# Hand planes



## gwr (5 Dec 2016)

Why are old pre ww2 Stanley planes regarded as much better than the latest offerings? I believe they are mass produced in the Far East or somewhere now. 

Is it the materials that get used now or the finish of them that make the difference or both ?

The reason I ask is after looking to get a couple of reasonable priced planes as I only have a Stanley 4 not sure how old but not as early as www2 and older 91/2 block plane.

On A popular auction site they regularly fetch more than a new Stanley or record. I realise the new planes would be of little use straight out the box but after a little or lot of flattening what makes people say these planes are not so good?


----------



## undergroundhunter (6 Dec 2016)

Don't get hung up on the pre war thing, I have post war stanleys and I have a no4 from about 1911 and to be honest in use they are exactly the same. The only difference is the post war ones took a little more fettling (not much more) to get them in tip top working condition. I do have a 4 1/2 that took considerable fettling but that's my own fault for buying a new looking plane in its box, if its never been used there is probably a reason why but in the end its a good user plane.

All my post war planes are from the 50's and 60's any later than that I cant really comment.

Matt


----------



## AndyT (6 Dec 2016)

Stick to planes made in USA or Sheffield. There are so many of those around that there is no need to risk post 1980s planes made in Brazil, India or Taiwan. Don't buy anything made cheaper for the DIY market - eg planes with a spokeshave blade or a pressed steel body.

In my own experience of a small selection of Stanley planes there are good planes from before and after WWII including some from the 70s with plastic handles.

I've actually only bought one new, substandard plane, an Anant bullnose. You ask what is actually wrong with a bad plane. 
This one had a casting that was not straight. The plating was thick and uneven. The threaded adjuster does not contact the blade snugly. The threaded part is so far under the proper diameter that the adjuster wobbles on it - there's not enough metal there. The corners were sharp and uncomfortable in the hand. The paint is uneven. The pins which hold the removable toe are crooked.

I think these are the sort of faults you can expect on a plane made to look ok in a photo, but with no care as to its performance.


----------



## NickN (6 Dec 2016)

One of the best planes I used was a plastic handled Stanley of maybe only 30-40 years vintage, so the whole 'pre-war' thing is, imho, perhaps meaningful for collectors, not so relevant for users.


----------



## bugbear (6 Dec 2016)

gwr":2akmkl3r said:


> Why are old pre ww2 Stanley planes regarded as much better than the latest offerings? I believe they are mass produced in the Far East or somewhere now.
> 
> Is it the materials that get used now or the finish of them that make the difference or both ?
> 
> ...



what-makes-new-hand-planes-bad-t85883.html

BugBear


----------



## G S Haydon (6 Dec 2016)

gwr":3v4uyn2r said:


> Why are old pre ww2 Stanley planes regarded as much better than the latest offerings?



Because if you repeat lie often enough it becomes the truth. It's something that a beginner would say or someone with very little knowledge of tools, I probably regurgitated the same line for a while as well. Andy describes perfectly what to look for. In many ways post WW2 are better. Typically bigger wheel adjuster and you can also be sure the cutter will advance in a clockwise motion.


----------



## bugbear (6 Dec 2016)

G S Haydon":3ro7zj3n said:


> gwr":3ro7zj3n said:
> 
> 
> > Why are old pre ww2 Stanley planes regarded as much better than the latest offerings?
> ...



Wow - I think you've gone a little TOO early. The "clockwise" thing assumed its modern style in type 6 (1888-1892), and the adjuster got "big" in type 12 (1919-1924), which was also the first "high knob".

http://www.hyperkitten.com/tools/stanle ... _study.php

So in terms of the concerns you raise, post WW One is fine, let alone Two!!

My personal preference/recommendation is early (say pre 1955) Record - much easier to find the UK than early Stanley.

BugBear


----------



## ED65 (6 Dec 2016)

gwr":2vmel66o said:


> Why are old pre ww2 Stanley planes regarded as much better than the latest offerings?


Some of it is down to the finesse of the planes themselves, and part of it is looks, but a lot of it is hand-me-down opinion from people who prefer their looks and then couldn't separate that from how they worked... and to be less charitable, some would not have known how to get the most from a metal bench plane so they were actually no judge at all of good/better/best.



gwr":2vmel66o said:


> Is it the materials that get used now or the finish of them that make the difference or both ?


People often say the material quality is part of it and there might be some truth in that sometimes, but it's very hard to notice any difference in quality of the cast iron in the frog or body castings between a $500 antique and a £25 modern plane. I think it's 99% about the machining and/or the quality of the original patterns myself. The original patterns were a little more refined and became bulkier and cruder over time, until you get to the modern ones which are visibly crude and ugly, and then not particularly well machined on top of that.

As far as the all-important cutting edges go, the irons on old planes _might _be better than some produced later (70s Stanley irons made in England are said to be the worst going, super soft). But your bog standard Chinese iron from today's maker is at least as hard as many a good antique Stanley iron. And the modern ones can be substantially thicker, which if the plane weren't cheap as chips and look a little crude would be being sung as a plus point, as it is for a Hock or Clifton iron.



gwr":2vmel66o said:


> I realise the new planes would be of little use straight out the box but after a little or lot of flattening what makes people say these planes are not so good?


You might be surprised how little fettling is required, especially given how often the You Must Fettle For Good Performance thing gets repeated. I'm not saying fettling isn't required, but a lot of it gets done without the person actually checking first if it's actually needed. Flattening soles is the number one culprit here.

With the cheaper modern stuff, like any product of a certain price level you might be unlucky and get a Monday-morning special but equally there are perfectly presentable examples out there and happy users of same. I have a no-name block plane that looks like it came straight from the same factory that produces Faithfull's offerings and it required virtually nothing other than honing the iron to work well. In fact it did take shavings with no fettling at all, just there was a little burr on the mouth that needed to be addressed and a few other rough spots. I also have two modern no. 4s that both worked quite well or very well essentially straight from the box.

Now that said, I'd much prefer to give a good older plane a new home. 

Even if it was covered head to toe with rust once cleaned up and fettled (as needed, it might require very little if it was a user in its day) you'd likely end up with a better, probably lighter plane that cost you practically nothing but a little time and elbow grease to get ready. And it would win in the looks department IMO, but that's obviously a very personal thing.


----------



## D_W (6 Dec 2016)

With all of the planes, other than proportions, it doesn't really matter much unless there is something wrong with a plane. Wrong things I've seen on planes:
* An adjuster nub too thick for the cap iron to fit over it (very new plane - plastic handle made in england)
* twisted castings (only once - WWII era plane)
* Undesirably soft iron (only once, type 20 US made plane)

Aside from those things, what's often made out as a quality difference (which it is) is the level of finish work on the planes and the amount of milling on the frog. The quality difference is inferred to be a capability difference (which it isn't). The planes with frogs sanded coarsely work very well if nothing is actually wrong with them. 

Maybe the "good plane" rate was higher on the older planes, but I prefer the newer planes when one is found good. Not newest, but just later types, WW2 or so and later. I don't care about beech handles or plastic covered knobs, or the hard rubber reform school handles - all of those things are fine with me as long as they're not actually defective. The market sees little difference in value for the various planes, too - the later types generally bring as much as the earlier types when in good shape.


----------



## G S Haydon (6 Dec 2016)

bugbear":1tagx68v said:


> Wow - I think you've gone a little TOO early. The "clockwise" thing assumed its modern style in type 6 (1888-1892), and the adjuster got "big" in type 12 (1919-1924), which was also the first "high knob".
> 
> http://www.hyperkitten.com/tools/stanle ... _study.php
> 
> ...



Nope, just pointing out why Andy's advise is spot on! Generic comments such as "buy pre WW2 because it's better" is utter rubbish. Good tip on the Record but they made plenty of good planes well after that.


----------



## memzey (6 Dec 2016)

Would it be correct to say that 100 or so years ago such planes would only have been used by professionals who relied on those tools to earn their living? If so does it not follow that there would have been much less tolerance for general crappiness than amongst the modern DIYer who is looking to pick up a plane for £20 odd from his local hardware store? Not seeking to present this as a fact but merely something for consideration.


----------



## ED65 (6 Dec 2016)

Mostly yes memzey. Going back to before Stanley Rule & Level there were "gentlemen woodworkers" and the occasional "handy man" or "home Mechanic" working at home, usually in his kitchen, but obviously they represented a minuscule proportion of tool buyers, so virtually all tool production was intended for nothing but the professional user back when so much was made from wood.


----------



## AJB Temple (6 Dec 2016)

For the record (see what i did there) I was given my first plane which was a No 4 when I was in my mid teens and it was from the early 1970s but had never been used so was about 10 years old when I got it. Stanley, plastic handles. It was fine then and is fine now and has shaved a hell of a lot of wood. I have a few hand planes of varying qualities and sizes and with a bit of attention to set up and sharpening they all work perfectly satisfactorily. People seem to obsess over planes but as long as they are broadly decent quality the vast majority can easily be made to work well.


----------



## skipdiver (6 Dec 2016)

AJB Temple":tmc44msg said:


> For the record (see what i did there) I was given my first plane which was a No 4 when I was in my mid teens and it was from the early 1970s but had never been used so was about 10 years old when I got it. Stanley, plastic handles. It was fine then and is fine now and has shaved a hell of a lot of wood. I have a few hand planes of varying qualities and sizes and with a bit of attention to set up and sharpening they all work perfectly satisfactorily. People seem to obsess over planes but as long as they are broadly decent quality the vast majority can easily be made to work well.



