# Wooden vs Metal planes



## Jelly (12 Mar 2013)

This may have been done before, but the search function doesn't bring much up.

What are the relative advantages of wooden and metal planes? I use both, but definitely prefer the wooden ones though in part that may be having been lucky to get a decent smoother, jack and try plane to start with. My Faithfull № 4 has been indispensable on this last project (never using purpleheart for fine joinery again!) as it was less of a big deal to sharpen a back-bevel for an increased cutting angle, as I knew the iron was an easily replaceable standard part.

I presume metal planes (especially steel planes, assuming they're not all either bargin basement, or collectable early stanley) would have an advantage for site work.


----------



## Jacob (12 Mar 2013)

I've a load of both. I keep trying to get the woodies working for me but never for long.
The main advantage of wooden planes is that they are cheap. Good ones on ebay go for £2 or so. Secondly they are lighter and so reduce the actual work necessary. 
But in every other respect metal planes are far superior: easy and quicker to adjust precisely, easier and quicker to sharpen, more reliable (don't go out of adjustment).
But I do use one often. It's a 3/4" skew rebate which is really useful - up to the point where the much more adaptable Stanley 78 is called for.
Metal planes have the advantage for site and shop work without a doubt, but you could stick to woodies if you felt you wanted to. To make them viable I think you'd need a lot of them so that you can have them ready, set and sharpened for different uses. But this is possible - I just bought a box of 20 assorted for £40, condition variable from worn out to unused


----------



## adzeman (12 Mar 2013)

I use both. When I took my City & Guild in 1957 on the tool list to take was a plough to which my parents bought me a Record in metal. Coudnt handle it had to borrow the shop wood plough. What I notice when picking uo a wood plane you can tell if its a good for you. It just fits in your hand and seems to work on its own ie just push it. (it does happen sometimes with metal)


----------



## MIGNAL (12 Mar 2013)

Weight. Wooden planes are light, a distinct advantage when there is a _lot_ of hand planing to be done. Try using a No. 6 metal or No. 7 for a lengthy period of time, tea breaks every 5 minutes. The heft of metal planes may be an advantage on harder, difficult grain timber.


----------



## AndyT (12 Mar 2013)

For bench planes, I think it's like Jacob said; metal planes did actually bring some improvements, most noticeably the ease of setting the iron exactly right for the task in hand. However, to quickly plane 5-10mm off the edge of a board, I will still use a wooden jack plane first (set to take a thick shaving) followed by a fine-set metal plane to ensure a smooth edge. It's the way I learnt at school (where each boy's kit included a wooden jack plane but metal planes were only issued strictly when needed at the end of a project) and it's efficient.

There are several specialist tools where I prefer the wooden models. For example, the wooden moving fillister with its skewed blade is far nicer to use - and quicker - than the 78 / 788 style metal plane. Simple unfenced wooden rebate planes are versatile but can't really stand in for a massive steel or iron shoulder plane.

Once you get to moulding planes there's no competition and it's wood all the way.


----------



## RogerBoyle (12 Mar 2013)

Each have their good and bad points/merits etc but I honestly believe it comes down to simple personal preference 

I have tried several times to get on with wooden planes 
unfortunately they are just not for me, I don't like the feel or weight of them
so it would be true to say I don't own any anymore 

Sorry LOL 

Roger


----------



## Corneel (12 Mar 2013)

Of course wooden planes are better! The most complex furniture ever made was at a time when almost no iron planes were available. Since the rise of the iron planes, the quality of handtool woodworking has seen a steady decline....

Yes, metal planes are bit easier to use. I've been using woodies almost exclusively the last half year or so, and still find it somewhat easier to adjust a Stanley. The Stanley does have a very slick design. The woodies are much nicer to hold in a cold shop, the woodies glide so much nicer over the wood, and the lighter weight certainly is an advantage (despite modern planemakers claiming otherwise). For me the grip of a woodie foreplane is a lot more comfortable then a metal plane. So overall it's a matter of preference and a bit of practice.


----------



## James-1986 (12 Mar 2013)

I've never used one, I have a wooden rebate plane but its a paperweight for my receipts  

My no8 record has seen better days and it is tiring to use, I wouldn't mind a go on an ECE jointer with the metal bench plane style adjustment.


