# Quartered and "Rift Sawn" Wood for Planes



## J_SAMa (13 Sep 2014)

Finally about to get started on building my wooden plane, which I've been "planning" to for the last few months (hammer).
Firstly, help me get the jargon right. I always thought "rift sawn" refers to stuff for table legs where the growth rings run corner to corner. How come some use it to refer to the "prime cuts" of quartered stock, where growth rings run perfectly perpendicular to the face?

Now with that in mind, did the planemakers of old use exclusively "rift sawn" stock with the growth rings running perfectly perpendicular, or did they use less perfect stock with the growth rings running at say 60 deg? All 4 wooden planes I own have their growth rings running pretty much perfectly perpendicular but I don't think this is a big enough sample to make a judgment from.
Should I pursue the incredibly expensive and hard-to-find "rift sawn" stock, or just settle with less perfect stock? I know the latter would probably be good enough as a user stock but do I really get less problems with perfect stock?

Sam

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23/09/2014:
Well turns out my local lumberyard do have some stock perfectly quartersawn. 70 by 160 mm, I took exactly 1 meter of it

Lots of ray flecks 




Endgrain




One face is perfectly flat with no twist at all (the other was convex), shows how much care the lumberyard took to machine it only after it had been perfectly seasoned. 




Of course quartersawn beech wouldn't dry to have a twist anyway but it's a good indicator I should deal with this lumberyard again. It cost me a fortune, but totally worth it. I expect at least 5 different kinds of planes out of it (including a fore plane, a strike block and a smoother) and a couple other things to use in the shop.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (13 Sep 2014)

The 'best' wooden planes of old were made from straight-grained stock, usually cleft (split) from the log to ensure that they were genuinely 'quartered'. The sole of the plane was aligned closer to the bark side of the billets. The cleft and trimmed billets for bench planes, being quite thick, were left to season for a long time - ten years, sometimes.

Planes of lower quality (and price) were made from stock that wasn't precisely quartered. They surface from time to time (some of the planes in the Benjamin Seaton chest, for example). Home-made planes were sometimes made of whatever was to hand, and may show any orientation of grain, wild grain, even knots.

The term 'rift sawn' seems to mean different things in different parts of the world, but I take it to mean sawn through-and-through, with parallel cuts through the log, taking off the crown first (the outer 'crown-cut') boards, then yielding near-quartered and quartered stock at the centre of the log, and working out to the crown cuts on the other side. I suspect most timber is converted that way nowadays, but finding the quartered boards may be luck, or they may be sorted out by the merchant for sale at a premium. (Edit to add - but see Mike's (woodbrains) comment below.)

One modern approach to plane-making that might avoid the trouble of locating quartered stock, and the long drying time for real stability of thicker blanks, is to take advantage of the quality of modern glues and laminate the blank from thinner stock. Careful selection would allow the growth rings to be aligned in opposite directions through the finished blank to improve it's stability. Thinner stock is also usually a good bit cheaper!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Sep 2014)

It could be laminated from different timbers, too. A perfect hard one for the sole and the top, and something not so good (expensive) in the middle.


----------



## jimi43 (14 Sep 2014)

Also a lot of exotic woods are available today quite easily and certainly easier than in the days when the traditional woodie was made.

The use of exotic wood not only aids in choice for stability but it also makes for harder wearing tools and some very fine figuring.

I only have to sit and look at the very fine toothing plane that Stewie made from Australian and Pacific hardwoods to see a prime example of this manufacturing methods. And those woods are fairly easily available in the West.

Jimi


----------



## woodbrains (14 Sep 2014)

Hello,

Rift sawn has the grain at 45 deg to the surface, quarter sawn, perpendicular and crown sawn parallel to the surface. All with a degree of leeway of a bout 10 degrees either way, of course. Plain sawn logs (through and through) will yield boards which exhibit all of these, depending where the board is taken. We should stick to this convention, as calling flat sawn board rift or rift boards quartered, is just confusing. The logs have been SAWN and not riven, after all. We could choose to rive a log any way we choose, but sawn logs have a naming convention.

I could be wrong, but I understand that we call rift sawn boards after the riven timber used by chair makers, wheel wrights, coopers etc, where they would have riven timber with as much 45 deg grain as possible, as this was better for what they made. Sayers just followed with the naming when the boards they sawed exhibited the same grain orientation.