Agreed. I also have a plastic handled No 4 i bought new mid 70's. It works ok, although i prefer my 4-1/2, which is an earlier model i inherited.


----------



## Bm101 (6 Dec 2016)

Does it essentially come down to production standards versus demand? The way I have it in my mind (probably mistakenly!) is a bit like this. As handtool use fell in favour of electrical tools for the professional market in general, less money is invested by the toolmaker in handtools. There's less return so less investment. The way I understand it it's a very gradual curve at first. So any fella making a living from it has to decide where to invest his money as at any time in history but all of a sudden there's huge time and labour savings to be made for the investment in power tools. The likes of Stanley capitalise on this of course. So your slightly later plane might be better than your earlier ones because improvements were made. The raised ring round the front knob was designed to stop the knob splitting for example. But the planes are still in widespread use. The working fellas all have them and still use them. There's no fascination with having a older one. It's a tool that does a job to earn money. No mystique about it. But then, many years later, you get the DIY explosion. This is where things change. All of a sudden you have a market again. But mostly it's a small money market, these people are not going to invest money into 'antique' tools. Much in the same way that people ripped out or boarded over their fireplaces etc the trend is for the modern. By now the accountants have had their say and production values have dropped off. Castings are no longer left to settle for a while then finished because whats the point in that? Loses money and there's no market for it. Same guys doing it for a living are still using their planes when needed but they are professionals and can tune sharpen etc without thinking about it. About this time production falls right off. World economics means it's cheaper to move production abroad. Quality control falls further. 
But wait! What's that Horn sounding over the hill? It's the rise of the hobby woodworker. (Tooooot!) No need to make money, not a professional. The Market appraises. Lie Nielsen arise, Clifton, Veritas all rub their hands together and rightly so the world would be a poorer place without them. As tools accumulate value the collectors appear like wraiths. The myth arise that that the older the tool the better.
I bet I'm not the only one who has heard that older steel is better. I have come to think this means that tool production was better until the 70's odd and then it fell a*se over tit.. Then you had a modern resurgence. Same thing.

I'd love to hear how you guys who actually know what you're talking about view this. I'm sure I'm wrong on a lot of fronts and tbh I'm not actually sure why this subject interests me as much as it does. But it does. 

In the end, I'm guessing it comes down to a game of averages. 
I'm happy to admit I know nothing. It's purely guesswork!  

Regards as always
Chris.


----------



## Steve1066 (6 Dec 2016)

gwr":15g4yest said:


> Why are old pre ww2 Stanley planes regarded as much better than the latest offerings? I believe they are mass produced in the Far East or somewhere now.
> 
> Is it the materials that get used now or the finish of them that make the difference or both ?
> 
> ...


It's all rubbish. Does not matter if if 100 years old or 10 minutes old, cost £5 or £500. It's how you set it up and uses it that mater.
The old saying a it's a bad craftsmen that blames his tool is very true. 
It's just tool snobs and collecters trying to justify the money they spend and out do each other.
I


----------



## skipdiver (6 Dec 2016)

I have a very heavy and solid (read expensive) Makita electric planer that i bought because it speeded up the fitting of the many doors that went into a house build. My hand planes were often neglected, except for a bit of final fettling. I then used it to trim PVC windows that had been made a bit tight when i did those for a while. I haven't touched the electric planer for years now, much preferring to use a hand plane now that i have the time and no cost pressures to consider. 

Power tools usually speeded things up and allowed you to earn a living a bit easier. I went from a handsaw and mitre box to Knobex saw, then onto a chopsaw for skirtings and archi's. Stanley Yankee was replaced with cordless drill. 

I think hand tools have had somewhat of a revival among hobbyists and some DIY'ers but if i were to go on site now, i bet every man and his dog would have the latest power tools and every labour saving device they could lay their hands on. The push for greater speed and greed of developers has pushed it that way. You can now pick up a screw and drive it straight into wood, with no pilot hole and no countersink as the screw will do that for you. The need for speed has driven the power tool market to the detriment of hand tools and their use. I've worked with site joiners that didn't have a handplane in their toolkit. If there is no mass market for decent affordable handplanes, then they won't be made, so you get the cheap tat a one end of the spectrum and the very expensive ones at the other aimed at the few more discerning customers. The bit in between is not as well served as it once was but is a bit better lately.


----------



## Steve1066 (6 Dec 2016)

skipdiver":fl2lf1td said:


> I have a very heavy and solid (read expensive) Makita electric planer that i bought because it speeded up the fitting of the many doors that went into a house build. My hand planes were often neglected, except for a bit of final fettling. I then used it to trim PVC windows that had been made a bit tight when i did those for a while. I haven't touched the electric planer for years now, much preferring to use a hand plane now that i have the time and no cost pressures to consider.
> 
> Power tools usually speeded things up and allowed you to earn a living a bit easier. I went from a handsaw and mitre box to Knobex saw, then onto a chopsaw for skirtings and archi's. Stanley Yankee was replaced with cordless drill.
> 
> I think hand tools have had somewhat of a revival among hobbyists and some DIY'ers but if i were to go on site now, i bet every man and his dog would have the latest power tools and every labour saving device they could lay their hands on. The push for greater speed and greed of developers has pushed it that way. You can now pick up a screw and drive it straight into wood, with no pilot hole and no countersink as the screw will do that for you. The need for speed has driven the power tool market to the detriment of hand tools and their use. I've worked with site joiners that didn't have a handplane in their toolkit. If there is no mass market for decent affordable handplanes, then they won't be made, so you get the cheap tat a one end of the spectrum and the very expensive ones at the other aimed at the few more discerning customers. The bit in between is not as well served as it once was but is a bit better lately.


I am a site carpenter/ shop fitter and uses my faithfull no4 and faithfull block plane pretty much every day, and have bone for 10 years when I got them to replace my stolen Stanley planes, which were made in the 90s. I will admit that I only use them for cleaning up after the power tools. 
But there nothing wrong with them, there just as good as any other hand plane you can get for a lot less money.


----------



## gwr (6 Dec 2016)

Thank You for all the Input folks from reading it all there is some mixed opinions on this as there is with most things.

I can't justify a new Ln / Clifton or the likes but will keep looking for decent used models as It seems the new Stanley/Record is a lottery to whether you get a reasonable one or not.


----------



## Vann (7 Dec 2016)

Steve1066":1bytqvjh said:


> It's all rubbish. Does not matter if if 100 years old or 10 minutes old, cost £5 or £500. It's how you set it up and uses it that mater.
> The old saying a it's a bad craftsmen that blames his tool is very true.
> It's just tool snobs and collecters trying to justify the money they spend and out do each other.
> I


I think you're wrong Steve. It's quality control.

I think if you bought 100 new Stanley planes back in 1917, you'd have maybe 1 or 2 shitters in there. If you bought 100 new Stanleys today you'd maybe get 10 that weren't shitters (just a rough estimate).

Just things like seasoning the castings so they don't keep stress relieving (i.e. moving) after they're machined - and general attention to detail.

People pay ridiculous prices for rarer old planes. But people also pay more than is necessary for a shiney new plane, which is also ridiculous, as it's the blade that does the cutting, not the chrome/paint. I don't know about American made Stanleys, but in Britain it seems quality control was declining seriously at Stanley from early 1950s, and at Record by the end of 1950s. There were many good planes made later than that, but the chances of getting a good one decrease slightly decade by decade.

If you keep an eye out for an older plane that isn't collectable, you should get a reasonable plane at a very reasonable price, and have less hassle getting it to perform well. Or buy a new one with a consumer guarantee - so you can exchange it a few times until you get a good one.

My tuppence worth.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Steve1066 (8 Dec 2016)

Vann":2tjuefeu said:


> Steve1066":2tjuefeu said:
> 
> 
> > It's all rubbish. Does not matter if if 100 years old or 10 minutes old, cost £5 or £500. It's how you set it up and uses it that mater.
> ...


I have no problem with old, new, expensive or cheep plane. My point is it doesn't matter what you got it's how you uses it.
An old plane will neeeh to be set up the same as a new cheep plane, I will say you will have to do it a bit more often in the first year or two with a cheep plane as you stated the casting are not seasoned properly, I know this from experience.
If you want to collect planes collect them, if you wish to spend large some of money on then do so.
It seems to me that some people try to justify this by saying " it's new it's cheep it's Rubbish " 

I have more planes than I need. old, new, wood, Japanese and a nice paper wait, Stanley Sweathart low angle jack.
The planes I use everyday are cheep Faithful planes, had them 10 years I make a leaving with them they work fine on hardwood softwood end grain. 
Cheep plane are not rubbish you just have to set them up in the same way you would and old second hand one you got from the local boot fair/ market.


----------



## ED65 (8 Dec 2016)

Steve1066":1y6cxyvf said:


> An old plane will neeeh to be set up the same as a new cheep plane, I will say you will have to do it a bit more often in the first year or two with a cheep plane as you stated the casting are not seasoned properly, I know this from experience.


This may relate to the amount of work the planes are subjected to but I have two low-end no. 4s bought new and neither one has needed to be set up again after the (minimal) initial fettling work, most of the effort being expended on the cap irons. 