----------



## Jacob (12 Mar 2013)

James-1986":3kpwl9ec said:


> I've never used one, I have a wooden rebate plane but its a paperweight for my receipts
> 
> My no8 record has seen better days and it is tiring to use, I wouldn't mind a go on an ECE jointer with the metal bench plane style adjustment.


Dunno it seems neither fish nor fowl. If you are going retro you might as well do it properly!
I'll keep fiddling with mine - maybe one day they'll reveal their true worth. :shock:


----------



## jimi43 (12 Mar 2013)

Of course...I would be expected to say "why not have both!"

Infills... :mrgreen: 

Having said that...moulding planes are definitely better in wood...far better than faffing about with those crazy combination planes.

Jimi


----------



## Corneel (12 Mar 2013)

Other virtues of wooden planes:
Cheap. Jacob allready mentioned it. Vintage planes can be had for a song.
The old one often have very good irons. Laminated thick blades, easy to sharpen, take a great and durable edge (with a a bit of luck).
They are so easy to tune! Being woodworkers, it's pretty rediculous in fact to spend your time rebuilding metal planes, getting dirty hands in the proces. The caveat of course, they do need quite a bit of tuning. Vintage ones are usually pretty much worn out. Nothing a woodworker can't fix though.
Jointers, up to 30" long are easy to find and a joy to use. Cheap too. Try to lift a 30"iron jointer, if such a one would exist.
You can even make your own planes! The krenov patern is easy and popular and they work great. The traditional pattern is a bit more involved to make, but very doable. 

Some not so great things about wooden planes.
Of course setting them takes a bit of practice. A jack or a foreplane is easy and in fact faster to set then a metal plane. The jointer isn't bad either. The fine setting of the smoother is a bit of an art. It helps to not set the wedge too tight, so it easier to move the iron up again with some taps on the back.
Moving wood through the seasons. Yes, they loose the flattness of the sole when the weather changes. You can also see this as a positive thing. The movement of your plane tells you something about all the other wood in the shop. With some fine sandpaper on glass the issue is easilly and quickly resolved though.

When you buy vintage wooden planes, have a look at the latest blog post from the logan cabinet shop. It has some good tips how to repair and tune them: http://logancabinetshoppe.com/blog/2013/02/troubleshooting-wooden-plane-problems/


----------



## Jacob (12 Mar 2013)

jimi43":w00u5lx5 said:


> Of course...I would be expected to say "why not have both!"
> 
> Infills... :mrgreen:
> 
> ...


OK if you have one for every profile you expect to use, sharp and ready. But they are cheap so this is quite possible I suppose.
I've been using a woody rebate plane lately but the body has warped a bit over the winter. No prob as it's the work of seconds to plane it straight. But then it's going to bend again by mid summer and need straightening again - getting smaller every year!


----------



## bugbear (13 Mar 2013)

The plane I use the most is a Record #5, nicely tuned for fine, accurate cuts (one might loosely call it a small panel plane).

But many of the planes I prefer using are wooden - skew rebate, moving fillister, mildly cambered jack plane and scrub plane. The blades tend be excellent, and well bedded, and the soles glide far more easily.

Adjusting is not the same as a metal plane, but is an easily acquired skill (there are videos on the web) - the main tip to the ham fisted is - put away the big hammer.

BugBear


----------



## adzeman (13 Mar 2013)

There is one important item regarding wood planes is that if you own one you are looking after a peice of history to be passed on. Rather give give some TLC than end up on a rubish tip after a house clearance.


----------



## jimi43 (13 Mar 2013)

Jacob":343l4oeb said:


> jimi43":343l4oeb said:
> 
> 
> > Of course...I would be expected to say "why not have both!"
> ...



I also have a collection of metal drill bits...I find the wooden ones very ineffective..... :wink: :roll: 

And you know what Jacob...they cost me more each than each one of my Gabriels.

You just buy the one you want for the job you need when you need it...

Or...you can buy every one you see for the love of the art and the hand that made them and have the added bonus that when you need one to do a job...you have the one you need.

I find this more useful than collecting stamps....