Mike.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 Sep 2014)

Thanks for that clarification, Mike.

After thirty odd (very odd, some of them) years fiddling with bit of wood, I really should have been less confused about some of the terms applied by sawyers and merchants; but I suspect I'm not the only one!


----------



## Corneel (14 Sep 2014)

Riven wood is dead quartered. That's the easiest cleaving path throug the wood. In oak it is very visible, the riven boards have extreme ray fleck figure. After being rived, the board is tapered. It will often have been hewed and planed in a less quartered position. But one face pretty always remains absolutely quartered. So I am not sure if the word rift comes from riven. But I'm not English, so I shouldn't have too many opinions about English words. 8)


----------



## CStanford (14 Sep 2014)

Rift Sawing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rift_sawing


----------



## JohnPW (14 Sep 2014)

CStanford":5yy7hmys said:


> Rift Sawing:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rift_sawing



Which is "wrong", even says so itself!

This is from a UK book:






Through and through will give about one piece which is truly quarter sawn.


----------



## CStanford (14 Sep 2014)

The illustrations in your article only show quarter sawn lumber. 

QSawn grain orientation is not always perfectly straight. Rift sawn lumber is. I've seen it being done, I've seen the result, and if being done correctly necessarily produces the characteristic triangular pieces of waste per the Wikipedia article.

Through-and-through will actually produce two pieces (on each side of the pith) that are perfectly rift sawn - grain running absolutely perpendicular to the board's end.

I'm not typically a huge fan of EHow but they got this right:

http://www.ehow.com/info_12170400_rift- ... n-oak.html

This is also a good depiction of what's going on:

http://www.advantagelumber.com/sawn-lumber/

You can easily visualize the characteristic triangular waste produce by rift sawing. You can also see the two pieces of rift sawn (NOT quartersawn) lumber produced by sawing through-and-through (aka 'plain sawn'). Compare the illustration on the far left with the one on the far right. Look at dead center of the log on the left and let your eyes track to the log on the right. Voila'

Rift sawing produces four wide stable pieces of lumber where quartersawing does not. See the diagrams. The other boards produced by rift sawing tend to be wider as well though the overall board footage yield is less.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (14 Sep 2014)

I think I agree with CStanford on rift sawn in this context.

You cannot rive wood just as you choose. If you want to rive a large log along the grain, it must be split in half, or close to it, or the split will run off into the thinner part. Splitting smaller pieces of wood with a froe, the split can be steered somewhat, but not so with a large log and wedges.

So riven wood is usually split radially. Which, tthough wasteful for flat boards, maximises the amount of wood which is effectively quarter sawn. And presumably maximises the amount good for planemaking.

Just looking at my woodies, all the side beads are quartersawn. Not all the hollows and rounds are, and the larger planes are more or less random.


----------



## JohnPW (14 Sep 2014)

This subject has come up before:
topic74847.html


marcus":2z85tt6p said:


> Like so many things in woodworking, terminology is often not fully universal, and is down to where you come from etc. etc. Also many things to do with timber (or lumber!) are termed differently in the US (and different parts of the US) and in the UK.
> 
> Certainly the terminology quartered, rift and crown to refer to boards from centre, middle and outside boards of a through-and-through cut log are in general usage, and are understood in those terms among the timber yards and veneer suppliers in the UK that I use. There are also plenty of results taking that view that come up in a Google search for the term.
> 
> Personally I don't care what it is called so long as the people I need to understand know what I mean — and they do. Timber is almost always cut through and through these days, to reduce wastage and for efficiency, and the terms 'quartered' has come to mean the middle board, rather than a method of sawing. If you ask for a quarter-sawn board you will generally get the middle board of a through and through cut log.



It seems there's 2 ways to use these terms. One is to describe the method of sawing and the other is to describe the grain angle. So "quarter sawn" as in how it's sawn can give grain that's up to 45 degrees, but "quarter sawn" to mean the grain angle (90 degrees) can come from through and through.


----------



## J_SAMa (14 Sep 2014)

http://www.preverco.com/en/blog/what-do ... rsawn-mean
It says:
"Riftsawn wood has every board cut along a radius of the original log, so each board has a perpendicular grain, with the growth rings oriented at right angles to the surface of the board. At these angles, the medullary rays are not apparent and there is not fleck visible in the boards."
????? Are visible medullary rays maximized when the growth rings are perpendicular?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Sep 2014)

Yes. Medullary rays show on the radius.