Also, for anyone who has never bought cheap and doubts whether they can possibly work well, neither has had any work done to flatten its sole but they'll each take shavings of three or four thou without batting an eyelid. That's about 0.08mm for the purely metric thinkers out there.


----------



## custard (8 Dec 2016)

ED65":xzb15jgk said:


> for anyone who has never bought cheap and doubts whether they can possibly work well, neither has had any work done to flatten its sole but they'll each take shavings of three or four thou without batting an eyelid. That's about 0.08mm for the purely metric thinkers out there.




That's not much of a recommendation! A four thou shaving is decidedly on the heavy side, that's a tool for a site carpenter rather than a cabinet maker. 

If you're planing a drawer side for a piston fit, or teasing a shelf into a housing, or just jointing the edges of board to make up a top, then you'll need shavings finer than three or four thou. And if your plane won't get you there then you can't produce first class work.

The good news is that a bog standard Record or Stanley of any vintage can usually be brought up to cabinet making standards, but it's unlikely to perform at that level when you first get it.


----------



## ED65 (8 Dec 2016)

Three or four thou shavings can be read through, I'd like to meet the site carpenter who would regularly require those :mrgreen: I am of course aware you can produce thinner shavings than that. I'm also aware they're not needed in 99.9% of cases. 

And anyway, as has been repeated here many times before: we shouldn't judge the surface by the waste produced.

A smoothing plane taking 3-4 thou shavings can absolutely yield a pristine surface with no tearout on most woods, which is all most work requires. As D_W has posted a few times recently, you can do the same taking shavings a heck of a lot thicker than this, but I'll let him talk about that if he's inclined.


----------



## Steve1066 (8 Dec 2016)

custard":16ap7wzh said:


> ED65":16ap7wzh said:
> 
> 
> > for anyone who has never bought cheap and doubts whether they can possibly work well, neither has had any work done to flatten its sole but they'll each take shavings of three or four thou without batting an eyelid. That's about 0.08mm for the purely metric thinkers out there.
> ...


Funny you should bring up drawer, I have just had to fit some with a tolerance of 0.2mm and my old Faithfull no4 got me there.


----------



## D_W (8 Dec 2016)

ED65":1her76he said:


> Three or four thou shavings can be read through, I'd like to meet the site carpenter who would regularly require those :mrgreen: I am of course aware you can produce thinner shavings than that. I'm also aware they're not needed in 99.9% of cases.
> 
> And anyway, as has been repeated here many times before: we shouldn't judge the surface by the waste produced.
> 
> A smoothing plane taking 3-4 thou shavings can absolutely yield a pristine surface with no tearout on most woods, which is all most work requires. As D_W has posted a few times recently, you can do the same taking shavings a heck of a lot thicker than this, but I'll let him talk about that if he's inclined.



If the iron has enough camber, that certainly leaves a suitable finish. In the light, you can see little scallops but that only matters if you care that you can see little scallops.

Good for drawer sides and such, and a nice shaving depth to take before very fine shavings on nicer surfaces. More than good enough for anything other than fine work show surfaces, though - and certainly much finer than the level of finish on my 1950s house, which is done well enough, but I can see the finish marks from the electric planer.


----------



## custard (8 Dec 2016)

ED65":1qvs3wgx said:


> Three or four thou shavings can be read through, I'd like to meet the site carpenter who would regularly require those :mrgreen: I am of course aware you can produce thinner shavings than that. I'm also aware they're not needed in 99.9% of cases.



They're not required for show surfaces, but they're absolutely required in the final fitting and jointing of pretty much every single piece I make!


----------



## worn thumbs (8 Dec 2016)

custard":8xerzerr said:


> ED65":8xerzerr said:
> 
> 
> > Three or four thou shavings can be read through, I'd like to meet the site carpenter who would regularly require those :mrgreen: I am of course aware you can produce thinner shavings than that. I'm also aware they're not needed in 99.9% of cases.
> ...


Interesting idea-do you give the owners of the furniture detailed instructions about permissible moisture content in their homes?


----------



## custard (8 Dec 2016)

I can't believe this is even a matter for debate! 

Picture this, you're at your bench and you want to true up the end of an Oak drawer side, so you pull out your shooting board and set to. But your plane will only take a minimum shaving of three or four thou. That won't be a happy or successful experience, epic spelching and the workpiece will buck preventing an accurate cut.

Or you're jointing the edges of boards for a table top. Will a minimum shaving of three or four thou get you invisible glue lines? Not a hope.

Or you're truing up an over long table leg, you've scribed the mark you need to hit, but your plane connects with a teeth jarring three or four thou cut. Ouch!

I could go on and on.

The point is that taking a Record or Stanley plane to that next level of tune where you can get a one thou shaving will cost you about twenty minutes of effort. It doesn't take anything away from the plane's performance, it just adds additional and valuable functionality. So why wouldn't you do that?


----------



## Steve1066 (8 Dec 2016)

custard":3lpfjtym said:


> I can't believe this is even a matter for debate!
> 
> Picture this, you're at your bench and you want to true up the end of an Oak drawer side, so you pull out your shooting board and set to. But your plane will only take a minimum shaving of three or four thou. That won't be a happy or successful experience, epic spelching and the workpiece will buck preventing an accurate cut.
> 
> ...


You can take any plane and spend a bit of time setting it up and it will take a one thou shaving. It doesn't have to be a Stanley or a Record. It's the craftsman not the tool


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (9 Dec 2016)

After reading a conversation like this once I decided to measure shaving thickness, it was a slow work day, I found that if I give the calipers a good squeeze I can get 0 thou shavings. 
I've had some planes that needed a bit more than some time "setting up" before they would work right, one was truly banana shaped (don't know by how much but enough to measure in fractions not thous), a plastic handled stanley, it is not possible to take fine shavings when they are like that, regardless of how good a craftsman you are. I got my local saw works (NLS of Waltham Cross) to grind all the soles flat for me , they charged me £5 per plane and £20 to square and flatten one 4 and one 5 (for shooting), it's not a service they offer but I am a regular customer and just asked. All the planes benefited from it and the banana one will now take super fine shavings, considering they all cost between £1 and £20 it did not seem like much to spend and saved me a lot of bother scraping or sanding the soles. 
I only have one plane I've bought new, a quangsheng block plane from Workshop Heaven which worked straight from the box. If I were buying my first planes now I would probably go for a QS as you can get a metric by which to judge your other purchases and they're not that expensive especially as ebay prices for stanley/records seem to have gone up considerably since I last bought one


----------



## Steve1066 (9 Dec 2016)

Paddy Roxburgh":33j8ecwn said:


> After reading a conversation like this once I decided to measure shaving thickness, it was a slow work day, I found that if I give the calipers a good squeeze I can get 0 thou shavings.
> I've had some planes that needed a bit more than some time "setting up" before they would work right, one was truly banana shaped (don't know by how much but enough to measure in fractions not thous), a plastic handled stanley, it is not possible to take fine shavings when they are like that, regardless of how good a craftsman you are. I got my local saw works (NLS of Waltham Cross) to grind all the soles flat for me , they charged me £5 per plane and £20 to square and flatten one 4 and one 5 (for shooting), it's not a service they offer but I am a regular customer and just asked. All the planes benefited from it and the banana one will now take super fine shavings, considering they all cost between £1 and £20 it did not seem like much to spend and saved me a lot of bother scraping or sanding the soles.
> I only have one plane I've bought new, a quangsheng block plane from Workshop Heaven which worked straight from the box. If I were buying my first planes now I would probably go for a QS as you can get a metric by which to judge your other purchases and they're not that expensive especially as ebay prices for stanley/records seem to have gone up considerably since I last bought one


 Learning how to set up your tools probably is all part of being a craftsman there's nothing wrong with what you've done but you have learnt nothing about your tools so in the future if you accidentally drop one or you pick up another one that needs work doing to it you've got a pay somebody else to do it.,Or start the learning process again
Applied knowledge to gain experience this is how we learn.
I had never measured a shaving till recently,I have found reading the threads has opened up a world of knowledge to be applied and learnt from.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (9 Dec 2016)

Steve, I understand what you are saying, but everyone has to decide how far to take self sufficiency. My main focus is on fixing boats and maintaining my tools so I can struggle on with life. When you buy a chisel do you buy one with a handle? Do you buy saws with teeth already cut? If I didn't have a mortgage, a child and an ex wife and could just potter about I would love to start out with a slab of quarter sawn beech and some O1 steel and make all my planes and saws, in fact it would be fun to start with some ore and build a forge, but my business model is already unrealistic enough.
I love reading the threads here from people who make their own tools, but there is always a limit, did they plant the tree that they are using for that saw handle? One day I will retire and can pursue these things.
Despite rapidly approaching 50 and having made and repaired things most of my life there is SOOO much I can still learn and how to save £5 flattening a plane sole is low on my list, and to be honest I don't think I would find it that difficult. On another thread recently someone commented that they make their own cross dowels because they are pricey, at about 5 pence each! Fair play to them, but I'd spend the 5p. 
The comment about spending £100ish on a QS plane was directed mainly at the OP or other beginners. If you are teaching yourself "in the dark" with no one to show how a well tuned plane should work it is difficult to know when you have it right. I've never even touched a clifton or lie nielson, but my experience with my QS block plane leads me to believe that you can't really get a lot better than that. Beyond that buy any plane and make it work as well as the QS, you can even sell the QS on for not a lot less than you bought it for. This advice is obviously not directed at you.
By the way. the reason I am at home writing this nonsense rather than at the dock pursuing my unrealistic business model is because I left a chisel in a cupboard below my bench a couple of days ago and whilst reaching to retrieve something else it cut my finger down to the bone.
Paddy


----------



## CStanford (9 Dec 2016)

Great set of posts Paddy.

