# Planing End Grain



## James C (22 Feb 2013)

Went for a little look round Axminster yesterday whilst on holiday to see what the next tool I might be saving towards. 
I can only really afford to spend £60 a month on tools and such but I have managed to flesh out most of what I need. 

The main thing I struggle with at the moment is planing and shooting end grain. Yesterday's trip was to look at all the lovely low Angle planes that I won't be able to afford for a while. 
(Torn between the Veritas or the Quangsheng currently).

In the meantime I have to make do with my vintage Stanley No5 which is a real beauty being a Type 11. I have the original iron ground with a camber and a spare Quangsheng iron set straight for edges. 

Even when I have my plane set tightly and the iron very sharp, sometimes I struggle to push through when shooting end grain. I've read in American magazines about the use of denatured alcohol to make it easier to work. I know that we use methylated spirits in this country but that it is made in a different process and I think Meths in America aren't dyed. 

I'm a bit wary about using Meths on my wood due to the different manufacturing process and the use of dye. Has anyone tried this before? Is there a better alternative?


----------



## bugbear (22 Feb 2013)

James C":15lr6uqa said:


> Even when I have my plane set tightly and the iron very sharp, sometimes I struggle to push through when shooting end grain.



Shooting is not as easy as some people say...

It's quite difficult to get a fine set plane to take an even shaving, so the temptation is to set the blade a bit deeper.

When this (finally!) bites it can be hard to push.

I would recommend practising on soft (scrap) wood to get your technique in place. The blade (of course) needs to be pretty much as sharp as you can get it.

I would also recommend either knifing the line you're working to all the way round, or (at least) chamfering the rear edge of the workpiece to prevent spelching.

BugBear


----------



## deema (22 Feb 2013)

End grain can be a nightmare. I have also tried to find the holy grail solution without any luck. Low angle planes are I believe very popular, most have the blade bevel up. If you add up the angles, 20 degrees of the frog and say 25 degrees for the blade your back to the standard angle of a normal frog with the plane bevel down, net result no improvement as the planing angle is the same. ( standard frogs are usually 45degrees). 

The only remedy for using a plane is I believe what you have already highlighted. A really, really sharp blade and a closed up mouth. 

There is another solution when money and space allow. A Morso mitre machine (Rolls Royce), or one of the bench top guillotines that are used for picture framing allow almost any angle to be cut with precision leaving a glass like finish. Everything will butt up perfectly. I have not tried the Axminster bench top guillotine, it looks OK, it has a reasonable capacity and can do compound angles. It can often be found eBay for less than your monthly budget.


----------



## Jacob (22 Feb 2013)

End grain is easy if you have a sharp plane finely set and a very steady hand.
Try doing it in the vice without a shooting board. Work towards the middle from each end. Start with no cut and slowly advance the blade until it's just doing it. It's easier than a shooting board and if you can do this you will find a shooting board easier to use (but not essential).
Low angle planes are fairly pointless - the effective cutting angle is too close to the normal plane to make any difference. Except for small low angle block planes which are convenient for one hand use.


----------



## AndyT (22 Feb 2013)

I've never heard of using alcohol to improve planing but I guess if you wanted to try it, surgical spirit from the first aid section of the chemist's would be the colour-free option.


----------



## Richard T (22 Feb 2013)

It is a lot easier to pare end grain with a chisel held at a low angle and bevel up. I wouldn't even think of trying it the other way round. 

And it is a lot easier for a plane body to hold an iron in a paring position to slice end grain. This has been the function of mitre planes for centuries - certainly before modern makers started to sell BU planes for every use and started talking about effective pitch for smoothing/shaping purposes. 
The above mentioned specialist mitre slicers also come at it at a very low angle and bevel up. 

Good quality BD planes might do it and do it well but they don't find it as mechanically easy. 

For end grain it just makes sense to pare it. Effective pitch has nothing to do with it. It's ergonomically superior ...an' all that stuff.


----------



## bugbear (22 Feb 2013)

Richard T":3puostnd said:


> The above mentioned specialist mitre slicers also come at it at a very low angle and bevel up.



Indeed - the frog angle is effectively zero, so the EP is far lower than any plane (lowest frog angle 12 degrees).