----------



## J_SAMa (14 Sep 2014)

phil.p":1c35csre said:


> Yes. Medullary rays show on the radius.


Exactly, then how come the website I quoted above says the opposite?


----------



## CStanford (14 Sep 2014)

JohnPW":1dc10mx6 said:


> This subject has come up before:
> topic74847.html
> 
> 
> ...



Riftsawn is a very specific term in the U.S. and the stock so sawn is half again as expensive as quartersawn of the same species. One will quickly learn, over here at least, that the terms are not interchangeable when handed an invoice for an order of riftsawn stock. 

It's a labor and machine intensive way to saw lumber and it produces a lot of waste. The straight grain is gorgeous. I much prefer riftsawn oak over quartersawn. The ray flecks/flakes can become jarring if not matched across a piece or a tabletop for instance.


----------



## bugbear (14 Sep 2014)

CStanford":29ofg8oo said:


> Riftsawn is a very specific term in the U.S.



That may be, but the US is not the whole world (despite what some residents appear to think), and this is a UK site.

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (14 Sep 2014)

jimi43":37pt1gi0 said:


> The use of exotic wood not only aids in choice for stability but it also makes for harder wearing tools and some very fine figuring.



Need to think carefully - it you composite different woods you open up the possibiity of differential expansion and contraction under humidity changes, leading to warping, analogous to a bimetallic strip.

BugBear


----------



## woodbrains (15 Sep 2014)

Hello,

What we should bear on mind is there is a difference between intent and result. The intent in quarter sawing is to increase the yield of boards with perpendicular grain, to emphasise the medullary rays on the surface. But trees are more or less cylindrical, so there will be a certain amount of waste and a certain amount of boards that do not comply to the intention. So is a board that is produced by a quarter sawing process, that exhibits grain that is 45 deg to,the surface actually quarter sawn? No it is not, just the same as a through and through board near the centre of the tree, will have near perpendicular grain, is not plain sawn. The description of what the timber is, is not related to how it was cut, (the intention) but what characteristics it exhibits. In other words, if straight grain is evident on all four faces, the board must have grain that is more or less 45 deg to the face, and is rift sawn, even if it was produced by quarter sawing the log, or sawing through and through, or whatever. Just the same as plain sawn logs will have quarter sawn boards towards the centre. These are typically set aside and sold as quarter sawn, even though they were produced by plain sawing.

It is irrelevant which country in the world we inhabit, only boards which have near perpendicular grain are quarter sawn, boards with straight grain on all faces must have nominally 45 deg grain (rift sawn) and all boards with arched grain will have grain parallel,to the face (flat sawn). We just look at what the board is, not how it was produced, for the nomenclature.

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (15 Sep 2014)

woodbrains":1q6jrawu said:


> Hello,
> 
> What we should bear on mind is there is a difference between intent and result. The intent in quarter sawing is to increase the yield of boards with perpendicular grain, to emphasise the medullary rays on the surface. But trees are more or less cylindrical, so there will be a certain amount of waste and a certain amount of boards that do not comply to the intention. So is a board that is produced by a quarter sawing process, that exhibits grain that is 45 deg to,the surface actually quarter sawn? No it is not, just the same as a through and through board near the centre of the tree, will have near perpendicular grain, is not plain sawn. The description of what the timber is, is not related to how it was cut, (the intention) but what characteristics it exhibits. In other words, if straight grain is evident on all four faces, the board must have grain that is more or less 45 deg to the face, and is rift sawn, even if it was produced by quarter sawing the log, or sawing through and through, or whatever. Just the same as plain sawn logs will have quarter sawn boards towards the centre. These are typically set aside and sold as quarter sawn, even though they were produced by plain sawing.
> 
> ...



Just to be clear -- riftsawing an entire log is not accidental. To truly rift saw a log requires an entirely different sequence of cuts and procedures at the mill. It's not done for $hits and giggles. There is no way that the two methods, rift vs. quarter sawing, can be confused at the mill. It's a metaphysical impossibility.

Some specialty mills will group the four big boards (see the diagram I posted earlier) from one riftsawn log and offer it as tabletop material and for other large applications. If it's from a really big log the conference table jockeys usually gobble it up, but always as a matched set of four boards from one log for color match. The four board bit is the key; it's the only method of sawing that will produce four nicely sized boards (again, relative to the size of the log) that are stable and whose grain and color are easily matched.