This, by the way, is PRICELESS:

"I found that if I give the calipers a good squeeze I can get 0 thou shavings."


----------



## memzey (9 Dec 2016)

Just noticed you're in Enfield Lock Paddy. We used to live on Aldridge Avenue and my in laws still live on Ordnance road. Whereabouts are you based? I'm often in the area and have probably gone past you more than once!


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (9 Dec 2016)

memzey":2lyzitr7 said:


> Just noticed you're in Enfield Lock Paddy. We used to live on Aldridge Avenue and my in laws still live on Ordnance road. Whereabouts are you based? I'm often in the area and have probably gone past you more than once!



At Enfield Dock at the very end of Ordnance Road South (next to river). You won't have driven past as we are in an industrial estate, but may well have walked past if you walk down the river. big white polytunnel opposite side of the river from where rifles pub used to be


----------



## Steve1066 (9 Dec 2016)

Paddy Roxburgh":3rkpkbc2 said:


> the reason I am at home writing this nonsense rather than at the dock pursuing my unrealistic business model is because I left a chisel in a cupboard below my bench a couple of days ago and whilst reaching to retrieve something else it cut my finger down to the bone.
> Paddy


if you can type you can work


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (9 Dec 2016)

Steve1066":26kv90cj said:


> Paddy Roxburgh":26kv90cj said:
> 
> 
> > the reason I am at home writing this nonsense rather than at the dock pursuing my unrealistic business model is because I left a chisel in a cupboard below my bench a couple of days ago and whilst reaching to retrieve something else it cut my finger down to the bone.
> ...



I sincerely hope you're joking.
Last time I cut myself I went straight from the hospital back to work, got an infection, spent three days in hospital on a drip and they nearly amputated a finger.


----------



## CStanford (9 Dec 2016)

It sounds as if Paddy is enjoying one of the few perks of being self-employed, a day off every now and again or a start or end of day of one's own choosing. The only time being stolen from an employer is from oneself.


----------



## Steve1066 (9 Dec 2016)

Paddy Roxburgh":5jpg5a33 said:


> Steve1066":5jpg5a33 said:
> 
> 
> > Paddy Roxburgh":5jpg5a33 said:
> ...


Yes joking. the days of super glueing a cuts are well and truly over 
Rest and get well


----------



## memzey (9 Dec 2016)

Paddy Roxburgh":1j7y7x1f said:


> memzey":1j7y7x1f said:
> 
> 
> > Just noticed you're in Enfield Lock Paddy. We used to live on Aldridge Avenue and my in laws still live on Ordnance road. Whereabouts are you based? I'm often in the area and have probably gone past you more than once!
> ...


I used to walk the dog down there along the canal! I know exactly where you are. Isn't there a metals place near you as well, selling bar stock and the like?


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (9 Dec 2016)

Yeah, Parkside steel. they don't keep stock anymore (all kept up north), just offices. I do a fair bit of business with them (well a fair bit for me, peanuts for them)


----------



## memzey (9 Dec 2016)

Awesome. It's a shame I don't live round there anymore (in St. Albans now) I'd have had you round for a cuppa! Such a small world. My front door was about 100 yards from your workshop!


----------



## Bm101 (9 Dec 2016)

Blimey Memzey! I hate to say this.... But I feel I have to. Don't go popping in to have a chat with Paddy. He comes across as a reasonable sort online. But let me tell you.
He's a Monster. A Monster I tell you! :shock: 
When he offered to put my workbench top through his P/T for free I didn't realise I'd have to hold one end of it, (I could have had a bad back for all he knew!). I got to have a look round my first real wood workshop, boatbuilding no less (I_ like_ narrowboats), have a nice chat with a genuine and friendly fella and worse I literally, _literally mind,_ had to put him in a half-nelson and jab him in the kidneys a coupla times to make him accept a bottle of wine for helping me out.
When I posted a daft noob question (yeh I know, shock!) on here about fret saws and he offered me one of his for free it was even worse. :| 
People like Paddy are the reason you should listen to your Mum and never meet up with strangers off the internet. 

Sometimes I remember those two meetings and I get a cold shiver down my spine. Then I realise I have left the window open again.


----------



## memzey (9 Dec 2016)

lol! Sounds horrendous! Speaking of meet-ups I notice you dodged our little get together for Herts based forumites and IIRC you are not far from me? I think we are planning another one in Jan near Watford and then Feb will be in Snorbs. You should get yourself to one - the last one was a great night.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (9 Dec 2016)

Bm101":14093t06 said:


> Sometimes I remember those two meetings and I get a cold shiver down my spine. Then I realise I have left the window open again.



Chris, that's because the glass in your windows is so clean you can't see it's there


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (9 Dec 2016)

Memzey, if your in the area feel free to pop in


----------



## custard (9 Dec 2016)

ED65":1ngd0kam said:


> Three or four thou shavings can be read through



I was thinking about that today in the workshop. It sounded an implausible claim, so I decided to test it.

I took a piece of Swiss Pear, not the palest of timbers, but certainly not the darkest, a reasonably representative timber choice in other words. I planed off a four thou shaving then taped it to a printed page,












That's a pretty coarse shaving, you can see in the photo it's starting to _ripple_ like you'd get with veneer rather than _drape_ like you'd get with a fine shaving. But as for the claim that it can be read through? Well, no you can't. Unless of course you've got X-Ray specs!

For comparison I dialled back the plane to a one thou shaving and tried that.


----------



## custard (9 Dec 2016)

Incidentally, the plane I used was a bog standard Record 05. It's had a basic fettling, but it's certainly not had lavish levels of attention.






The sole was flattened, but nothing extravagant, it hasn't been polished up with Autosol or anything like that.

The iron is a bog standard Record issue. It was given a slight hollow on the non bevel face using the Paul Sellers hammer trick, which then makes it easy to properly flatten it off.






The cap iron had its mating surface properly honed, and the back had a few swipes on a strop. Nothing fancy, just basic maintenance.






The reason all that's important isn't to deliver transparent shavings, there's no call for them in my furniture. But having a plane properly tuned allows you to do things like this.






With a plane capable of a one thou shaving you can, for example, begin to use a shooting board with real precision. Taking full length shavings in tough timbers like Oak, splitting a knife line right down the middle, and consistently getting perfect 90 degree results.






This is an Oak drawer side after shooting with a one thou setting, the surface is virtually polished and more importantly it's dead accurate. I tried shooting the same board with a four thou setting and it was just not acceptable. The effort required to drive the iron through the timber caused it to skew and twist just enough to throw out the accuracy and chew up the surface.

Bottom line, it doesn't take that much effort to get a plane to perform to this level, but if you want to produce quality furniture then it's an effort that you have to make, four thou just isn't good enough.


----------



## skipdiver (9 Dec 2016)

I would concur custard. I have exactly the same plane and have used it on site all my life with not much regard to furniture making levels of sharpness and very thin shavings. Now i work mainly from home and am trying to get better as a woodworker, trying more disciplined stuff, i also fettled the Paul Sellars way and gave my planes a general overhaul. They now work much better than they ever did but my previous work never gave me cause to tune them in such a way. Planing up the end of a hand cut hipped roof timber for example didn't require shavings of a thou. I'd have been there all day. Horses for courses.


----------



## custard (9 Dec 2016)

skipdiver":3ukev0if said:


> Planing up the end of a hand cut hipped roof timber for example didn't require shavings of a thou. I'd have been there all day. Horses for courses.



Absolutely agree, even on on the highest quality furniture I want the thickest shaving I can get away with. However, a plane that will deliver a one thou shaving will also deliver a four thou or an eight thou shaving when required. What you need is a plane that has the versatility to do it all.


----------



## Vann (10 Dec 2016)

Paddy Roxburgh":1dyje80k said:


> ...If you are teaching yourself "in the dark" with no one to show how a well tuned plane should work it is difficult to know when you have it right...


Well said, Paddy.

I bought a new plane (Stanley No.4) when I started my apprenticeship in 1973. I could never get it to work, and thought I couldn't plane. It wasn't until I bought a Veritas LAJ about 8 years ago that I found what a plane is capable of. I now have too many. 

But for a learner "in the dark" (to quote Paddy) buying a modern PoS is a mistake. Buy a modern premium plane, or an early Stanley or Record, and learn to plane wood.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## nabs (10 Dec 2016)

gwr":3fu7qxf3 said:


> Why are old pre ww2 Stanley planes regarded as much better than the latest offerings?


re. the original question, I have not got a clue, so in traditional fashion here is some largely unrelated information. My first plane was a Record no. 4 circa 2000, bought for a job round the house. Like many before me I did not know how to get it a work and it sat on a shelf for 15 years.

