# Best plane for a woman.



## Mr T (13 Mar 2018)

Last weekend I taught my first ever ladies only beginners course to coincide with International Womens day. The course went well, although it did overriun slightly. This was mainly because of problems with mastering the plane, there is quite a lot of planing in the course. It's partly a problem with lack of upper body strength but also there seemed a problem with technique, just keeping the plane flat on the workpiece. I tried different planes and found that the low angle jack worked best. The LAJ is lighter than other planes of that size and also requires less strength to drive.

I wonder if others have any veiws on the best plane for a woman. 

Some might also want to comment on whether a cambered blade would be better for a woman  

Chris


----------



## transatlantic (13 Mar 2018)

[]


----------



## custard (13 Mar 2018)

There are more and more women taking up cabinet making and training to a professional level. I've met a few and very fine craft workers they are too, by and large I've never noticed they use tools any differently to their male counterparts. But these are younger, fitter women.

If your ladies Chris were elderly hobbyists then I can see why a low angle jack might help at the beginning, and that's probably also true for a lot of elderly male hobbyists. 

I suspect that a traditional 04 or 04 1/2 isn't the best plane to learn with because there's so little sole in front of the cutting edge. When I see people planing for the first time they often fail to plant the plane firmly on the workpiece before commencing the cut, so end up massacring the first inch of the board, the equivalent of machine snipe but with a hand plane! So I agree, a slightly longer but still fairly light plane makes a lot of sense.


----------



## John Brown (13 Mar 2018)

A Jill Plane.


----------



## D_W (13 Mar 2018)

Fantastic!


----------



## D_W (13 Mar 2018)

Standard planes. Where are the people who were hassling me last week?

The ladies are a perfect candidate for learning to use a cap iron early to keep the plane working smoothly through wood rather than crashing in and out of the cut. 

If they are slight, keep the cut thickness down, camber slightly increased and wax handy.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (13 Mar 2018)

I thought Womens' day was supposed to be about "gender parity" ? That went well then.


----------



## MikeG. (13 Mar 2018)

D_W":tdqxjhpa said:


> Standard planes. Where are the people who were hassling me last week?



Here, because.....



> The ladies are a perfect candidate for learning to use a cap iron early to keep the plane working smoothly through wood rather than crashing in and out of the cut........



Your same old hobby-horse. You may be right, but it's irrelevant. Bring this sermon up when it is in context.


----------



## Mr T (13 Mar 2018)

Sheffield Tony":fzpoztgd said:


> I thought Womens' day was supposed to be about "gender parity" ? That went well then.



Me no understand!

Chris


----------



## Mr T (13 Mar 2018)

D_W":3jptvf5z said:


> Standard planes. Where are the people who were hassling me last week?
> 
> The ladies are a perfect candidate for learning to use a cap iron early to keep the plane working smoothly through wood rather than crashing in and out of the cut.
> 
> If they are slight, keep the cut thickness down, camber slightly increased and wax handy.



Actually I find that a close set cap iron, while it gives a fantastic cut, means you have to use more effort to drive the plane which you want avoid if you lack upper body strength.



custard":3jptvf5z said:


> There are more and more women taking up cabinet making and training to a professional level. I've met a few and very fine craft workers they are too, by and large I've never noticed they use tools any differently to their male counterparts. But these are younger, fitter women.
> 
> If your ladies Chris were elderly hobbyists then I can see why a low angle jack might help at the beginning, and that's probably also true for a lot of elderly male hobbyists.
> 
> I suspect that a traditional 04 or 04 1/2 isn't the best plane to learn with because there's so little sole in front of the cutting edge. When I see people planing for the first time they often fail to plant the plane firmly on the workpiece before commencing the cut, so end up massacring the first inch of the board, the equivalent of machine snipe but with a hand plane! So I agree, a slightly longer but still fairly light plane makes a lot of sense.



I often have women on my courses, perhaps about 20% of my students are women and I have not noticed they this problem so much before, they often out perforrm the men on the course. It just seemed they all had problems this weekend. I agree about the No. 4, one of the biggest problems for the inexperienced is starting the cut, the short end on the No. 4 does not help. The standard plane in my bench kits is the 5 1/2.

Chris


----------



## Mrs C (13 Mar 2018)

I personally find a 5 easier than a 4 as mine feels better balanced, but that might just be me! I think that bench height has more to do with it than the plane itself (oh, and not to mention the concept of getting it sharp, but best not go there!).

Where I have really struggled is planes meant for one handed use such as block planes as my hands just aren't big enough.