I do have a rather unusual vintage coffin bodied plane with a frog angle of 36.5 degrees though, presumably aimed at end grain work.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (22 Feb 2013)

Richard T":386xwg8j said:


> It is a lot easier to pare end grain with a chisel held at a low angle and bevel up. I wouldn't even think of trying it the other way round.


Yes


> And it is a lot easier for a plane body to hold an iron in a paring position to slice end grain.


My planes never complain. Ease doesn't come into it!


> For end grain it just makes sense to pare it.


With a chisel yes


> Effective pitch has nothing to do with it. It's ergonomically superior ....


With a plane effective pitch is all. Ergonomics is to do with the handles, nothing to do with the blade at all.


----------



## János (22 Feb 2013)

Hello,

Planing end grain is a demanding task. The best tool for this work is a miter plane, in the American configuration, with blade bevel down. The beding angle is 32~35 degrees, so it has the same cutting angle as a low angle block plane with 20 deg. blade.
But its blade is sharpened to 25~28 deg, so it holds its edge better.

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## Dlow (22 Feb 2013)

I have always used my 5 1/2 for end grain shooting with a shooting board. I find it works well providing it is sharp and the material is thin, around max 10mm. Anything thither i will put in the vice and use mu low angle block plane. If it starts getting too large for the block plane i can revert back to my 5 1/2 holding the peace in the vice. 

David


----------



## bugbear (22 Feb 2013)

János":3s3g4nqk said:


> Hello,
> 
> Planing end grain is a demanding task. The best tool for this work is a miter plane, in the American configuration, with blade bevel down. The beding angle is 32~35 degrees, so it has the same cutting angle as a low angle block plane with 20 deg. blade.
> But its blade is sharpened to 25~28 deg, so it holds its edge better.
> ...



Which plane are you thinking of? The obvious one, the Stanley #9 is definitely bevel up.

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (22 Feb 2013)

Whether you can successfully plane end grain to a nice smooth surface does depend on the wood as well as the tools used. One of the most difficult woods to get a smooth end grain surface is the common softwood sold by builders' merchants for interior joinery. It shows markedly different summer and winter growth, with bands of harder, darker wood alternating with lighter, very soft wood. Unless the blade is very sharp and the pressure quite gentle, the lighter wood can be too weak to support the darker wood while it is being cut. The result is that chunks get torn out leaving a rough surface. (This can also be a problem when trying to chop out dovetails with a chisel.)
Be sceptical of demonstrations using carefully selected, mild wood - or else accept that choosing the right material is one of the good woodworker's skills!


----------



## Peter T (22 Feb 2013)

I use a good quality 4 1/2 smoother for larger pieces and a Philly skew mitre to shoot smaller pieces; works fine for me so long as they are SHARP.

You do need to keep everything securely clamped. If not you will get chatter during the cut and then you might as well give up!

Good luck,


----------



## János (22 Feb 2013)

Hello,

The tool is the wooden miter/mitre plane, with bevel down blade, with single or double iron, with straight sides or in coffin shape. It was mentioned in Whelan, John M.: The wooden Plane, pages 65-66.





This is mine, with an 50 mm blade with cap iron, bedded at 32 deg.

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (22 Feb 2013)

No ones mentioned candle wax yet. Surprised at that. I use a block plane. I sharpen to a razor edge on the tormek or oil stone by hand in the bad old days. This is of course critical. I mount the board in a vice and wax the sole of the plane by rubbing it with a candle. I chamfer the sides by taking light passes from the edge towards the end of the board ie upwards at about 45degree to vertical. This prevents split out of the grain fibres when you plane across the end grain which I do next. I tend to go from edge to the middle but if its a small enough surface and you've chamfered you can go right across in one pass. The set is fine of course. Keep rewaxing the sole as necessary. It positively glides and you're left with a finish you simply can't get with sandpaper no matter what the grit.


----------



## JonnyD (22 Feb 2013)

This plane works ok for shooting 






Well a bit better than ok it slices through effortlessly. I have found any plane will work well as long as its sharp but the low angle bevel up planes work well those with a 12 degree bed and 25 degree bevel. 

Cheers

Jon


----------



## Cheshirechappie (22 Feb 2013)

JonnyD":3m6vnsxo said:


> This plane works ok for shooting
> 
> 
> 
> ...