It was the recent discovery that it could be made to work, and the epiphany that followed when I manged it, that set me of down the most enjoyable path of old tool acquisition and other woodworking-deferral activity. In the process I have ended up with a handful of record planes from different eras which means I can do a quality comparison. Here is my assessment of the differences between new and old:


* thinner casting
* the top edges of the sides are no longer ground smooth and are painted over
* the handle and knob are made from plastic rather than beech or rosewood
* the frog yoke adjuster is now a two pieced pressed steel affair rather than the original cast iron version.
* Painted rather than chrome/nickle plated lever cap
* the lateral lever adjuster is made of one piece of steel pressed into shape to form the finger hold, rather than a more robust riveted and welded part
* The screw adjuster to allow the frog to be moved back and forward to widen or narrow the mouth has gone

obviously there are varying degrees of penny pinching (c.f AndyT's post on his Anant) but based on my small sample of Records, I would say that all bar the last of these cost cutting measures are either cosmetic or easily put up with, and even the removal of the mouth adjusting screw will not be missed by many. 

And in fairness, I should add that the new model uses a brass furled nut on the lever cap that replaces the original thumb-push, which I happen to think is an improvement!

so all in all, it could be said that the makers of Record tools at least had made reasonable compromises to reduce the price of the tools without impacting functionality.*

but, but...
Isn't there a more sinister cost saving measure to consider? Namely the invisible one alluded to earlier in the thread where in the good old days the casting were allowed to "season" before grinding - I have read often that this is an important step and skipping it increases the likelihood of the casting warping after it is ground, leaving you with a bent plane.

To someone like me, who knows nothing about metallurgy, this all sounds very plausible, particularly so when you hear blacksmiths use terms like "grain" when discussing iron, which makes metal working sound sort of woodworky. But is it actually true? I remember reading somewhere about a learned article that had been published by an engineering firm in the 70s that dismissed the whole seasoning thing as superstitious nonsense, but infuriatingly I can't find the reference or the article now.

Does anyone know the truth of the matter? Enquiring minds want to know!

* PS don't take this as an endorsement - you can get a perfectly good secondhand Record, with none of the above compromises, for less than the - very reasonably priced! - new Irvin Record version. Just sayin'....


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Dec 2016)

No harm in posting it again - 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYyV6IU ... tml5=False
Just about all you need to know.


----------



## Downwindtracker2 (10 Dec 2016)

Cast iron when it cools leaves stress in the casting. When it ages some of that stress works itself out. You can understand why a manufacturer would use green castings, that's money sitting there, not earning interest. Veritas reheats after casting to stress relieve. When first flattening a fleamarket find, you can really see where the iron has moved. 

Three jacks in the hand. I have 3 Canadian made Stanley #5s, two were made in the '30s, one in the '70s. The one made in the '70s is purple(maroon) which I bought new as an apprentice . Purple ones are considered the lowest point of North American Stanley production. While they are all flat, Canucks do better than Yanks, only the '70s one has both sides square.


----------



## D_W (10 Dec 2016)

I can't speak for new planes, but I have heard the unseasoned casting thing more than once about new power tools. The later or cheaper they're made, the less time the castings season - usually. 

That said, I don't know what I do with a table saw that requires perfection. My first table saw (a delta) was more than a hundredth hollow from front to back. That was sort of a pain, but it didn't affect anything as I don't do joinery from my tablesaw. It had a lot of runout at the arbor, too, 2 thosuandths at the flange, and it sanded the wood as it went by. That could've been corrected, but I never saw the need. 

Fine looking three planes on the left above. 

I've seen that sellers video before, it's a bit more involved than I like to go (unnecessary fresh metal in some places is a rust magnet), but that's all just opinion. I wish he'd teach his gaggle of followers to use hardwoods and set the cap iron, but most of the free videos are white pine. I have never had an environment that would tolerate furniture made of white pine, though it's certainly nice to work when it is properly sawn and clear.


----------



## Biliphuster (10 Dec 2016)

custard":2yfxft81 said:


> The iron is a bog standard Record issue. It was given a slight hollow on the non bevel face using the Paul Sellers hammer trick, which then makes it easy to properly flatten it off.



To pick one thing out of your very informative series of posts, how does one do this trick? That hollow looks very handy and I have a couple of blades which could really do with that attention. I have tried googling "Paul Sellers hammer trick" but I have not stumbled across the correct page.


----------



## JohnPW (11 Dec 2016)

https://paulsellers.com/2014/05/does-pl ... you-hours/

You hit the bellied bit of the iron with a soft faced hammer. I think it would be better to put a piece of wood on the iron and then hit the piece of wood. But there's chance the iron might crack, as mentioned in one of the comments.


----------



## custard (11 Dec 2016)

Biliphuster":1nml576b said:


> how does one do this trick? That hollow looks very handy and I have a couple of blades which could really do with that attention.



I tried it a couple of times with a nylon faced hammer and the iron resting bevel side down on a piece of softwood. I didn't have much luck with the method and abandoned it. 

Eventually I gave it another go. This time I put a piece of thin MDF (3mm or 6mm) on top of the iron and used the ball end of ball pein hammer, I started gently and then worked up the weight of the blows until it did the trick. Encouraged by that I tried it on another iron, going back to the nylon faced hammer but delivering a mighty whack, worked again. Then on a third iron I tried more gentle taps with a Japanese hammer that has a slightly crowned face, success again.

I've now done four or five Stanley and Record irons this way, they all now look like the one in the photo that I posted. That's how I like my plane blades to look, with a perfectly mating cap iron which can be positioned anywhere from 0.1mm to 2.0mm back from the cutting edge without ever getting shavings trapped beneath.

I wouldn't go overboard with the Paul Seller's hammer trick, just enough to make flattening off less of a chore. I don't know this for a fact but I suspect that if you were over enthusiastic you _could_ produce a belly on the bevel side of the iron, which _might_ then mean it would rock on the frog and chatter?

So where I am now with plane irons is this. New thick irons for premium planes, they're either flat when bought or they're returned. Old thick irons for woodies, long slog on a coarse stone or the David Charlesworth ruler trick. Thinner Bailey Plane irons, the Paul Sellers hammer trick. 

Good luck!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Dec 2016)

You could probably skim the iron with a very fine used flap disc to achieve the same end.


----------



## custard (11 Dec 2016)

phil.p":1els28mh said:


> You could probably skim the iron with a very fine used flap disc to achieve the same end.




I did something similar once on a Lie Nielsen iron using a Dremel. I must have been stupid to attempt it. 

To make sure I didn't end up with the same sort of problems you get from rust pits on old plane irons (depressions that are too deep to be honed out) I went really slowly, which ended up taking most of a day. Madness! 

If you've paid a premium price for a premium tool, and it turns out to be faulty (and a belly on the non bevel face of an iron is a fault in my book), then just return it and request a proper replacement. That's what I'd do now.


----------



## ED65 (11 Dec 2016)

custard":10ryqfph said:


> ... But your plane will only take a minimum shaving of three or four thou.


You got hung up on my wording and I'm sorry about that, it would have saved some needless argument and some time for you.

I didn't mean that a 3-4 thou was the best these planes could do, I only wanted to convey that gooder examples of cheap planes like this were capable of that level with their soles taken no further than the factory machining.

Now both of my 4s (and my low-angle block plane) were capable of much thinner shavings than this, but I got very lucky there and nobody should go out expecting that when apparently a fair number of Quangsheng planes won't do that without some lapping. 



Paddy Roxburgh":10ryqfph said:


> After reading a conversation like this once I decided to measure shaving thickness, it was a slow work day, I found that if I give the calipers a good squeeze I can get 0 thou shavings.


Exactly. 

Wood is an inherently compressible material, and shavings doubly so. It's extremely easy to under-measure shaving thickness so after reading cautionary advice online I'm conservative closing up the calipers when measuring shavings.


----------



## ED65 (11 Dec 2016)

Re. shaving thickness and being able to read through it, here's a pine shaving taken with my Faithfull, just picked up and used as it was last set:







And the reading:






It can do thinner but it'll comfortably produce shavings which still hold together that read as this:






Here's the best shot of the sole I could snap showing the not-small mouth opening for anyone that's interested:


----------



## Steve1066 (11 Dec 2016)

ED beat me to it 
Bit of English oak 









But it looks like we site carpenter/ shop fitters cheep plane, take a finer shaving and the old box makers.


----------



## iNewbie (11 Dec 2016)

Who is that masked rider? :ho2


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (11 Dec 2016)

Paddy Roxburgh said:


> After reading a conversation like this once I decided to measure shaving thickness, it was a slow work day, I found that if I give the calipers a good squeeze I can get 0 thou shavings.
> /quote]
> 
> Since writing that I've been thinking about how to measure shavings. The most accurate way would probably be to measure the work before and after taking a pass and subtracting one from the other. I'm not going to do it because I don't really care, but if you want to know how thick your shavings are I think this would be the best method.
> Paddy


----------



## Steve Elliott (11 Dec 2016)

Paddy,

Back in 2005 I did measure the change in thickness of a test piece to determine the thickness of shavings, taking 275 shavings that were .001" thick as far as I could measure and control the thickness. Of course as the blade wore with successive passes the shavings would become thinner.

The average shaving thickness turned out to be .0084". Given the difficulty of maintaining shaving thickness over a test that went to 1400 lineal feet of planing using several blades I couldn't decide whether the two methods were giving the same result or not. Maybe just taking a shaving or two and measuring the test piece would be a better method.

These days I just look at the shaving and know pretty closely what the actual measurement would be, but it doesn't matter much. I'm much more interested in whether the plane will do the job at hand.