----------



## bugbear (15 Sep 2014)

A Glossary of Wood, Stobart, 1979, 085442010X

(a reprint of WOOD magazine's glossary column, original book 1948):

*Rift Sawn*: Quarter Sawn, _q.v._ See Converting.

There appear to be many and various sequences for converting a log which differ in the amount of premium
radial material produced, labour involved, and amount of waste.

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (15 Sep 2014)

http://www.hardwooddistributors.org/blo ... wn-lumber/


----------



## CStanford (15 Sep 2014)

bugbear":1kotrfet said:


> CStanford":1kotrfet said:
> 
> 
> > Riftsawn is a very specific term in the U.S.
> ...



Well, this certainly puts the Scottish referendum this week in a context the rest of the world can understand.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Sep 2014)

?


----------



## Sheffield Tony (15 Sep 2014)

I think that we can safely assume that, in the context of planemaking, rift sawn can be taken to mean sawn close to radially, in order that the sole and the sides remain substantially at right angles despite seasonal movement - sawn at 45 degrees to the annular rings would make no sense - it would maximise the dendency to lozenge !

But I'm intrigued by the wider question of wood selection and treatment for planemaking. Beech is no by any means the most stable of woods. I recall asking about this before, and the answer seems to be that it is all a compromise and beech was readily available in large, straight grained sections at a price that made wasteful cutting tolerable, perhaps its wear resistance is important too. I wonder how much the long seasoning helps; obviously it needs to be fully dry, but does it have any impact on seasonal movement ? How much does being saturated in linseed oil help ? There was some talk on a green woodworking forum about "cooking" greenwood bowls in hot linseed oil to try to reduce the movement during drying - I don't think it was a great success though. And how is it that infill planes work ? they seem to put a closely fitted piece of wood into a metal shell without problems of movement ?


----------



## AndyT (15 Sep 2014)

A couple of pages ago, the OP asked two questions. One was about the use of words, and I think we can now see that some specialist terms are used with different intended meanings. He also wrote:



SamA":1uhxuuxa said:


> Now with that in mind, did the planemakers of old use exclusively "rift sawn" stock with the growth rings running perfectly perpendicular, or did they use less perfect stock with the growth rings running at say 60 deg? All 4 wooden planes I own have their growth rings running pretty much perfectly perpendicular but I don't think this is a big enough sample to make a judgment from.
> Should I pursue the incredibly expensive and hanrd-to-find "rift sawn" stock, or just settle with less perfect stock? I know the latter would probably be good enough as a user stock but do I really get less problems with perfect stock?
> 
> Sam



To try and offer a bit of an answer, I have gone to a nearby room where more than four samples are available and have taken a few pictures of bench planes. These are pretty well random, except that I chose planes where the grain orientation shows up clearly on the ends. 

This is a Preston try plane:







the ends look like this











This Preston jack plane






is similar:






This Gleave badger plane does not show the classic arrangement of the previous two:











On this Cox and Luckman smoother the radius of the tree is not at right angles to the sole of the plane:






This I Sorby smoother






shows a similar pattern:






Turning to a couple of moving fillisters we see that this one by Mathieson has the centre of the tree at the top:











But this Gabriel






has the billet the other way up:











I'm not sure what conclusions one can draw from these. It's possible that the _best_ planes have the orientation of the Preston try plane and that the others are 'ordinary' quality, but I cannot prove that - we really need a nineteenth century tool shop proprietor to show us his stock.

Maybe some more examples will help.


----------



## JohnPW (15 Sep 2014)

CStanford":1e9xwebs said:


> http://www.hardwooddistributors.org/blog/postings/what-is-rift-sawn-lumber/



It seems to contradict itself: wood with 45 degree grain and wood with 90 degree are both US "rift sawn lumber"!

In summary from reading this forum, in the UK at least it's:
90 degrees (more or less) is quarter saw,
45 degrees (more or less) is rift sawn,
less than about 35 is crown or plain sawn.
Regardless of sawing method.


----------



## bugbear (15 Sep 2014)

There seems to be a confusion (and a need for more jargon!!) between the technique of sawing and the grain of the resulting pieces.

It is not in doubt that the "through and through" sawing sequence produces "some" quarter sawn timber, so to use the sawing sequence as a synonym for the result is not sufficient.

