and sharpen a plane and set a cap-iron, and I truly enjoy it when a hand plane sings, but even a good quality and well set-up plane has its limitations. 

Incidentally, I'd be pleased to catch up with you if, and when, we make it back over there - I hope you're not in hot and humid Texas, my previous home when we lived there, and we happen to be over in July/August, ha, ha. Slainte.


----------



## D_W (20 Nov 2015)

Hi Richard - I'm in Pennsylvania. It's pretty easy weather here, unless you don't like cold in the middle of winter. 

I agree with your assessment, sometimes I get caught up in the one off world. 

I worked in a 500 man cabinet factory when I was in college, and I guarantee there was no hand plane in the location, but there certainly were plenty of wide belt sanders and things of the like. The doors looked just fine (no clue which side of the drawers was the face side).

Once you add wide belt sanders and the like, it's a whole different ball game. The guy with the plane might as well put it in the trunk and drive away.


----------



## CStanford (20 Nov 2015)

This work was all sanded. If this is supposed to an inferior surface plus finish I'd be happy to take it any day:

http://pollaro.com/portfolio/ruhlmann/cabinets/


----------



## Bluekingfisher (23 Nov 2015)

iNewbie":21lc3iuh said:


> Bluekingfisher":21lc3iuh said:
> 
> 
> > I even watched your video about the capiron and as far as I could gather you said the same as I was taught at school in the early 80s, set it close but not too close.
> ...



Thanks mate, I came across DWs site on YouTube.

David


----------



## CStanford (23 Nov 2015)

Set it so close your smoother won't cut. Then back it off a bare fraction until it does.


----------



## D_W (23 Nov 2015)

CStanford":59gtflp9 said:


> Set it so close your smoother won't cut. Then back it off a bare fraction until it does.



That about summarizes it. If it's too close and doesn't cut or provides too much resistance, back it off. If you get tearout, set it closer. 

Should pretty much be able to set it by feel, dead on, in a couple of weeks, and never reset except when sharpening.


----------



## CStanford (23 Nov 2015)

All covered in Planecraft!


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (23 Nov 2015)

Same advice in Wearing's essential woodworker, along with some other tear out reduction strategies,


----------



## D_W (23 Nov 2015)

CStanford":2kj578ql said:


> All covered in Planecraft!



There should be a reference or 100 out there before 2012, eh?


----------



## CStanford (27 Nov 2015)

Paddy Roxburgh":b18ev8ew said:


> Same advice in Wearing's essential woodworker, along with some other tear out reduction strategies,



Yes, Wearing's entry is essentially Planecraft typeset slightly differently. If it ain't broke....


----------



## CStanford (27 Nov 2015)

D_W":2wjie346 said:


> CStanford":2wjie346 said:
> 
> 
> > All covered in Planecraft!
> ...



Of course. Posted before and posted again -- more than one way to control tearout as mentioned in both Planecraft and innumerable other references one of which is:

http://www.amgron.clara.net/shavingaperture53.html

One's planes have two adjustments that have an effect. No real need to prefer one at the expense of the other.

File it under: 'why be a one-trick pony?'


----------



## D_W (27 Nov 2015)

CStanford":3eif4ys4 said:


> D_W":3eif4ys4 said:
> 
> 
> > CStanford":3eif4ys4 said:
> ...



That's not a very good example because the writer doesn't really know what he's talking about. Do you recall the part where he suggested that the shavings need to be something like .03" for the cap iron to break chips? In reality, the cap iron has a great deal of effect with shavings of .003. It's only when you get below 2 thousandths with most wood that you really eliminate the chance of prying up something that affects the surface. 

So, again, I'll wait for the sources of pre-2012 *discussions* where someone other than warren actually accurately discusses the cap iron. Because it appears almost nobody does. There are, however, plenty of references to the cap iron, marginalization of its effectiveness, description of the need for extreme sharpness or small mouth aperture, and promotion of a technique that takes much more time and effort to get the same result as a reasonably well set cap iron. 