----------



## Steve1066 (11 Dec 2016)

Paddy Roxburgh":29msoipm said:


> Paddy Roxburgh":29msoipm said:
> 
> 
> > After reading a conversation like this once I decided to measure shaving thickness, it was a slow work day, I found that if I give the calipers a good squeeze I can get 0 thou shavings.
> ...


your missing the point Paddy look at the plane it's a reck but it makes me money every day. It gets bounced around in back of a van it go from -3 degrees out side to +21 in side
It get used for planning old painted doors to shaving end grain mitres on hard wood bar tops.
It's haveing the knowledge and the confidence to set it up and uses it that makes this possible. Not the make, age, shape,cost or sharpening technique.
If you go back to the OP Original post it doesn't mater what age the plane is. It's learning how to set it up and use it properly with confidence that maters.
Hope the finger is feeling better


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (11 Dec 2016)

How can I be missing the point when I was quoting myself? It was my point! My comment on shaving thickness was in response to the conversation between ED65 and custard (and others) on shaving thickness. I'm glad your planes work to your satisfaction, as do mine. 
Finger is much better, thanks
Paddy


----------



## CStanford (11 Dec 2016)

Why is it important, when would it ever be important, to know how thick a shaving is, I mean, an actual and reliable numerical measurement?


----------



## skipdiver (11 Dec 2016)

CStanford":2jk5kaif said:


> Why is it important, when would it ever be important, to know how thick a shaving is, I mean, an actual and reliable numerical measurement?



Must say that i have never felt the need to measure the thickness of a shaving. The plane is either taking too much off or not enough, given the job at hand.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (11 Dec 2016)

CStanford":22kj0dkt said:


> Why is it important, when would it ever be important, to know how thick a shaving is, I mean, an actual and reliable numerical measurement?



The only purpose I can think of is so people can discuss/compare their planes over the internet. Whether this could count as "important" is another thing. In japan they need an actual reliable number for their planning competitions, in that situation the importance is to be compared to the importance of having an accurate reliable timings for 100m at an athletics meet. For actually making something out of wood, well, no, it's just a distraction.
Paddy


----------



## Racers (12 Dec 2016)

It shows how flat your plane is, thinner shaving the flatter the plane.

Pete


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Dec 2016)

So a nice even, thin shaving from my compass plane shows it's truly flat?


----------



## Racers (12 Dec 2016)

Yep , well as flat as your wood :shock:  

Pete


----------



## custard (12 Dec 2016)

CStanford":2uun3cq0 said:


> Why is it important, when would it ever be important, to know how thick a shaving is, I mean, an actual and reliable numerical measurement?




Fair question. 

For an experienced cabinet maker it's not important. But for someone new to hardwood furniture making it can accelerate their learning by quantifying how the different tolerances across their hand tools, machinery, and joinery all fit together. It doesn't mean much to a beginner to talk about "fine" shavings versus "coarse" shavings, because when does fine become coarse and how do I even recognise "fine"? But (in my workshop at least) a fine shaving is about a thou, a normal shaving is about 2-3 thou, a course shaving is 4-6 thou, and anything above that is a very coarse shaving. 

That knowledge can then be related to the machinery in the workshop, some of which can be set digitally to 0.1mm (so about 4 thou) and some of which can be set by eye to about a quarter of a mill (so about 10 thou).

That in turn can be carried across to the reality of hardwood joinery for fine furniture making. A bridle joint in a tight grained hardwood like Beech or Maple (IMO the most difficult of the common joints to cut by hand, more difficult than a dovetail joint for example) will go from too loose to too tight in the space of 0.1mm. You can _just_ see a one thou glue line, you can _definitely_ feel a one thou ridge between the stile and rail on a pannelled cabinet. When planing down a drawer side for a piston fit you go from "a little bit too snug" to "just right" in the space of one "normal" plane shaving. Or there's the example I previously gave, when shooting the ends of a typical Oak drawer side you'll be more accurate if your plane is at a one thou setting than if it's at a four thou setting.

As I said, the experienced worker has found all this out for themselves, but for a newcomer this quantification could spare them the slow progress and frustration of trial and error learning.


----------



## custard (12 Dec 2016)

Paddy Roxburgh":1s5esabg said:


> I found that if I give the calipers a good squeeze I can get 0 thou shavings.



I'd agree with that.

But that's not the same thing as saying _all_ calliper measurements of shavings are inherently inaccurate.

I once tried to get better results on ultra fine inlay and stringing by more accurately measuring the stringing. I thought a calliper might not give an accurate reading at these very small measurements because of the compressibility of wood. So I bought a cheap digital calliper that was designed for measuring paper thickness, it had a relatively large anvil to avoid compression errors. I then tried it on shaving thicknesses (like you I was having a slow work day!), interestingly the readings between this specialist calliper and my normal calliper were the same. 

So my conclusion is that, provided you use your callipers sensitively and sensibly, you _can_ get an accurate reading on hardwood shavings (I didn't compare on softwoods because I don't really use them).


----------



## John15 (12 Dec 2016)

Excuse my ignorance but what does 1 thou equate to in metric? I can read through a shaving measuring 0.1mm on my very cheap callipers.

John


----------



## Cheshirechappie (12 Dec 2016)

To be precise, one thousandth of an inch (0.001") equals 0.0254mm. Most (common) metric calipers read to 0.02mm, so as near as dammit, about a thou. Some say they resolve to 0.01mm (about half a thou), but most are generally not highly accurate at that resolution.

Calipers, whether Vernier or digital, are generally regarded as 'guessing sticks'. Better quality ones will tend to be more accurate than cheaper ones, but it's best to regard them as comparators rather than as absolute precision instruments. Most, however, will be good enough for a woodworker to get a feel for the approximate measurements, tolerances and acceptable fits (as Custard described above) when joining bits of wood together. You can do it by trial and error, as most of the preceding generations had to, but given that most of us have been brought up in a 'measured' world, maybe the use of some measuring instruments might help some people.


----------



## bugbear (12 Dec 2016)

custard":3rl9o2sq said:


> As I said, the experienced worker has *found all this out for themselves*, but for a newcomer this quantification could spare them the slow progress and frustration of trial and error learning.


Or were _shown_ it by an instructor (teacher, or "master").

It's the modern emergence of written (or remote) instruction that make absolute measures valuable.

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (12 Dec 2016)

I've always been doubtful that squeezing a chip between the jaws of a set of machinist's calipers would give an objectively accurate measurement or a consistent measurement from chip to chip. I guess those who developed such a skill are to be congratulated. Otherwise, even the rankest of beginners or even a non-woodworker can tell the difference between varying degrees of thick shavings and vanishingly thin shavings by eye. It's like asking for a big piece of pie vs. a little piece of pie. It's not too hard to tell the difference. I wonder if Alan Peters ever measured the thickness of a chip his entire career. I bet not. If so it was probably on a lark or a quittin' time diversion.

Woodworkers need to be able to judge things by eye or get very close -- edges square to face, face in or out of twist, etc., etc. Measuring chips just promotes dependence on measuring tools too much IMO or the notion that one needs to attempt to measure very small increments rather than using standard terminology like 'bare' and 'full' which should be enough.

It's just not a terribly difficult concept, that of retracting a cutter until it won't cut and then advancing it a little at a time until it just barely starts to cut, and then moving on from there. My seven year old daughter has virtually zero problem with the concept. It's like running a bath at the proper temperature -- not that hard -- but you usually have to fiddle with the hot and cold a bit before it's just right. It would be idiotic to stick a thermometer in the water when your hand tells you all you need to know.


----------



## custard (12 Dec 2016)

CStanford":27ft7ifu said:


> I wonder if Alan Peters ever measured the thickness of a chip his entire career.



I trained in the same workshop where Alan Peters trained, callipers may well be the most used tool in the place. 

Just sayin'.


----------



## CStanford (12 Dec 2016)

What on Earth for? Measuring shavings?

Other than for calipers for the lathe, an entirely different tool, he makes no mention of an instrument capable of taking measurements to thousandths of an inch in his book Cabinetmaking, the professional approach (in his list of tools and machines that covers close to two pages).


----------



## D_W (12 Dec 2016)

I'll bet Alan Peters probably didn't care what other people did with their calipers. Unless they were a student of his and he was telling them what to do.


----------



## CStanford (12 Dec 2016)

I have no idea. Just curious about making these sorts of close measurements in furnituremaking. One strives to work to close tolerances through the use of gauges, marking one workpiece from another, etc., but I haven't heard much about working to the sort of _nominal_ measurements these things are theoretically capable of producing -either reading a vernier scale or a digital readout and attempting to reproduce it on another workpiece.

If a tenon is a hair too fat for its mortise wouldn't we just use our finely set shoulder or other plane and make a pass on either face until it just fits, for instance? Surely, nobody is measure the amount it's out are they, and then attempting to dial that measurement in on a plane?

Otherwise, transferring a measurement with a set of calipers with no particular regard to the number is certainly orthodox but doesn't require a machinist-quality instrument or anything even close. It's no different than using a story stick in actual fact.


----------



## custard (12 Dec 2016)

CStanford":1hapnm0n said:


> Just curious about making these sorts of close measurements in furnituremaking.



That's fair enough.