BugBear


----------



## J_SAMa (15 Sep 2014)

Sheffield Tony":1vkgj6sa said:


> But I'm intrigued by the wider question of wood selection and treatment for planemaking. Beech is no by any means the most stable of woods. I recall asking about this before, and the answer seems to be that it is all a compromise and beech was readily available in large, straight grained sections at a price that made wasteful cutting tolerable, perhaps its wear resistance is important too.


Thanks for bring that up. I just looked at the wood database and it says maple is more stable than beech. Wouldn't that make it better for planemaking? Now my local lumberyard doesn't have quartered maple but they might have the center pieces of plain sawn boards. It's a lot cheaper than beech too. Should I consider it?
Sam


----------



## J_SAMa (15 Sep 2014)

Andy,
Thanks a lot!! So I guess I can make it from anything with the growth rings running from about 45 to 90 deg.
What if I glued up a perfectly quartersawn piece and a less perfect one together? Is that slightly more stable than a solid piece of less perfect blank or am I just asking for trouble due to differential shrinking? They're asking more than 50 euros for perfectly quartered 70 mm square blanks... Could almost buy a plane with that money.


----------



## AndyT (15 Sep 2014)

J_SAMa":1ihr2n01 said:


> Andy,
> Could almost buy a plane with that money.



Over here at least, buying a really hopeless old plane (split cheeks, dog-chewed end, no iron) can be a good way to get a piece of nice solid old beech, properly selected for the purpose. Sorry that's not much comfort to you, away from all boot fairs etc, but might be of use to anyone following your thought process on making planes.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (15 Sep 2014)

You could use almost anything to make planes, even something like pine, plywood or MDF (I might draw the line at chipboard, though), but the stability and longevity of the finished plane would improve if the stock timber was harder and more stable, and a close grain would help to take fine detailing and crispness in such areas as the mouth.

The ideal plane-making wood would be very hard, very stable, very straight-grained, available in large sizes, and if you're doing it commercially, available in large quantities and available cheaply. Such a wood probably doesn't exist. Probably the nearest to 'perfect' woods are box, cormier (wild service tree), lignum vitae and similar, but they're not available in large sizes or large quantity, so acceptable compromises like beech were used instead (except for small quantities of very small planes, or as inserts for wear resistance in moulding planes and the like).

I can think of no reason why maple wouldn't make a very good plane; indeed, any hard, close-grained, wood sould serve well; even the stability problem could be overcome to a great extent by using a laminated construction. Try to balance the laminations such that the likely movement of any one element is cancelled by the likely movement of others, so a plane body of two halves would be best if the grain direction was equal but opposite on the two halves.


----------



## Corneel (15 Sep 2014)

You forget one thing: Easy(ish) to work. Plenty of woods are stable and hard and available etc, but are a bear to work. Padoek for example. I have a big chunk, but it's a bit too difficult to work for a traditional plane. Beech is perfect in that regard.


----------



## bugbear (15 Sep 2014)

J_SAMa":v1js0h66 said:


> Sheffield Tony":v1js0h66 said:
> 
> 
> > But I'm intrigued by the wider question of wood selection and treatment for planemaking. Beech is no by any means the most stable of woods. I recall asking about this before, and the answer seems to be that it is all a compromise and beech was readily available in large, straight grained sections at a price that made wasteful cutting tolerable, perhaps its wear resistance is important too.
> ...



Ooh - I can answer that one; YES!

Bugbear


----------



## woodbrains (15 Sep 2014)

Corneel":1etdcllb said:


> You forget one thing: Easy(ish) to work. Plenty of woods are stable and hard and available etc, but are a bear to work. Padoek for example. I have a big chunk, but it's a bit too difficult to work for a traditional plane. Beech is perfect in that regard.



Hello,

Can I have your Padauk then? :lol: 

The grain is often rowed, so a nuisance to plane, but Padauk is blooming stable. Made many a Krenov style plane from Padauk.

Worth the effort methinks if you want a good stable plane, and has a waxy tendency, too, so good for slick soles!

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (16 Sep 2014)

Good, I'll give it a try then. I'd like to try my hand at making some traditional morticed planes. No hurry though, I have plenty of other things on my plate. The Padauk won't run away.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (16 Sep 2014)

Come to think of it, I suppose there are (at least) two different approaches to wooden plane making:

1) You need a plane for a particular duty, and decide to make one rather than buy one.