And we start another lap around the same circle, and we'll be in the same place. Charlie, you can say something again about scraping curves, we're on a railroad track making laps, anyway. there will be a few people who will discover just how much better the cap iron is on a flat surface than anything else. The folks who don't want to find that out but who want to just argue about it instead, i'm not really interested. they can formulate arguments while feeding door panels through a wide belt sander (admittedly, a piece of equipment I wouldn't mind having myself).


----------



## CStanford (28 Nov 2015)

Again, I ask, who is Warren? What does he make?

If you follow the chart in Planecraft it's clear they're recommending a progression of the cap iron setting down to somewhere around 1/128" of an inch away from the edge or closer, though nobody would suggest that this is something one would actually measure. The simple math is obvious. The implication that the cap iron should be adjusted for desired effect is equally clear and moreover that extremely close settings are being recommended for difficult to plane woods when they are encountered.

Warren, whoever the hell he is, has discovered nothing. 

The editors of Planecraft had Warren's personal revelation (read reinvention of the wheel) beat by at least 50 years. The admonition in the book with regard to the cap iron is crystal clear. The measure of the advice found there is not in the woodworkers who have never read the book, or who read it and ignored it. It stands on its own as much today as when it was written in the 1920s and reprinted several times all the way through a last special printing in the 1980s underwritten by Woodcraft.


----------



## D_W (28 Nov 2015)

Charlie - did you find your pre-2012 post referring to planecraft and suggesting that someone might use the cap iron to control tearout?

Because Warren is the only person I can recall mentioning it. I doubt he discovered anything other than to read 18th century excerpts. It's clear that it was already well discovered when it eliminated all other plane types from any significant market share almost all at once.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (28 Nov 2015)

Not quite sure why I'm even getting sucked into this but 

"There are five cures for tearing
1. Reverse the direction of planning
2. Sharpen the blade
3. Take a very fine cut
4. Set the cap iron very close
5. Close up the mouth
Any one of these or combination will prevent tearing"

taken from "The Essential Woodworker, Skills tools and methods", page 13 by Alan Wearing, published 1988 B T Batsford, London.

This is from a widely read well respected text. I have no idea what the people you were discussing tearout with on a internet forum were saying in 2012, but be aware that forums represent a tiny proportion of woodworkers. 

I agree with your basic premis that a decently set up Stanley can do at least as well as premium bevel up high angle tight mouth planes. It is the idea that this was rediscovered in 2012 (perhaps it was by a small number of people discussing it on an internet forum but as I have demonstrated above it is clearly outlined in the published literature) and that setting the cap iron close eliminates all tearout, with some grain scraping is the most efficient way to deal with tear. 

As discussed in another thread Wearing's book is quite basic but is well worth a read. The internet can be a useful place for learning and discussion but lacks the authority of quality published texts. If one started with Wearing rather than infomercials from tool company's and discussions on forums then the information about cap irons was there from 1988, and undoubtedly from much earlier in other texts (don't have a particularly well stocked woodworking library).
Paddy


----------



## CStanford (28 Nov 2015)

D_W":2gozkm4h said:


> Charlie - did you find your pre-2012 post referring to planecraft and suggesting that someone might use the cap iron to control tearout?
> 
> Because Warren is the only person I can recall mentioning it. I doubt he discovered anything other than to read 18th century excerpts. It's clear that it was already well discovered when it eliminated all other plane types from any significant market share almost all at once.



You keep asking everybody this foolish question. 

I can barely remember the details of last Christmas (without referring to photos!) much less what I may have been ranting about in 2012 or earlier on a woodworking forum. But you're right, all of this is subject to your own personal recollection. There could have been half a dozen or more people making the same point back then, but perhaps not as stridently. Or you missed the posts. Have you read every post on every woodworking forum before 2012? You seem to be asserting as much. What about individual woodworkers' sites, i.e. not woodworking forums? Or does it even matter? It's been in print since the 1920s in one of the most 'famous' woodworking publications in Western woodworking.