At £435-50 a pop, it damn well ought to work better than OK. People have assembled entire tool kits for less than that.

Edit to add - happy the person who can afford such a solution. For those with less to spend - a bench plane with a very sharp iron, not too deep a cut and a bit of persistence will get you there most of the time. If you can run to a mitre-type plane with a thick, bevel-up iron (again, very sharp) then so much the better. Whatever you use, sharpness of cutter does seem to be the important bit.


----------



## AndyT (22 Feb 2013)

Cheshirechappie":24brs2yz said:


> At £435-50 a pop, it damn well ought to work better than OK. People have assembled entire tool kits for less than that.



- and I see the handle has got all twisted! I'll take it off your hands for you if you want...


----------



## JonnyD (22 Feb 2013)

I can live with the twisted handle so I think I'll keep it. Should I bring it along to the sharpening event?

Cheers

Jon


----------



## James C (22 Feb 2013)

Some helpful comments on here so thanks everyone. I will try scribing a knife line all the way round, but I already use chamfers to stop spelching. 

The main problems is the plane being forced out of the cut when planing Oak. I will try to endure and improve my technique but I used a very sharp iron with a tight mouth and still had problems. The sole is not out (I have checked). 

At Axminster I used a low angle jack with a pretty dull iron and a similarly set mouth and got great consistent shavings. I think that bevel up does have an effect so it goes on the ever growing to purchase list. 

Denatured alcohol seems to widely used in America and endorsed by FWW and Chris Schwarz and all that lot. I've seen clear Methulated spirit advertised on the continent as a sanding assistant that doesn't raise the grain like water would. 

I might try surgical spirit and I will give methylated spirits a go as well and see how it turns out.


----------



## Peter T (22 Feb 2013)

I've got a Veritas low angle smoother and a L/N 4 1/2 and on oak and maple end grains I can find no difference in the performance. They both give very good results so long as the wood is firmly clamped.

I have to say I prefer the L/N over the Veritas. It feels more comfortable in the hand and is nice and weighty.


----------



## János (22 Feb 2013)

Hello,

Planing the endgrain of very hard woods, like well dried oak, ash, black locust, bubinga, blackwood, wenge etc. is a demanding and difficult task: it requires well tuned and sharp tools, and serious physical strength. I am a small man, and my low body weight is a handicap in planing endgrain. I talk about planing wider/thicker pieces, and not glasing bars...

Wood is composed of cellulose and lignin fibres. By saturating them with suitable liquids you could soften/plasticise the fibres. Water would swell the wood, but alcohols (any type: methy-alcohol, ethyl-alcohol, isopropyl-alcohol), turpentine and ligroin would not swell or discolour the wood, and would dry up in a relatively short time.

By the way, Americans are idiots.... they reinvent the wheel all the time, and do make a loud noise about it. Chris Schwarz included.

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## GazPal (22 Feb 2013)

Spelching or spelking? We normally say spelking up this way.


----------



## Jacob (22 Feb 2013)

James C":2bq6zz7h said:


> ...
> 
> The main problems is the plane being forced out of the cut when planing Oak. I will try to endure and improve my technique but I used a very sharp iron with a tight mouth and still had problems. ....t.


Forced out of the cut? Trying too hard - the cut should be more of a series of shaves (like very thin potato peelings but falling into dust) and you need a cambered blade for this. Also mouth width has no bearing - it might as well be wide open.


----------



## James C (22 Feb 2013)

János":3vyt75kn said:


> Hello,
> 
> Wood is composed of cellulose and lignin fibres. By saturating them with suitable liquids you could soften/plasticise the fibres. Water would swell the wood, but alcohols (any type: methy-alcohol, ethyl-alcohol, isopropyl-alcohol), turpentine and ligroin would not swell or discolour the wood, and would dry up in a relatively short time.
> 
> ...



It's a shame you spoiled a helpful piece of advice with that comment. I've always taken a chew the meat and spit out the bones approach to learning and have found a lot of good advice from the states. 

I will have a go with the cambered iron tomorrow Jacob as soon as I get shavings I will get some photos uploaded. You are probably right about the over exertion. I will try light minimal cuts.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (23 Feb 2013)

GazPal":385lkuhz said:


> Spelching or spelking? We normally say spelking up this way.