2) You are making an accurate reproduction of a plane for historical research purposes.

If approach 1, then the advice given above holds - use the best available material that you either have to hand or can obtain fairly easily. If approach 2, then the whole exercise fails if you don't use historically accurate material, and you may have to go to great expense, time and trouble to obtain it - far more trouble than the actual work of making the plane. There isn't much sense in going to all that trouble and expense if you just need a plane for a job, as in approach 1.


----------



## Corneel (16 Sep 2014)

I don't know th esituation in England, but overhere it is hard to find a wooden plane which isn't completely worn out. All little details which make or break the perfect plane are usually gone. I also subscribe to the school that nothing worthwhile has been invented in the last 200 years (regarding planes) and such old ones are really rare, so one has to make once own planes. :lol: 

Now I just have to do what I preach of course. I have QS beech. I have plane irons. What's keeping me back?


----------



## woodbrains (16 Sep 2014)

Cheshirechappie":3hsp2q9p said:


> Come to think of it, I suppose there are (at least) two different approaches to wooden plane making:
> 
> 1) You need a plane for a particular duty, and decide to make one rather than buy one.
> 
> ...



Hello,

It is fairly common to need a plane for a particular job, and making one is the best option, if you can't wait indeterminate lengths of time for the right old woodie to turn up. But I think (for me anyway) if I'm going to make one, it might as well look nice too. I could get something to work well and look really rough and ready, just to get the job done, but I don't like putting in some effort to make something that looks bad. Obvoiusly it won't suit every plane type, such as moulding planes, but the Kreonv style plane is dead quick to make, works as well as any, and looks nice on the tool shelf, next to the other tools. I have never made a nice morticed coffin smoother and the like, because I have lots of working planes that do those tasks. Maybe one day I'll do one for the sake of it. But for anyone who needs a working plane, without the time to commit to a morticed woodie, I fully recommend the Krenov style. I made some round bottoms in Padauk (funnily enough) and they look and work great. You can make a few in a day, if needed.

Mike.


----------



## MIGNAL (16 Sep 2014)

Corneel":1mv0izep said:


> I don't know th esituation in England, but overhere it is hard to find a wooden plane which isn't completely worn out. All little details which make or break the perfect plane are usually gone. I also subscribe to the school that nothing worthwhile has been invented in the last 200 years (regarding planes) and such old ones are really rare, so one has to make once own planes. :lol:
> 
> Now I just have to do what I preach of course. I have QS beech. I have plane irons. What's keeping me back?



Actually old damaged wooden Planes are an excellent source for materials. Quite often the blades and chipbreakers can be salvaged too. I've built a few Planes using the wood from long jointers. Anything that has a crack on the usual cheek area is suitable. You can easily get a smoother size (laminated type) from a damaged or very worn jointer and of course the wood has been very well seasoned.


----------



## woodbrains (16 Sep 2014)

Hello,

Though I agree that worn out old planes are a good source of bits, and can even be converted into shorter planes cutting around the bad stuff, they are quite often as damp as heck, having been stored in leaky sheds. This obviously negates any 'seasoning' the wood might have had, so should be treated judiciously, if a stable, functioning plane is to be had out of these old wrecks.

Mike.


----------



## JohnPW (16 Sep 2014)

Corneel":fks88wwi said:


> I don't know th esituation in England, but overhere it is hard to find a wooden plane which isn't completely worn out. All little details which make or break the perfect plane are usually gone. I also subscribe to the school that nothing worthwhile has been invented in the last 200 years (regarding planes) and such old ones are really rare, so one has to make once own planes. :lol:
> 
> Now I just have to do what I preach of course. I have QS beech. I have plane irons. What's keeping me back?



In the UK at least, old wooden planes are plentiful and cheap, even the ones that are not in the best of condition can be made to work, eg an insert in the sole to close up the mouth etc. So I personally wouldn't bother to make wooden planes that I can easily get for a low price, like the bench planes, plough, rebate etc. I would only make the type that is either not available or is too expensive.

I would like to make a wooden bevel down shoulder plane, metal shoulder planes are ridiculously expensive, and also a low angle wooden mitre plane.

I've made 5 planes so far: 4 very small thumb planes and a small one that I use as a trying plane on small pieces of wood, like when making the thumb planes.