Otherwise, some of us have gotten along quite well with the list Paddy posted right above which is wholly consistent with Planecraft and several other books published essentially simultaneously with it through the years, Wearing being one of the best-known examples.

Are you sitting down? 

Prepare to be amazed: I have adjusted a cap iron before all of this 'stuff' hit the internet. I've also adjusted mouth aperture, honed the cutter, and adjusted it to take a light cut. The only thing astounding about this whole issue is how infatuated you are by it and this linkage to a mysterious fellow named "Warren." One is hard pressed to understand why the internet and "Warren" seem to have become your measure of things.


----------



## D_W (28 Nov 2015)

Because Warren is the only person I recall who ever actually consistently advocated using the cap iron.

Sure, you can get by without it, it'll just take longer and require more tolerance for spending and dust.

I'll duck out of this for now until I actually see evidence that anyone else ever addressed someone and offered that (cap iron) solution. There are copious responses to Warren suggesting he's wrong and nobody agreeing with him until 2012.

To suggest that there is much else out there is just incorrect. Except in texts that people failed to recommend until after 2012.


----------



## CStanford (28 Nov 2015)

It's sad to see somebody double-down on being an absolute ignoramus.


----------



## Droogs (28 Nov 2015)

@ DW
Can I ask, is Warren his first name or surname? Can you tell us his/her full name and where they've published/posted? Just so I know who you are talking about and can look up what they said.
Just so you know, I was told about adjusting the cap iron to account for the size of shaving being taken and avoid tear out, as part of school woodwork lessons in the 70's and 80's. Part of the standard practice at the time and being asked it's purpose during exams. So not new

rgds
droogs


----------



## Penfold (28 Nov 2015)

How about a LA sharpened to give an effective cutting angle of 52 deg or use a Stanley no 80.


----------



## CStanford (28 Nov 2015)

*Graham Blackburn Steps in for Ailing David Charlesworth*

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodw ... lesworth-2

By: Megan Fitzpatrick | September 19,* 2011*

*Planing for the Perfect Surface*

Graham Blackburn has joined the list of expert woodworkers instructing at this year’s *Woodworking in America Conference *(Sept. 30-Oct. 2 at the Northern Kentucky Convention Center). Friday, Sept. 30, 2-4 p.m & Saturday, Oct. 1, 4:30 p.m.-6:30 p.m. *(2011)*

*For the perfect surface you need to be able to plane any piece of wood in any direction, regardless of grain.* *This is what planes are designed to do. *Watch as Graham *demonstrates the secrets of the cap iron*, a jig-free method of sharpening, and the basic user techniques for guaranteed accuracy in order to turn virtually any bench plane — wooden, Stanley-type, or high-end — *into the ultimate finishing tool.*

Sound familiar? 

It's my understanding that the same information is imparted in Blackburn's video series that came out in 2005.

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/video ... -one-place

Cheers,

Charles


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (28 Nov 2015)

P


----------



## Sgian Dubh (28 Nov 2015)

To be perfectly honest, I don't properly understand how in recent years the setting of a cap iron, or as it seems recently to have been renamed, the chip-breaker, became contentious. I've been using standard bench planes since (and I rather dislike admitting this) the 1960s. The cap iron was a standard item then, as it had been for decades before that as far as I know. I quite quickly became aware of the different adjustments a user could make to a plane, e.g., sharpening (straight with bevelled corners, or curved), move the frog to open or close the mouth, adjust the cap iron for a fine or relatively coarse cut, flatten the sole, etc. I became aware of these adjustments because I was shown them by the joiners and furniture makers I worked with, including Bob Wearing who was one of my teachers at a fairly early point in my career.

Well, I guess this is one of those things that has simply left me a bit baffled, ha, ha. Slainte.


----------



## AndyT (28 Nov 2015)

Richard you are not the only one who is baffled.
I'm baffled at what this circular discussion of "who said what about the cap iron" has to do with marking the face side on a piece of wood, and why a few people seem to drag so many hand tool threads round into the same whirlpool, from which there seems to be no escape.