Jim


----------



## lwilliams (19 Mar 2013)

Jelly":1ej8126w said:


> This may have been done before, but the search function doesn't bring much up.
> 
> What are the relative advantages of wooden and metal planes? I use both, but definitely prefer the wooden ones though in part that may be having been lucky to get a decent smoother, jack and try plane to start with. My Faithfull № 4 has been indispensable on this last project (never using purpleheart for fine joinery again!) as it was less of a big deal to sharpen a back-bevel for an increased cutting angle, as I knew the iron was an easily replaceable standard part.
> 
> I presume metal planes (especially steel planes, assuming they're not all either bargin basement, or collectable early stanley) would have an advantage for site work.



From the outside, I find it frustrating British woodworkers generally don't have an appreciation of their wooden plane heritage. In the 18th Century, when British planes were made by a local plane maker rather than by some larger factory the planes were the best ever made. At least I believe they were.

Take for example Rich's post in the thread on the history of left-handed tools:



richarnold":1ej8126w said:


> As a lefty, and a lover of vintage tools, this has been a constant struggle over the years, but basically I have just learnt to adapt and use moulding planes and anything handed in the convetional manner with my right hand. The early bench planes had an offset handle and I made a big mistake a year or so ago when I made some copies of an early 18th century design. I forgot to reverse the offset!!. I just couldn't use them at all. I ended up selling them to an American tool dealer.



Rich found 18th Century style planes set up for right-handed use were unusable. I know exactly what he's talking about. But think about that for a minute. The off-set tote (yes, it's an old British term as is rabbet) makes that much difference in the side-to-side balance of the plane that Rich didn't keep those planes he made? It really does make that much difference, you feel like you're fighting the plane the whole time you're using it if the tote is off-set the wrong way. 

Here's a question--if the plane makers of the time paid that much attention to the side-to-side balance of the plane, wouldn't they also pay attention to the end-to-end balance? 

Given that the balance is most relevant on the return stroke and the return is more than half the work you do with a plane. I learned a long time ago to avoid dragging a tool, other project piece, or anything else across my work. This will leave a burnished scar on the surface that really leaps out on application of stain or surface film finishes. If you're going to avoid these burnished scars unexpectedly leaping out during the finishing process and spoiling the work, you need to develop the habit of never dragging anything across your work through the whole building process.

Can a plane be made so that it's easily lifted off the work with just one hand holding the tote? Yes and it can be made so that it naturally leaves the surface parallel in both the X and Y axis. I don't know of any metal planes made that way and Continental wooden planes are simply awful when it comes to balance. American wooden planes aren't much better than Continental planes. 

Here's a 30" 18th Century style British jointer that's balanced the way it can be. It's agile, less tiring and stressful to use, and feels like a natural extension of your arm.






Here's a photo of an early Stanley 608C that Stanley called a "jointer." No, it's a 24" trying plane as is the wooden plane just behind it and a true jointer just behind them. 






The Stanley weighs 8 pounds 6 1/2 ounces, the wooden trying plane weighs 5 pounds 11 1/2 ounces, and the 30" jointer weighs 6 pounds 8 ounces. Given the poor balance of the Stanley it feels like it's actually more than twice as heavy as the wooden jointer. After working with planes they way they can be, I now find the Stanley as unusable as Rich found his right-handed planes.

As to adjusting, I find adjusting a wedge-set single iron wooden plane a lot easier and faster than Stanley's adjustment gimmick. Properly made wooden planes will make bench work a lot easier for anyone who's willing to take a few minutes to set them.


----------



## Corneel (19 Mar 2013)

Great info Larry! I never thought about the balance like that. And you're right, the German jointers (raubank) are awfull. They even look completely out of wack with the handle on their butt. I am a huge fan of the British planes too. The Dutch ones may look very smart, but technically and in quality the British plane are just better.

In The Netherlands offset handles were the norm for a much longer period then in the US of the UK. I have two 30" jointers, I guess from somewhere around the turn of the 19th to 20th century. One is a Nooitgedagt, who started making planes in 1865 and the other has no makers name. The noname one is now my user-jointer. And indeed it is somehow much easier to get a square edge with this plane then with my Stanley #7. I haven't compared with a woodie with centrally placed handle though. I also don't know about the fore-aft balance, will have a look tonight. Thanks for pointing this out.