----------



## D_W (13 Mar 2018)

> Actually I find that a close set cap iron, while it gives a fantastic cut, means you have to use more effort to drive the plane which you want avoid if you lack upper body strength.
> Chris



Hi Chris - that'd be described as setting it too close. Setting it a notch just back from that is productive. The effort of planing is little more, there is no interruption in the cut, any minor tearout that occurs will be small, and the plane requires less downforce. 

Trust me, it's less. It's good practice for everyone.


----------



## D_W (13 Mar 2018)

MikeG.":3mxx36ed said:


> Your same old hobby-horse. You may be right, but it's irrelevant. Bring this sermon up when it is in context.



I think you know little about planing and you're willing to stay that way. That doesn't mean everyone else wants to remain ignorant, though. Keep that in mind. 

If you think that it's a peripheral issue (using a cap iron to make planing easier), then I could probably teach a rank beginner to outwork you in two weeks. That is almost as pitiful as your attitude.


----------



## Tasky (13 Mar 2018)

Mrs C":28pr54ka said:


> I think that bench height has more to do with it than the plane itself


I agree with Mrs C... which sounds like a campaign slogan- "I Like Ike", sorta thing. :lol: 

As you may know, I've been struggling a bit with learning to use my planes on low sawhorses, but I did let my wife 'have a little go' on my 4 and 5 when she came in to see how I was getting along. 
She's notably shorter than me (and has a bit more bodyweight, but we won't go there), so was able to get behind the plane and shove it better than I could with my lanky gibbon arms. 
Same concept as Mrs C's bench height, but bringing the woodworker down to height rather than the bench up to it. 

Incidentally, also the exact same concept as the body mechanics behind delivering a hook punch to the ribs or kidneys in boxing - that's something else I'm usually too tall for, but at which my shorter wife absolutely kicks buttocks at!!

I'm starting to wonder if *I* should be watching TV and cuddling up with the dogs, while my wife freezes her backside off working wood in the garage...!!



Mrs C":28pr54ka said:


> Where I have really struggled is planes meant for one handed use such as block planes as my hands just aren't big enough.


The wife also has smaller hands, so did well with both bench planes, whereas mine still ache. 

Felicitously, the latest blog from Paul Sellers is all about Hannah, a young lady who has been working with him for a year (as an intern, I think) and done exceedingly well. He's blogged about her before and is always gushingly proud of her achievements, but she bloody well deserves it. She's absolutely fantastic. 
Thing is, she's so thin and scrawny, you'd think she'd snap if you breathe too hard around her... but she can clearly handle a plane more than well enough!!

So I guess it's again down to body mechanics, at least a big part of it, anyway.


----------



## Ttrees (13 Mar 2018)

Tasky":1vkihru9 said:


> Mrs C":1vkihru9 said:
> 
> 
> > I think that bench height has more to do with it than the plane itself
> ...


Tasky
Just have a look round for the nearest skip you can find, you will probably find some blocks to jack those sawhorses 
up a bit. 
Incidentally. you stand a good chance of finding a fire door aswell, along with some more bits that might be handy.
Look around some hotels, pubs or the dump


----------



## Mr T (13 Mar 2018)

D_W":3afw4233 said:


> Hi Chris - that'd be described as setting it too close. Setting it a notch just back from that is productive. The effort of planing is little more, there is no interruption in the cut, any minor tearout that occurs will be small, and the plane requires less downforce.
> 
> Trust me, it's less. It's good practice for everyone.



You may have noticed D-W that you tend to provoke a reaction on the forum. I think it's that you tend to present that you are the only person who understands planes and cap irons. I have been fiddling around with planes for about forty years so the foregoing could be seen as "teaching your grandmother to suck eggs!"



Mrs C":3afw4233 said:


> I personally find a 5 easier than a 4 as mine feels better balanced, but that might just be me! I think that bench height has more to do with it than the plane itself (oh, and not to mention the concept of getting it sharp, but best not go there!).
> 
> Where I have really struggled is planes meant for one handed use such as block planes as my hands just aren't big enough.



I agree. There was much manoeuvring of duck boards to adjust height at the beginning of the course. Have you tried those little apron planes? Hand size is also a factor with power tools, some of the students had trouble reaching the switch on the biscuit and Domino jointer.

Chris


----------



## Bm101 (13 Mar 2018)

Mrs C":2jy21dxm said:


> Where I have really struggled is planes meant for one handed use such as block planes as my hands just aren't big enough.