----------



## woodbrains (16 Sep 2014)

JohnPW":3odtxyqh said:


> Corneel":3odtxyqh said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know th esituation in England, but overhere it is hard to find a wooden plane which isn't completely worn out. All little details which make or break the perfect plane are usually gone. I also subscribe to the school that nothing worthwhile has been invented in the last 200 years (regarding planes) and such old ones are really rare, so one has to make once own planes. :lol:
> ...



Wow, you could probably make a hundred of these out of an old beech try plane!

Nice. =D> 

Mike.


----------



## J_SAMa (16 Sep 2014)

AndyT":3bi8pdxr said:


> J_SAMa":3bi8pdxr said:
> 
> 
> > Andy,
> ...



Actually, I've considered that. However I will be making a Jack/Shooting Plane at around 16" long... The most I could get out of a jointer is probably just a long smoother/scrub.


----------



## J_SAMa (16 Sep 2014)

Cheshirechappie":101t302n said:


> Come to think of it, I suppose there are (at least) two different approaches to wooden plane making:
> 
> 1) You need a plane for a particular duty, and decide to make one rather than buy one.
> 
> ...



3) I am making it so I can brag about having made my own tools and using my own tools to make more tools in the future. Lather rinse repeat (hammer). 

I just thought it would be great fun. I could easily by an old wooden jack plane and restore it but why not make one


----------



## J_SAMa (16 Sep 2014)

Corneel":3sue0yyb said:


> I also subscribe to the school that nothing worthwhile has been invented in the last 200 years (regarding planes) and such old ones are really rare, so one has to make once own planes. :lol:



:shock: Leo B's turnin' in his grave


----------



## Cheshirechappie (16 Sep 2014)

J_SAMa":1efeeq5b said:


> Cheshirechappie":1efeeq5b said:
> 
> 
> > Come to think of it, I suppose there are (at least) two different approaches to wooden plane making:
> ...



Perfectly good reason! However, it falls under category 1 really.

By the way, if you can obtain a copy of Robert Wearing's 'The Resourceful Woodworker', he gives drawings and instructions for several wooden planes, with depth adjusters - almost like wooden Norris planes. A sort of half-way house between building a dovetailed steel infill and a Krenov type. He uses a built-up method to avoid having to mortice out. He used timbers like mahogany and walnut for his planes, with thin ebony soles (guitar finger-board blanks) glued on for extra wear resistance.


----------



## Corneel (16 Sep 2014)

Do you want to make a traditional plane Sam? Mortised?


----------



## J_SAMa (17 Sep 2014)

Corneel":e9gp8h36 said:


> Do you want to make a traditional plane Sam? Mortised?


Still torn between mortised and Philly style. More likely mortised, might as well go all out if I'm doing it.


----------



## bugbear (17 Sep 2014)

J_SAMa":dbvcadre said:


> Corneel":dbvcadre said:
> 
> 
> > Do you want to make a traditional plane Sam? Mortised?
> ...



SInce you'll be making more than one (*) why not start out laminated,
and do one-piece later?

BugBear

(*) trust me


----------



## MIGNAL (17 Sep 2014)

Laminated lends itself to everyday woodworking tools, making it easier to get things like the blade bed perfectly flat. There's a good reason why they developed plane floats and whilst it's perfectly possible to get by without them it does make things harder. If you glue up a lamination in the correct sequence (given it's made from one large block of wood) you have to look pretty closely to tell it's a laminated plane anyway.
I can't say that I've ever noticed any difference in function and in over 10 years I've never had a laminated Plane delaminate.


----------



## Corneel (17 Sep 2014)

If you go for mortised you can get some quarter sawn beech from me. They are 75 x 75 mm, so the size is a bit tight. We'd have to sort through what I have to find a decent piece. You are in The Hague aren't you? Send me a PM.

If you go for laminated, then I am not going to waste my precious wood ;-)


----------



## J_SAMa (17 Sep 2014)

Corneel":bkigprqx said:


> If you go for mortised you can get some quarter sawn beech from me. They are 75 x 75 mm, so the size is a bit tight. We'd have to sort through what I have to find a decent piece. You are in The Hague aren't you? Send me a PM.
> 
> If you go for laminated, then I am not going to waste my precious wood ;-)



Thanks for your generous offer, but I think resources like that shouldn't be wasted in the hands of a newcomer to planemaking

Currently my plan is to build two prototypes, a full-size one in pine and Philly style to help me study the throat's geometry, and another scaled-down model out of some small beech offcuts I have, mortised, which shall help me get familiar with beech and the mortising procedures. These will be made over the course of a couple of months while I let the quartered beech/maple for the real thing season in my workshop.