If you want to make something like this,
http://www.barnsley-furniture.co.uk/pro ... sideboard/

Or even a little something like this,
http://www.barnsley-furniture.co.uk/pro ... ing-stand/

then callipers come in pretty handy.


----------



## CStanford (12 Dec 2016)

This piece was made in the 1800s: http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/V ... oryid=1365

I think you may be confused about using a simple set of calipers to transfer a setting from a template or workpiece vs. measuring components to thousandths of an inch and working to that nominal measurement. One can't build any of these pieces without working to extremely close tolerances but it is not required that one work to a number like "one inch and one-half thousandth." "Hey, Bob, I need three workpieces cut to a radius of three feet, three and three thousandth inches and they need to be four and two thousandths of an inch wide." I feel fairly sure that the pieces to which you've linked were not built using that sort of strategy. I know the one I linked to wasn't built that way.


----------



## custard (12 Dec 2016)

Maybe. Anyhow, lunch break's over so I'm getting back to making furniture. Now, where did I put my callipers?


----------



## CStanford (12 Dec 2016)

Heck, don't be bashful. Your background and training speak for themselves. If you work to these sort of numbers that's super. I'm entirely envious. I wouldn't know where to begin to integrate this sort of technique.


----------



## Beau (12 Dec 2016)

I don't know if it was beneficial or not but on my training callipers were used on a regular basis. One test piece (a punishment for a balls up) was to make a cross with a halving joint and every dimension had to be within 0.1 of a mm and would fit perfectly either way around. It was challenging but achievable. There are times when precision adds a bit of class to something that would otherwise be lacking. Maybe callipers are not always needed but they have seen plenty of use in my workshop over the years as have a set of feeler gauges for draw fitting.


----------



## CStanford (12 Dec 2016)

I assume one would't start with a cut list or templates produced to these sort of dimensions - nobody designs furniture in wood in thousandths of an inch. At what point in the process does the furnituremaker begin to measure components in thousandths and use this nominal measurement elsewhere?


----------



## D_W (12 Dec 2016)

If you have cheap power tools, they're pretty useful. I like to have a cheap caliper on my thickness planer, though it's not actually necessary to have. 

I don't know when the last time was that I measured a chip that wasn't for discussion purposes online. It'd be difficult to have any discussion about plane shaving thickness without providing a measurement, though, and it is mildly interesting if you're dimensioning wood to know what the difference is between various woods. For example, 7 thousandth of ash planes about as hard as 1 hundredth of cherry, though you can't necessarily see any difference without measuring. 

I'll leave the high end furniture arguments to other people - I only have the urge to build tools when it comes to non-necessary items.


----------



## CStanford (12 Dec 2016)

Sometimes all a plane needs to do is remove what amounts to a little dust -- the first turn that just begins to produce a bare amount of contact of cutter to wood - especially true on end grain, when a workpiece is the barest whisker too long. Maybe that's something that needs a measurement but I sure hope not. I certainly don't own a tool that could measure the length of a workpiece to this sort of accuracy. My eyes have problems with 32nds if the light is not perfect (which it rarely is).

I'm less flummoxed by thickness, which is where calipers excel, than perhaps anywhere else in the process and I get flummoxed plenty by all the rest. If I set a gauge a hair off of 3/4's I'm not worried about a thing as long as I leave it set there and mark everything that needs to be the same thickness. It pays to have several gauges, set at each thickness you'll need, and left there until all the workpieces are produced per the cut list. If machining, everything that needs to be the same thickness is run through consecutively, as a group. 

Any minor discrepancies in hand planing the individual parts is resolved by flushing adjoining surfaces of the assembled component after the glue dries.


----------



## D_W (12 Dec 2016)

CStanford":n6apcmwe said:


> Any minor discrepancies in hand planing the individual parts is resolved by flushing adjoining surfaces of the assembled component after the glue dries.



I don't disagree with the thickness planer use, but no discrepancy in thickness is pretty difficult with hand tools when you're doing everything from start to finish. I'm sure you do with planes as I do, I'm looking for a feel. If it feels like it's about 80% of what I could get through the plane, then that's what I use - until you get to the smoother. I don't use joinery planes much where I can use chisels, but I don't build much furniture, either. 

I'm not sure I can recall using a caliper on fine work, but I often find my hand dimensioned pieces to be several hundredths different than what I was shooting for when I am done finish planing them. I haven't been burned by that yet. Not talking about length, but width and thickness. 

One of the things I like most about working only with hand tools when the time allows for it is the need to measure very little and care very little about one board being 0.72 inches and another 0.76. If I didn't measure, I don't think I'd even know unless I put one on top of the other. Those types of things appeal to me as being interesting on a piece - potentially - down the road. Loose joints do not. 

Same goes for planes, the first three infills I have made do not have perfectly square sides. The fit on them is wonderful, no gaps. I've never had the urge to turn them on their side and square the cheeks to the sole because ...I've never had the urge to turn them on their sides to use them for anything. 

But, still, I'm surprised how irritated you are about this whole caliper thing, and I'm assuming that most of the people who talk about shaving thickness don't check it at all unless they're trying translate "feels like 80% as thick as I can go with a try plane" to a number for other people to compare. Until or unless someone pops up and says that you must use calipers to measure shaving thickness to do accurate work, why get worked up over what other people do for curiosity?


----------



## CStanford (12 Dec 2016)

I'm not irritated in the least, though others may be irritated at the questions I've posed. 

The whole shaving thickness thing is just absurd on its face and always has been, at best an affectation, and I'm way less curious about that than I am the other things I mentioned. To the extent that I've ever given credence to measuring the thickness of a shaving, and did so with a straight face, I'm ashamed and embarrassed.

Hand planing wood is about as exciting as cleaning toilets and one of the first things the Brits, the Shakers, and everybody else with half a brain wanted to and ultimately did mechanize. I do it, but I get no particular thrill or feeling of accomplishment from it.


----------



## D_W (12 Dec 2016)

CStanford":1fcd76z4 said:


> I'm not irritated in the least, though others may be irritated at the questions I've posed.
> 
> The whole shaving thickness thing is just absurd on its face and always has been, at best an affectation, and I'm way less curious about that than I am the other things I mentioned. To the extent that I've ever mentioned measuring the thickness of a shaving, and did so with a straight face, I'm ashamed and embarrassed.



And maybe somewhat insecure? Jeez, Charlie. Is this the biggest thing on your radar today? Is your closet so clear that you could only be ashamed that you possibly measured a shaving in the past?

I remember, maybe a decade ago, someone said that a woodworker never looks at their shavings (I think it was in response to a rob cosman video when he was selling whatever it was at the time he was selling - replacement plane irons, maybe? and he was doing the woodworking show trick of taking thin shavings and letting them go so that they drop to the ground slowly). And a couple of people pounded their chest and said that there's no reason to look at shavings. 

Except that a shaving will instantly tell you if you have a nick in your iron or if you're getting tearout (without having to stop and look at or feel a surface), or if the cap is set in the right place, and I'm sure there's 5 other reasons that I don't know because I'm willing to admit that I'm an amateur who is just happy when things turn out nice and I can make progress somewhere.

Whether or not someone uses calipers to measure shavings, who cares - as long as they're not asserting to a bunch of newbies that it's a must?


----------



## D_W (12 Dec 2016)

Separate aside for the caliper users, something that's actually useful when fitting something to a known size. 

Measure the thickness of a piece of wood. Take a shaving with one of your planes - something substantial enough that you can measure it (not a fluff shaving, given they're not easy to measure). Then measure the piece of wood. 

It's interesting to note that the amount of wood removed is only some fraction of the shaving thickness. I'm sure there is some relationship to thickness (well, there probably is) in terms of the decrease in stock width as a percentage of the shaving thickness.

From time to time in doing tight fitting work, it is definitely useful to know how much wood is being removed at each swipe so that you can get close to a final measurement without going over it, or so you can fit something like an infill to a known body width without having to repeatedly take the infill in and out of the body (anyone who has ever made one will know that's a pain, because the sides pinch in and put tension on the infill after the dovetails have been peined).


----------



## CStanford (12 Dec 2016)

David, we plane wood effectively and move on. What's left on the floor isn't my primary concern. I've never uber-tuned a single plane yet I don't think I've ever owned one that wouldn't produce the sort of shavings you guys say you've measured at less than a thousandth of an inch -pretty damned whispy. I've either been extraordinarily lucky, Record planes were that good, or the vast majority of this stuff is pure hogwash. Barring an absurdly concave sole, they'll all take a reasonably fine shaving. Good enough. If it isn't there's always a scraper which will produce a surface virtually indistinguishable from a planed one and will do it with sub-thou shavings if necessary.


----------



## AndyT (12 Dec 2016)

If someone writes on a forum that they set their plane to get "paper thin" shavings, there are people, apparently, who will start a tedious digression onto all the different types of paper and how some are quite thick while others are much thinner. 

This nonsense can be avoided by making a measurement, using an international standard unit, such as the inch or the millimetre. Once upon a time you could get away with talk of "the thickness of an old groat" but in an online discussion, transferable measurements are better.


----------



## D_W (12 Dec 2016)

CStanford":38c4a44i said:


> David, we plane wood effectively and move on. What's left on the floor isn't my primary concern. I've never uber-tuned a single plane yet I don't think I've ever owned one that wouldn't produce the sort of shavings you guys say you've measured at less than a thousandth of an inch -pretty damned whispy. I've either been extraordinarily lucky, Record planes were that good, or the vast majority of this stuff is pure hogwash. Barring an absurdly concave sole, they'll all take a reasonably fine shaving. Good enough. If it isn't there's always a scraper which will produce a surface virtually indistinguishable from a planed one and will do it with sub-thou shavings if necessary.