I've no idea who Warren is, or was in 2012. Has he been banned?


----------



## David C (28 Nov 2015)

I think Charles & David should take their private conversation elsewhere.

It is of no interest.

David


----------



## Cheshirechappie (28 Nov 2015)

Returning to the matter of face sides and edges, I can see the logic in using the inside surfaces of carcasses as the face side. However, having used the show side for as long as I can remember, I can see the logic in that, too. The important point is to be consistent.

A point not so far mentioned (I think) is that whichever faces and edges are chosen and marked as the references, those are ALWAYS the ones from which marking-out or measuring is done. Marking and mortice gauge fences run on the face edge or face side, and the stock of squares seats to the face side or edge - NEVER on the non-reference side or edge. If any measuring or comparing of diagonals has to be done during trial fits or assembly, it is done to the face sides or edges.


----------



## CStanford (28 Nov 2015)

It depends on the method of carcase construction of course but one would never want the inside of a carcase to be the convex side if it started to move. It also should be the most accurately prepared surface so it's best that it be the reference surface. It's possible one can run out of thickness in treating the opposite side. If this happened to be the outside of the carcase it would be much less an issue.

This doesn't affect selecting the 'pretty' side one bit unless that side would tend toward the concave which would represent a potentially devastating error in construction.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (29 Nov 2015)

I think if a carcase component warped, one has a problem whether it becomes concave or convex. Sound construction methods and allowing timber to stabilise as much as possible are usually sufficient to avoid the problem, or at any rate are regarded as good practice to limit the liklihood of such problems.

I don't in any way suggest that selecting the inner faces of a carcase as the reference faces is 'wrong', indeed I see the logic in so working. However, I was taught to use the outer (show) face as reference, and have done so without problem since. This seems a classic case of 'different ways', with arguments to made in favour of either, and it seems from previous posts that different craftsmen have taken either approach in the past, and produced lasting work.

My real point was to emphasise that whichever method is chosen, to think through what is intended to be achieved and then to be consistent through the whole job. Also, most importantly, only ever use the reference surfaces (face side and face edge) to measure or mark from, whether with marking or mortice gauges, square and marking knife, or measuring devices during trial fits or final assembly.


----------



## CStanford (29 Nov 2015)

If the carcase sides are to be solid slabs (not post and frame) and there is plenty of thickness to work with then it's probably not a problem. If thickness is close, it's better to make sure the inside surface is true and therefore the reference surface. The inside surfaces are of course nothing more (or less) than the side opposite the one the cabinetmaker has chosen to show to the world.

Wood always moves. Letting it come to equilibrium with the shop environment doesn't prevent future movement. During the process of coming into equilibrium the cabinetmaker is given the opportunity to see where the future movement will tend to be and then the construction should be planned accordingly. Letting wood come to equilibrium in the shop only prevents excessive movement during the build itself. And of course we're only talking about previously properly kiln dried or properly air dried wood. 

In a solid sided carcase the drawer runners help prevent that side from cupping concave but one must have oriented the slab so that it would cup in that direction in the first place. The runners are much less effective in preventing movement the other way. If the side is glued up of many narrow pieces then it's less an issue, though overall cosmetics may very well be if the article isn't veneered -- a matter of style and taste not the subject of the thread.


----------



## RB61 (4 Dec 2015)

Thanks to all. This is one of the most informative and interesting posts that this Yank has seen.