More asking another question than able to give an answer and just wondering out loud... Maybe the pros can help? 
Might a number 3 be a good call here? It's not supposed to be for that I suppose but if you adapted the iron angle then you would possibly have, an admittedly 2 handed, solution but it might work. I have a number 3. (Probably shouldn't have bought it I'll admit that... Still). 
Point being the sole is not far off the 101 I converted. Bigger than a small typically one handed block plane of course but nonetheless might serve a purpose?
I'm not after selling mine if you were thinking that was the direction I was going in 
Just a thought. Probably more holes in it than emmantal. 
Cheers 
Chris

Edit. Posted at the same time as Chris T. So please forgive any confusion. Workshop heaven sometimes have deals on those little apron planes by QS. Just a thought... you could also try looking for a flat musical instrument makers plane. I picked a bronze one up some time ago off eBay for pennies. Granted this is not a one click buy and for non luthiers probably no good except for having a pretty tool to break arrises and similar. Might help though.


----------



## AndyT (13 Mar 2018)

Maybe a plane designed and sold for use in schools would be suitable?
When I was a s̶k̶i̶n̶n̶y̶ ̶w̶e̶e̶d̶ "slightly built" 11 year old I had a razee jack like this one to use, which was ok.







Or maybe the metal equivalent, the Record T5?


----------



## D_W (13 Mar 2018)

Mr T":2g0w092f said:


> You may have noticed D-W that you tend to provoke a reaction on the forum. I think it's that you tend to present that you are the only person who understands planes and cap irons. I have been fiddling around with planes for about forty years so the foregoing could be seen as "teaching your grandmother to suck eggs!"
> 
> Chris



I've encountered a lot of people who have been using planes for 40 years who can't use the cap iron with as good of effect as I learned to in two weeks in 2012. Usually, it's because of one of the following:
* said users understand setting the cap iron really close in bad wood, but nothing beyond that
* said users deal mostly with beginners, who don't really get the subtleties of this whole thing, unless they've dimensioned to finish a couple of hundred feet of wood
* said users don't do much dimensioning themselves, and can recount having done it some in a woodworking school

I'd turn just about everyone toward someone like Brian Holcombe, who learned to use the cap iron because he was working wood by hand. The quality of education regarding the cap iron in the last hundred years plus has been significantly lacking. 

I beat the drum on it only because quite often someone says they want to learn to plane well, they don't want to spend a bunch of extra money, or they're going to buy something like a bevel up plane to solve their tearout problems (which is a wall hanger in a situation where you're doing more than planing off chatter from a machine). 

Do I think I'm better at planing than most people on forums? Yes. Does that make people irritable? I guess it does. Do I think that it's stupid for someone to suggest that the cap iron and many other methods are all about equivalent? Of course it is. if they were, cap irons wouldn't have completely eliminated decent single iron planes in a matter of a couple of decades when the users were professionals, and at the same time that wood quality was declining. 

You can do without, but if you don't suggest the best way to do something to students, you're doing a disservice to them, even if it's not convenient to describe it as being more subtle than just really close or not. 

If anyone thinks that I'm one-dimensional in thought about this, and that everything is generally equivalent, prove me wrong. Work a hundred board feet in a couple of projects - entirely by hand, force yourself to hit thickness marks at a hundredth or less (which isn't difficult) and leave no tearout on lumber. Or you can even ditch the lack of tearout. You'll find yourself following my advice quickly out of natural laziness (it is far easier to do it the right way). 

It will make little difference in time if you go back to rough work with machines, BUT, it will make clean up of anything that comes off of a machine extremely quick and predictable. With planes that cost very little. It'll cut sharpening to half or less per volume of wood, and just generally be better. And it's free. 

The difference is about as much as rolling a hook or not on a card scraper. There exists a gaggle of folks who can't reliably roll hooks on scrapers, so they dribble along burnishing surfaces with no hook on a scraper instead of investing a little bit of time learning to roll a burr on anything soft enough to accept one. 

This issue is magnified on anyone who is slight (the cap iron) because it decreases effort needed. It decreases stress on the elbows, shoulders, etc, rework or blown marking lines, and all without "just setting the cap close and making the plane more difficult to push". That level of closeness is very seldom needed.


----------



## MikeG. (13 Mar 2018)

*Best plane for a woman.*

I thought it was a fairly simple to understand question myself.


----------



## D_W (13 Mar 2018)

And the simple answer is:
* No need for anything other than a normal stanley or record bevel down plane, but
* if you're going to send someone out bouncing through tearout with a bevel down plane, forget it ( so teach them to set the cap when you teach them to use it). 

Generally, people who think answers are all one-liners (or can't involve any supplemental information) probably aren't going to have a good time doing planing beyond following paint by number instructions. 

On the side, I think a larger plane is probably a better idea for beginner women or men or anyone, especially if getting a plane on the end of a board without tipping it around is important. 

If one thinks most of them will quit soon, then a bevel up plane is fine. A little early to tell in an intro course who that is (aside from the likelihood being that it's most of the class).