----------



## Corneel (17 Sep 2014)

Well, when you feel more confident, just send a PM. I have enough for several planes and it hasn't been expensive when I bought it years ago.


----------



## J_SAMa (18 Sep 2014)

So the scaled-down prototype, mortised, in beech. Just finished the bulk of the chopping, and pared the bed as flat as I could (with a chisel sharpened at 80 deg). The beech wasn't as difficult as I expected to chop a mortise in considering how hard it was. It's probably this hardness/density that made it so well-behaved and predictable.
I made the mouth quite wide, simply so that I had more room to maneuver my chisels... Now I feel a burning need to buy the thin paring chisels I've always kind of ignored.

Dimensions: 1" iron, 1 11/16 wide blade by 4" long by 1 1/4 thick.

Loved the way the bed glistened after paring. It was literally mirror-like.




Sides still quite rough.




Here's the mouth. The backward-slanting part only goes up about 5 mm.
Also shown are small breakouts breakouts on the sole. Luckily I gauged and knifed all the lines so any chipping was contained and will be removed once I widen the mouth to the iron's width. I also chopped the back of the mouth (where the bed and the sole met) straight down to break the sharp arris formed between the bed and sole. That area will be cleared by the iron's bevel so should not affect the iron's support.




Sam


----------



## J_SAMa (23 Sep 2014)

Finished the prototype. I've decided to make it coffin shaped:

Taking clean shavings and leaving a fine surface. Spruce being planed here but the 55 deg angle works better on harder woods. No 4. 1/2 in the back for scale




That wide mouth...




The wedge fit surprisingly well for a first attempt at making this type of plane. Spent about 20 minutes tuning it 




Had a lot of difficulties with the chamfers. This is the best I could do. You can see the long-grain, curving chamfer are less than perfectly crisp.




And the back was rounded like this. I've never actually owned or used a real coffin smoother so just did what I thought would make it comfortable to hold.


----------



## Corneel (23 Sep 2014)

Not bad for the first one. Bit rough maybe. The coffing shape looks more like a half circle at the end. There are some drawings on this site that might be helpfull or give inspiration:

http://kapeldesigns.blogspot.nl/2014/05/plans-for-wooden-planes-are-available.html


----------



## JohnPW (23 Sep 2014)

Good effort for a first one! The photo of the sole looks good.

I used a plane for the chamfers along the plane, and a chisel or knife for the vertical ones.

In my experience, small planes are harder to make than bigger ones.


----------



## J_SAMa (23 Sep 2014)

JohnPW":z33xxmby said:


> I used a plane for the chamfers along the plane, and a chisel or knife for the vertical ones.



I tried to use a float for the long ones as I think I have heard somewhere that they were the traditional tool of choice. Having tried it I must disagree... Spokeshave or plane would have been better as you pointed out.



JohnPW":z33xxmby said:


> In my experience, small planes are harder to make than bigger ones.



Which is why I made the mouth extra wide in an attempt to make it easier. Turns out it didn't help much, not with the abutments due to the plane iron's thickness, or should I say "thinness"... No paring the abutments with with a chisel there :x. What would be the traditional way of tuning the abutments? Or did a planemaker only tune the wedge to fit the abutments?
Sam


----------



## MIGNAL (23 Sep 2014)

Floats are used more for the bed, mouth and the abutments - the areas that are difficult to access. The chamfers on the outer edges of the Plane are better done with chisels, Planes, knives ect.


----------



## Jacob (23 Sep 2014)

J_SAMa":386o07jo said:


> ....
> Now with that in mind, did the planemakers of old use exclusively "rift sawn" stock with the growth rings running perfectly perpendicular, or did they use less perfect stock with the growth rings running at say 60 deg? ....


Having just sawn up for firewood a batch of wormy and worn out old planes I can assure you that they used anything and everything, including some (very few) examples in other woods than beech. 
I expect you'd have had to pay more for those made of the best stuff.

PS I've kept the blades and cap irons - PM if anybody wants them - looking for an odd size etc.


----------