Ray
in the Colonies


----------



## Bluekingfisher (4 Dec 2015)

CStanford":2ilkec1a said:


> If the carcase sides are to be solid slabs (not post and frame) and there is plenty of thickness to work with then it's probably not a problem. If thickness is close, it's better to make sure the inside surface is true and therefore the reference surface. The inside surfaces are of course nothing more (or less) than the side opposite the one the cabinetmaker has chosen to show to the world.
> 
> Wood always moves. Letting it come to equilibrium with the shop environment doesn't prevent future movement. During the process of coming into equilibrium the cabinetmaker is given the opportunity to see where the future movement will tend to be and then the construction should be planned accordingly. Letting wood come to equilibrium in the shop only prevents excessive movement during the build itself. And of course we're only talking about previously properly kiln dried or properly air dried wood.
> 
> In a solid sided carcase the drawer runners help prevent that side from cupping concave but one must have oriented the slab so that it would cup in that direction in the first place. The runners are much less effective in preventing movement the other way. If the side is glued up of many narrow pieces then it's less an issue, though overall cosmetics may very well be if the article isn't veneered -- a matter of style and taste not the subject of the thread.




Thanks. A very valid point, particularly for a hobby woodworker (such as me) such information can be overlooked in simply exposing the most attractive face. 

David


----------



## CStanford (4 Dec 2015)

The Mona Lisa was painted on board (poplar) in the very early 1500s, is housed in a rigorously controlled environment, and still the wood moves and gives its curators fits.


----------



## custard (4 Dec 2015)

CStanford":26qsbfef said:


> If the side is glued up of many narrow pieces then it's less an issue, though overall cosmetics may very well be if the article isn't veneered -- a matter of style and taste not the subject of the thread.



Here's an interesting thing, given enough time any horizontal surface almost always tends to cup up at the edges, in other words the top surface tends to become concave. I've seen hundreds of antiques that follow exactly this pattern, which included single wide boards with the heartside both up and down, as well as jointed surfaces that ranged from two boards to many small staves.

I've heard an ingenious explanation which if I can remember correctly goes along the lines that the uppermost surface will initially collect the moisture condensing from the air, so will tend to cup downwards, in other words become convex. But because the surface is generally fixed to the frame below the wood cells in the very top layer eventually become compressed, almost crushed, and over time lose some of their elasticity, so the "resting" position eventually becomes concave.

Whether or not this is correct I don't know, but the statistical prevalence of top surface concavity is too significant to ignore.


----------



## MusicMan (4 Dec 2015)

Custard, I think that is correct. A similar effect occurs in the tenons of woodwind instruments (the joints in the middle), which are restrained from expansion by the waxed thread lapping that was formerly used for sealing the joints. Of course they are by no means in a controlled atmosphere and suffer over 90% humidity at a somewhat elevated temperature when the player blows them. The wood in the joints gets very wet, but is constrained from expanding against the lapping so expands inwards. Most woodwinds with lapped joints that have been regularly played for 10-20 years or so therefore have slight (maybe 0.02 mm) constrictions at the insides of the tenons, which sometimes affects the playing. Nowadays cork 'lapping' is used which is much more compliant and the problem has gone away.

(Wood wind bores are normally made to a precision of about 0.01-0.05 mm and have been since the 18th century).

Your explanation in furniture is interesting and plausible. I don't think it is elasticity that is lost, but that while wet it is constrained to stay flat by the frame, but when it (the top surface) dries, it will shrink again and go concave. 

Keith


----------



## CStanford (4 Dec 2015)

custard":ffx3miim said:


> CStanford":ffx3miim said:
> 
> 
> > If the side is glued up of many narrow pieces then it's less an issue, though overall cosmetics may very well be if the article isn't veneered -- a matter of style and taste not the subject of the thread.
> ...



Very good stuff.


----------



## J_Cramer (5 Dec 2015)

Custard, that is most interesting. I remember finishing expert Bob Flexner mentioning something like this in his writings a few years ago, it was called 'compression set' or 'compression shrinkage' or something along these lines. There are also papers about the subject written by one F.C. Howlett, e.g.

http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic ... owlett.pdf


Cheers
Jürgen


----------



## Bluekingfisher (8 Dec 2015)

CStanford":1osn71al said:


> The Mona Lisa was painted on board (poplar) in the very early 1500s, is housed in a rigorously controlled environment, and still the wood moves and gives its curators fits.




And very much an anti climax it is too...............having seen it recently!

David


----------