I've never heard it called "spelking". 

(down the other end, opposite side)


----------



## GazPal (23 Feb 2013)

Spelking - up this way - simply means splintering and I've had more than my fair share of spelks (Splinters) in my fingers and hands over the years. Ye olde worlde Schwarz mis pronounces ye olde English/Norse word every time and insists on saying spel ching, whereas it should be pronounced Spelking with the ch sounding like a k. :wink: 

Here's a link to an online source I've just found which helps explain;

http://thecarpentryway.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... pelch.html


The Yanks do tend to insist on making up their own versions of our words and place names after all


----------



## James C (23 Feb 2013)

GazPal":149etnnm said:


> The Yanks do tend to insist on making up their own versions of our words and place names after all



That is true. We do the same. Because of the ways that words are spelt vs. pronounced in English leads to some re-bates rather than rabbets and people who don't use a chisel for pair-ing (paring) but instead for parrr-ing. 

Also the amount of times I get told I'm using Americanisms when talking about Routers...... #-o


----------



## newt (23 Feb 2013)

Can't see the need for a tight mouth when planing end grain.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (23 Feb 2013)

Gary - I've only ever heard spelch ( ch, not k ) as a verb, I've never heard it as a noun - it's a splinter.
Pete - as Jacob said.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (24 Feb 2013)

Language evolves in every culture, its not just between the US and UK. They do of course say that we're two nations separated by the same language 

The fact is that all languages evolve through a number of different mechanisms, regional dialect being just one. I for one have quite enjoyed my journey learning what Norm calls a jointer or the other classic...2 by 4 instead of 4 bi 2

I think it enriches the understanding and makes the subject more three dimensional. I also believe the Americans have some fabulous creative skills with wood and let's also remember much of their housing stock is wood framed. Norm is to woodworkers what The Waltons were to families 

In the end we all share a deep respect for this incredible natural resource, who really cares how we choose to label it


----------



## Jacob (24 Feb 2013)

They have New York, New England etc. maybe they should call it "new spelching" .


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (24 Feb 2013)

Lol...good idea ;-)


----------



## Phil Pascoe (24 Feb 2013)

"New Spelching" - sounds like a town in middle England.


----------



## GazPal (24 Feb 2013)

phil.p":3om6490y said:


> "New Spelching" - sounds like a town in middle England.



That'd be in the south, but we'd have New Spelking in the north :lol:


----------



## bugbear (24 Feb 2013)

Robert Wearing calls (and spells it) "spelching" in _The Essential Woodworker_.
BugBear


----------



## bugbear (24 Feb 2013)

Jacob":2msu19o8 said:


> the cut should be more of a series of shaves (like very thin potato peelings but falling into dust)



I'll agree with thin cuts, but the shavings will hold together if your plane is sharp enough, and cutting clean enough.

Here's KlausK (of back saw fame) cutting cherry, on a home made skew bladed mitre plane.







A quick google gave:

http://blog.woodworkingtooltips.com/201 ... end-grain/

Nice intact shavings, and a super clean work surface.

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (24 Feb 2013)

Thanks BB - that confirms my point about the wood making such a big difference - so one way out for the OP would be to start again, using cherry or walnut instead!


----------



## Jacob (24 Feb 2013)

bugbear":1q2anhqy said:


> Jacob":1q2anhqy said:
> 
> 
> > the cut should be more of a series of shaves (like very thin potato peelings but falling into dust)
> ...


He seems to be planing a mitred surface. This is really easy with any sharp plane, compared to planing at right angles to the grain


> A quick google gave:
> 
> .....
> Nice intact shavings, and a super clean work surface.
> ...


Hmm. What wood? You couldn't do that with many hardwoods. Even KlausK couldn't do that with his much easier mitre cut.
There are too many clowns out there doing conjuring tricks! Which wouldn't matter, except if you can't do the same you might think it's your own fault, or even that it's time to buy a ludicrously expensive American plane. :roll:


----------



## Peter Sefton (24 Feb 2013)

I can’t think of any hardwoods I have end grain planed that have not produced shavings, dust shows the tools are blunt breaking the fibres not cutting them.