Still not getting it. You don't pick up a shaving and look at it off of the floor. You watch it as it's coming out of the plane. 

Not sure what uber-tuned is, but I doubt many people do it other than a few woodworking gurus. Not going to get worked up if someone has a plane that shaves thinner shavings than mine, or if someone measures them, either. 

Andy's post is right on target.

I sense we're getting the old Charlie back now. The one that gets irritated by odd things and goes into "one up" mode then - the one who could go up Mt. Everest in shorts without any oxygen.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (12 Dec 2016)

I use digital calipers all the time. Measuring thickness of wood and metal , depths of holes, sizes of drill bits, sizes of nuts and bolts, the list of uses is endless, I always have two pairs, one in the drawer one on my person. Very rarely do I need the accuracy they claim to have and I 1/10th of a mm is usually sufficient. I could live without them but I would miss them sorely. They are simply the easiest and most reliable tool for so many tasks One thing I don't use them for is measuring shavings.
While I have read lots of conversations about how thin a shaving peoples planes can take, very rarely is it discussed how thick a shaving they can take. I dimension timber with a PT, but very often require pieces that are wedge shaped or have bevels, often to scribed lines that are not straight. I could tilt my bandsaw bed but still would have difficulty making pieces where the bevel angle changes across the piece. I find a coarse jack and a block plain to be the most reliable tools for these tasks. On or under my bench I generally have a radiused coarse no5 (for shaping), a straight ironed no. 5 (for truing straight edges), a medium slighty radiused no4 (for endgrain, arris removal and easy going smoothing) and a fine set, slightly radiused no 41/2 with a very close set cap iron (thanks DW), and on the boat I'm working on a block plane. I would give up my smoothers before my jack and block any day (luckily it's not a choice I need to make). Personally I would be more than happy with a finish off a random orbital sander, but for shaping I need planes, or at least would be irritated by the hoops I would have to jump through with machines.


----------



## CStanford (12 Dec 2016)

D_W":372tneaf said:


> CStanford":372tneaf said:
> 
> 
> > David, we plane wood effectively and move on. What's left on the floor isn't my primary concern. I've never uber-tuned a single plane yet I don't think I've ever owned one that wouldn't produce the sort of shavings you guys say you've measured at less than a thousandth of an inch -pretty damned whispy. I've either been extraordinarily lucky, Record planes were that good, or the vast majority of this stuff is pure hogwash. Barring an absurdly concave sole, they'll all take a reasonably fine shaving. Good enough. If it isn't there's always a scraper which will produce a surface virtually indistinguishable from a planed one and will do it with sub-thou shavings if necessary.
> ...



David, here is how I plane wood in getting out parts. I adjust the plane so it won't cut. Then I bump the wheel until it cuts what I need it to cut consistent with the quality of surface needed or appropriate for that stage of planing. If my shoulder is hurting, I cut less in one pass than I otherwise might. If I'm pineappled off about something, or in a particular hurry, I adjust it a little deeper. Can I see the shavings coming out of the plane? Well, yes I can. The plane and its shavings are certainly in my field of view and I'm sure if something looked amiss I'd stop, but I'm usually looking mostly at the surface. At no point in this process am I ever measuring shavings, or contemplating the need to measure shavings, or musing that perhaps measuring the shavings could or would make my woodworking 'better.' 

As somewhat of an aside: 

Robert Wearing covers a very creditable way to learn to plane wood in his book Essential Woodworker (or is is woodworking?). It works though somebody who has advanced a little (meaning a few boards prepared correctly) can usually dispense with planing the work hollow first and then planing through.

Otherwise:

It's just not that hard to do. It just isn't. It requires remarkably few skills, it was one of the first jobs given to adolescent apprentices. A couple or three boards of decent size properly 4-squared and the vast majority of skills in this area have been acquired. No big deal. Were people hired into a shop to do this kind of work today it would barely rise to minimum-wage work, and the expectation would be for a short learning curve regardless of age. Efforts to make it seem harder than it is do a disservice, and are an embarrassment to us all.


----------



## Racers (12 Dec 2016)

I have several pairs of calipers digital and analogue they all get used, I couldn't give a flying fig if that winds up some people.

D_W you need to add some people to your ignore list, that way you only get to see their drivel, sorry, enlightened discourse, if some one quotes it.

Pete


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Dec 2016)

The place just wouldn't be the same, though, without skilled, intelligent Americans tearing each other to pieces. :lol:


----------



## skipdiver (12 Dec 2016)

Why do hand planes and their use lead to such heated debates? Any thread on planes and particularly the sharpening thereof, seems to lead to so many entrenched views. Is the perfectly sharpened and set plane, producing the perfect shaving the holy grail of woodworking?


----------



## CStanford (12 Dec 2016)

skipdiver":3rqtwih6 said:


> Why do hand planes and their use lead to such heated debates? Any thread on planes and particularly the sharpening thereof, seems to lead to so many entrenched views. Is the perfectly sharpened and set plane, producing the perfect shaving the holy grail of woodworking?



That there is even a debate is bizarre.

This basic skill (sharpening too, http://www.richardjonesfurniture.com/Ar ... ening.html) was shoved down the line to the absolute lowest common denominator in the past. Somehow it has become the stuff of legend. Perhaps the Japanese clowns who participate in 'planing competitions' are partly to blame. That these basic skills previously acquired by boys in a matter of weeks have now risen to the level of terminal accomplishments, rather than gateway skills, is certainly not of English or American origin unless my reading of history is completely off-base.


----------



## skipdiver (12 Dec 2016)

Thanks for the link. That is pretty much the way i was taught and still use an oilstone to this day. Sharpening has reached almost mythical proportions now and i don't remember it being that big of a deal when i was an apprentice. I bought an oilstone and one of the older chaps knocked me up a box from a bit of scrap wood he pulled off a shelf, no idea what it is. I still have the stone in the box nearly 40 years later. Is stropping on the palm of your hand still the done thing? That's how i was taught, though i admit to being a progressive and acquiring a bit of leather.


----------



## Andy Kev. (13 Dec 2016)

CStanford":3c4zudle said:


> skipdiver":3c4zudle said:
> 
> 
> > Why do hand planes and their use lead to such heated debates? Any thread on planes and particularly the sharpening thereof, seems to lead to so many entrenched views. Is the perfectly sharpened and set plane, producing the perfect shaving the holy grail of woodworking?
> ...


I think there's probably a lot in that. Planing is only a means to an end, as of course is sharpening. The professional, who needs to get to the finished object as quickly as possible, needs to get a working technique under his belt and is perhaps not inclined to analyse it too much as long as it works.

Then along comes the leisurely amateur who by definition has time on his hands and he attracts the marketing men who, as Jacob so often points out, are interested in reinventing the wheel or at least making the wheel more complicated than it need be, in order to make a profit. I'm very much a leisurely amateur and as such I can afford to enjoy planing for its own sake (although obviously I don't just do a bit of random planing for pleasure) and as part of the creative process. So you read the books and realise that the legendary "full length, full width" shaving is a sort of holy grail of planing and I still get a buzz when planing a piece leads to the first one coming from the board. In fact it only the day before yesterday I found myself holding up and admiring one such shaving simply because it was translucent and pretty. That's a small bit of harmless pleasure but, again, it would be madness to regard that as some sort of end in itself. Its real significance is of course as an indicator that you've reached a certain stage of processing a board.

As for the ability of a plane to produce wafer thing shavings of a certain thickness: could it be that that was originally mentioned as a sign of the quality of manufacturing of the tool and of the correct adjustment of the plane? To have a plane able to produce one is of course useful as it means you can finish a board bang on the marked line and that IMO is what it is really about. I've got nothing against the Japanese finding a pleasurable diversion in planing for its own sake: it's probably in the same league as showing an overbred dog which has been given a daft haircut and if that's what rings your bell, good luck to you.

It would never occur to me personally to measure the thickness of a shaving. If I can produce a translucent one, then it must be pretty damned thin. I may measure one just out of idle curiosity but that is likely to be a once only measurement. As has already been pointed out, it makes loads more sense to measure the thickness of the board after the shaving has been taken in cases where great accuracy is important.


----------



## CStanford (13 Dec 2016)

One needn't be too worried if their planes won't produce vapor-thin shavings. This is a golden opportunity to learn the nuances of setting up and using scrapers. That said, there are more than a few boutique and semi-boutique makers that will sell you a plane capable of taking the kinds of shavings being discussed in this thread and they more or less guarantee that they will do so right out of the box.

I hesitate to recommend that somebody put a light tuning on a vintage plane since these days that's akin to recommending somebody start doing crack cocaine.


----------



## ED65 (13 Dec 2016)

CStanford":2fkygmo6 said:


> vapor-thin shavings


I'm stealing that one, I like it.



CStanford":2fkygmo6 said:


> I hesitate to recommend that somebody put a light tuning on a vintage plane since these days that's akin to recommending somebody start doing crack cocaine.


I don't know about that, complete overhauls still seem just as popular today as any time over the past few years. Different cultures on different forums?


----------