BTW, no matter how much I practice with my woodies, I still think the Stanleys are easier to adjust to a very fine setting. I am pretty fast now with my smoothing plane, but still... Here is a video on my blog of me sharpening and setting up my wooden smoother: http://seekelot.blogspot.nl/2013/03/sharpening.html. Setting up the plane starts at 4:00. I apologise for using a brass hammer, really need to make a wooden faced one. Anyway, you can see me fiddling quite a bit. It's much quicker now though, after I have been using the wooden planes exclusively for the last half year.

BTW, here you can see my user set of planes at the moment: http://seekelot.blogspot.nl/2012/06/wooden-planes.html


----------



## Corneel (19 Mar 2013)

I just thought, maybe the continental planes had the mouth so far back, becaue they were originally equiped with a front tote. When you have a front tote the fore aft balance isn't so important, because you have a firm grip on the front. Later the front tote was ommited and now you have to clamp your hand tight around the front to prevent it dropping nose down.

(now, I was really trying to avoid the word tote on this British forum).


----------



## bugbear (19 Mar 2013)

Corneel":2zgdzyac said:


> Anyway, you can see me fiddling quite a bit. It's much quicker now though, after I have been using the wooden planes exclusively for the last half year.



Yeah - the first time I tried it, I thought it was impossible, but some good advice and a little practice made it simple.

BugBear


----------



## Corneel (19 Mar 2013)

Some pictures to illustrate the difference in balance in 18th century planes versus newer ones:\

A copy of 18th century jackplane. The (offset) handle is almost hitting the iron (not installed here). This plane was made by George Willson in colonial Williamsburg.





A more recent jackplane from ebay.





An 18th century dutch jointer. Often these handles were dovetailed into the side of the plane. Here it is in a mortise with drawpins from the side. Handle quite far forward.





And a Nooitgedagt copy from the late 19th century. Handle and escapement have been moved back a lot.


----------



## Dangermouse (24 Mar 2013)

Sorry, for me old wooden planes are nice to look at but don't like em to use. they are too fiddly to set up. Although some were / are made with Norris type adjusters and that makes them more useable. Now an infill is the nearest i'd get to a woody, unless I needed to something special only a woody could do.


----------



## custard (24 Mar 2013)

The problem I find with wooden planes is bench heights. My benches are 37" high because I do all the heavy work with machines so I only use the bench for jointing. At 37" the bench is still fine for light planing, but a wooden plane adds about 4" to the height so it's not really practical any more. 

Incidentally, The Barnsley Workshops, the Mecca of Arts & Crafts furniture making, have their benches at 39-41" high!


----------



## Corneel (25 Mar 2013)

Buy yourself some of these.


----------



## MIGNAL (25 Mar 2013)

There's certainly a learning curve to adjusting wooden Planes. The Plane has to be set up well - in terms of the wedge fitting etc. Certainly a hollow just in front of the blade mars performance. Most people have a few attempts at adjusting and give up. I guess it's a bit like sharpening without using a guide. Once you learn the right technique though it becomes just as easy as adjusting the metal Plane, perhaps quicker than an old Stanley with their significant backlash.
You also have to find the right hold/weight distribution. Going straight from a metal Plane to a wooden Plane without some experience is probably going to be a bit of a frustrating experience. The tendency is to use the exact same technique for both types of Planes. In reality you have to find the right weight distribution between both hands. 
I use both types of Planes. I don't see it as a competition between the two types. I use a wooden Plane wherever I perceive there to be an advantage. That advantage is mainly where there is a fair amount of planing to do in relatively well behaved stock. It's simply much less tiring using a wooden plane over a period of an hour or more. You can see how well a wooden Plane glides over the surface in the following video, at around 50 seconds (notice how he adjusts it):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jizJpFsVcOY


----------



## AndyT (25 Mar 2013)

That's a good video for showing how to grip a wooden plane for surfacing. The palm of the left hand should be flat on the top of the plane, with the thumb on the left and the fingers curled down the right hand side.
The grip when edging is quite different. This picture (from 'Every Man his own Mechanic) shows what I mean:


----------



## jimi43 (25 Mar 2013)

I agree with your comment MIGNAL...very well put.