You don’t have to have a fancy shear cut specialist plane just a sharp one.


----------



## MIGNAL (24 Feb 2013)

Try Ebony end grain  Brittle nature of some woods tend to result in the shavings crumbling before your very eyes.


----------



## Jacob (25 Feb 2013)

Peter Sefton":iwyrqmn5 said:


> I can’t think of any hardwoods I have end grain planed that have not produced shavings, dust shows the tools are blunt breaking the fibres not cutting them.


Well OK yes if it's thin enough, and the right variety. I think the stuff in BBs link above also looks like an easy one. I wonder what it is, vaguely like oak but with very open pores. Butternut?


> You don’t have to have a fancy shear cut specialist plane just a sharp one.


Agree.
A prob for beginners is the contradictory advice. On the one hand it's difficult, another says it's easy. 
The truth is in between - if you are new to it it's difficult, with practice it magically becomes easier! 
The practice is more important than the kit (as long as it's sharp).


----------



## Sgian Dubh (25 Feb 2013)

Jacob":bb2z1g3w said:


> He seems to be planing a mitred surface. This is really easy with any sharp plane, compared to planing at right angles to the grain


He may be planing the mitred ends of that bit of what looks like poplar (tulipwood) reared up on the right hand end of the shooting board Jacob, but the shavings on the bench are unrelated to that particular piece of wood-- the shavings could be steamed beech or cherry for example, but they're not white/off-white, they're long grain, not end grain; and they're too wide for the mitre that seems to have been cut in that photograph. Slainte.


----------



## Jacob (25 Feb 2013)

Sgian Dubh":3j2hld2o said:


> Jacob":3j2hld2o said:
> 
> 
> > He seems to be planing a mitred surface. This is really easy with any sharp plane, compared to planing at right angles to the grain
> ...


Right so they are! Not even end grain. The mitred piece presumably one he did earlier!
I was looking at the wood in the link here http://blog.woodworkingtooltips.com/201 ... end-grain/
and wondering what it is.


----------



## bugbear (25 Feb 2013)

Here's more detail, for those that feel the need:

here's the entire thread

He's planing end grain on donkey's ear.

Here's the images from the blog I linked to:

Shaving:







End grain surface:






BugBear


----------



## Sgian Dubh (25 Feb 2013)

Jacob":g9yxyncd said:


> I was looking at the wood in the link here http://blog.woodworkingtooltips.com/201 ... end-grain/
> and wondering what it is.


I think that's possibly American black walnut, but it might be butternut which is sometimes substituted for walnut. Butternut has similar grain characteristics to American black walnut, although it's slightly coarser, paler in colour, lighter weight, and somewhat softer. Slainte.


----------



## bugbear (25 Feb 2013)

János":15gxf1mi said:


> Hello,
> 
> The tool is the wooden miter/mitre plane, with bevel down blade, with single or double iron, with straight sides or in coffin shape. It was mentioned in Whelan, John M.: The wooden Plane, pages 65-66.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the clarification - I didn't think of that as a particularly nation-based design, although (as you say) Whelan does indeed make the claim.

Our own Philly makes those, in both plain and skewed variants

http://www.phillyplanes.co.uk/index.php ... &Itemid=12

http://www.phillyplanes.co.uk/index.php ... &Itemid=21

and I can confirm that they work extremely well.

Whelen says the square bodied variant is the exception, with the coffin variant being more common. Interestingly, I have an instance of this "American" plane, made just up the road at Norwich, by Griffiths.






(described here
original-wooden-low-angle-plane-described-t36198.html
)

BugBear


----------



## GazPal (25 Feb 2013)

bugbear":1z3x8x82 said:


> Robert Wearing calls (and spells it) "spelching" in _The Essential Woodworker_.
> BugBear



I honestly don't care how Robert Wearing spelt it. :lol: The "ch" sounds "k" and original pronunciation was spelk, with spelling variations including spelke, spelc and spelch. I do however care about the manner in which The Schwarz sometimes misleads others via his interpretation/misinterpretation of words and information. He's a writer and lifelong amateur woodworker, but not someone who's been involved within the craft for the entirety of his working life. 

http://utting.org/wordpress/word-of-the-week-spelch/

From the above link;

"As many of you have been reading this, the little voice in your head has been pronouncing "spelch" to rhyme with "squelch"; but, while researching this post, I learned that, because of its root in the Old English word spelc (a splint for a broken limb), spelch is correctly pronounced "spelk" to rhyme with whelk.

http://www.dsl.ac.uk/snda4frames.php?dt ... uery=Spelk

DSL - DOST (Spelk,) Spelch, Speck, n. [Late ME and e.m.E. spelke (Prompt. Parv.), spelk (1563), OE spelc. Also in the later dial.] a. ? A rod or bar used in building (a roof, etc.). b. A splinter. — a. The portcullious … beand rasit vp, fell doun to the ground agane, and a part of a spelch [Bann. Memor. 264, spelise] therof fleing of, hurt Harie Balfour in the heid; Bann. Trans. 388. For work furnissed … to the ferry boat viz. seame roofe and specks [? erron. for spelks]; 1683 Kirkcudbr. B. Rec. MS 1 Aug. — b. The seaventh kinde [of fracture] is, when a little part of the bone is superficially separated like unto a little spelch or sclat, called by the Greekes Apotrasis or Acopape; Lowe Chirurgerie 354.

--------------

I tend to prefer kniving to lines before shooting end grain, but often chamfer to a line and definitely recommend a plane set to take as fine as possible shaving with a fresh sharp edge.

Finding a plane stopped in it's tracks when shooting typically indicates too aggressive a set, a less than ideal cutting edge, or both.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 Feb 2013)

Pronounce it as you wish, but the way it was pronounced in Old English is completely irrelevant. "v"s in Latin were pronounced "w", but if I used the word "wagina" everyone would think I was off my trolley. Language changes.


----------



## Jacob (25 Feb 2013)

Wagina? 
What a wag! :lol:


----------



## bugbear (25 Feb 2013)

GazPal":21penehf said:


> Spelking - up this way - simply means splintering and I've had more than my fair share of spelks (Splinters) in my fingers and hands over the years. Ye olde worlde Schwarz mis pronounces ye olde English/Norse word every time and insists on saying spel ching, whereas it should be pronounced Spelking with the ch sounding like a k. :wink:
> 
> Here's a link to an online source I've just found which helps explain;
> 
> ...



From your  explanatory link:



> A variant pronunciation and spelling of spelc is spelch, typical of a dialect used in the London area. Thus, spelched, spelching.



Sounds like there are regional as well as national variations.

I cited Wearing because he is a living connection to craftsman of earlier times (and by extension, their language).

BugBear


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Feb 2013)

There are still, despite the homongenisation of language by the rise of universal broadcasting, many regional variations of dialect and pronunciation. Just up the road from Gaz, in Scotland and the borders, a 'church' is a 'kirk', which seems consistent with a hard 'c' in 'spelk'.

Language underwent a profound change in the 16th century - the Great Vowel Shift - but it happened in the south, predominantly around London and the university towns. The older English spellings, pronunciations and dialect words persisted far longer in the North. They still do - 'fell', 'beck', 'tup' and many other words still in regular use. Northern English is nearer to Middle English than current BBC English.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 Feb 2013)

B.B.C. English? B.B.C. English is more likely to be Asian or Scottish or both.


----------



## GazPal (26 Feb 2013)

Cheshirechappie":34u3l481 said:


> There are still, despite the homongenisation of language by the rise of universal broadcasting, many regional variations of dialect and pronunciation. Just up the road from Gaz, in Scotland and the borders, a 'church' is a 'kirk', which seems consistent with a hard 'c' in 'spelk'.
> 
> Language underwent a profound change in the 16th century - the Great Vowel Shift - but it happened in the south, predominantly around London and the university towns. The older English spellings, pronunciations and dialect words persisted far longer in the North. They still do - 'fell', 'beck', 'tup' and many other words still in regular use. Northern English is nearer to Middle English than current BBC English.




Precisely the point I was attempting to make. Many words are still in regular use within the North East and more heavily rooted in ye olde worlde Saxon and Scandinavian grammar than those used further south. 

Mrs P can certainly attest to the differences, as she's a West Londoner born and bred.


----------