There is no..."either or"...with metal, wood or infill planes...they are different tools with the same general group name.

One may have "evolved" from another but there is certainly a character and attribute separation that is very distinctive.

I "got" infills quite by accident because I found one early on in my woodworking journey and fell in love.

I put up with "Bailey" type planes because they are workhorses but there is certainly no love for those tools...only one holds my respect and that is my old No.4C

Wooden planes are as much art and history as they are tools...almost primitive...ancient...they hold my respect. The people who made/make wooden planes are craftsmen beyond the norm...the true master craftsmen we all strive to be but often never attain.

This....






....is a work of art....

This....






....is a "Henry Moore" in action...

...and this....






....is a 200 year old antique....which in the right hands....can create other masterpieces.

So before throwing "woodies" into the shed to be food for the worms....think for a moment....it really IS about the TOOLS after all! 8) 

Jim


----------



## adzeman (25 Mar 2013)

Something I cant explain is when you hold a balanced tool it feels right. I have my favorite chisel, hammer screwdriver and plane. If I lost one I would suffer withdrawal simptons. Old tools have this affect and are usually wood but some are metal and some tools like my Record 044 I have never come to grips with. Go into B & Q try a plane out or hammer not good. Go into an old tool/2nd hand specialist store or a boot fair can be heaven/therapeutic. Got to go now the men in a green van wearing white coats has just arrived.


----------



## AndyT (25 Mar 2013)

I agree with all that. Tiny differences of handle size, roundness, positioning and balance make a big difference in use. The pictures Corneel posted show how different the positions of handles and iron can be. Add in the variables of the body size of the user and it can all get a bit bewildering - but so nice when the elements are all just right.


----------



## D_W (1 Feb 2016)

I'm going to resurrect this topic--strange that google brought it to me when I was looking for 18th century plane eyes not too long ago, and then again today when I was looking for pictures of a stanley 8. 

Larry's planes shown above are lighter than most double iron planes of the same size (a try plane would be closer in weight to his jointer), and what I found of a plane that wasn't totally dried up is that the 22-24 inch try/long plane that would parallel a stanley 7 is somewhere around the same weight. I have had them as light as 6 pounds 6 ounces, and some closer to 8. 

When I make a plane in the same dimensions as the old try planes with a 2 1/2 inch wide iron, they are always between 7 and 8 pounds, depending on the density of the billet that's used.

Less fatigue with the wooden planes has always been about friction more than toe weight, as I've not done more with a stanley in use other than lift it to reduce iron wear a little - never totally off of a piece. 

A topic of interest to me because making wooden planes was something that ended up on my bench because I wanted to ditch my power tools for the most part, and using a lie nielsen jointer or a stanley 8 to do a lot of face jointing is an uninviting task unless you stop constantly to wax. 

I surveyed the weights of planes carefully before starting, just out of curiosity. I had a 21 inch chapin plane that weighed close to 9 pounds, and I still don't know why. I guess someone repeatedly oiled it (it was beech with a 2 1/2" iron). It was undesirable to use. Also had a 28 inch J. H. Lamb jointer (2 1/2" iron) that was otherwise a nice plane, but it was over 10 pounds (also beech) whereas another make (can't remember) that had a 2 3/4" iron was about 8 1/2 pounds. In heavy work with that iron width, it actually felt a bit light - especially after using the lamb. 

The first double iron plane that I made was a 28" jointer, and it came out at 10 pounds. 

(all of the planes I've mentioned are double iron, and the handles are not quite as close to the back of the iron because they are common pitch. AS a counter to the opinion that the plane should rise up without being toe or heel heavy, the hand position that requires that has never been very favorable to me because it puts the mouth further back on the plane, and in use, it feels less like it's at the front of your hand, and more like the mouth is operating under your armpit, so to speak - that's undesirable in heavy work). 

I would assume there is plenty of merit to the later double iron format as it cost more to purchase, but eliminated single iron planes on an economic basis (in that you could do a greater volume of work over a period of time).


----------