----------



## JimB (13 Mar 2018)

To a great extent, woodwork has always been about the woodworker fitting himself/herself to the tools. I remember my first woodwork lessons at school (over sixty years ago) with a class of various sizes, weights and strengths. We still had to all to get used to a wooden jack plane, standard saws, chisels etc. And did they feel clumsy at first!
That aside, someone with small hands might find the early Record No 4 more comfortable to hold than later ones. On the other hand I know a fine cabinet maker who always makes new handles for planes as his hands are too large for the standard sizes.
Men or women, we all need a sharp, well set plane. Anything else creates unnecessary hard work and is dispiriting especially to a learner.


----------



## ED65 (14 Mar 2018)

Mr T":24nlhswb said:


> I have been fiddling around with planes for about forty years so the foregoing could be seen as "teaching your grandmother to suck eggs!"


With respect Chris, I have to say something. Gran can still learn a few things, q.v. two-part adjusters.

And so that you're not feeling too picked on, you're probably aware of how fond Paul Sellers is of saying how much experience he has. And yet many amateurs here can plane a better surface on difficult wood precisely because he doesn't use the cap iron to full effect!


----------



## ED65 (14 Mar 2018)

My reaction to this is much the same as D_W's. If kids can use standard bench planes, and when set up correctly/suitably they don't offer too much resistance for them (on suitably non-gnarly wood for a beginner needless to say), then the answer seems just as obvious to me, as far as standard two-handed planing goes.

Wide open mouth (frog set back the full way), cap iron set close enough but not too close (under 0.5mm, over a hairsbreadth), very sharp iron, bench low enough that the user has to lean forward at the waist somewhat and bingo, plane sailing. Pardon the pun.


----------



## Mr T (14 Mar 2018)

ED65":3gq2oq35 said:


> With respect Chris, I have to say something. Gran can still learn a few things, q.v. two-part adjusters.
> 
> And so that you're not feeling too picked on, you're probably aware of how fond Paul Sellers is of saying how much experience he has. And yet many amateurs here can plane a better surface on difficult wood precisely because he doesn't use the cap iron to full effect!



I still maintain that the two part yoke is inferior to the cast yoke.

I try not to watch St Pauls videos.



ED65":3gq2oq35 said:


> My reaction to this is much the same as D_W's. If kids can use standard bench planes, and when set up correctly/suitably they don't offer too much resistance for them (on suitably non-gnarly wood for a beginner needless to say), then the answer seems just as obvious to me, as far as standard two-handed planing goes.
> 
> Wide open mouth (frog set back the full way), cap iron set close enough but not too close (under 0.5mm, over a hairsbreadth), very sharp iron, bench low enough that the user has to lean forward at the waist somewhat and bingo, plane sailing. Pardon the pun.



I still don't think the actual plane set up is relevant here. I set up each of the planes (similar to the way you netion above) and got a silky smooth surface on the poplar we were planing. When the ladies tried it the surface was uneven, not tear out just cutting unevenly along the edge. Bench height may be a factor, but we did attempt to adjust this with duck boards. So I think it's a technique problem related to strength and weight considerations.

Chris


----------



## D_W (14 Mar 2018)

Certainly some of it is experience. Personally, I think every single (or nearly every) person who is just starting will find one of the bevel up planes better for instant success (especially of the "plane an already flat board" or plane something less wide than the iron).

Adjustment and subtle things like camber are problematic in the longer term, but perhaps in pounding the ground with my gimmick- which really isn't my gimmick, just one I'm pleased to have figured out in a vacuum - I'm thinking too far down the road for beginners. 

I still can't get the person who taught me woodworking 13 years ago to believe that the learning curve is relatively short (needless to say, he's a fan of machines more than hand tools, and doesn't believe limited hand tool use allows for building of skills with hand tools). 

At any rate, I admire your work - don't want to let that get past - I'm fascinated with making and using planes, but do not contend to be any maker of note in terms of anything else. And I recognize that just about everything popular these days (that people will pay for) is either bent or sanded or both. I have a personal goal to recreate 18th century work at some point, so I'm out of touch.


----------



## D_W (14 Mar 2018)

> I try not to watch St Pauls videos.
> 
> Chris



I agree with you there. It's interesting that there seems to be quite a bit of tension among instructors in England, all the way down to comments about sharpening methods.


----------



## Tasky (14 Mar 2018)

ED65":1dvtbsft said:


> Wide open mouth (frog set back the full way)


Can I just ask - Is that as far back as it will unscrew, or just as far back as the cutting iron will allow, sort of flush with the sloping back of the mouth?



ED65":1dvtbsft said:


> And yet many amateurs here can plane a better surface on difficult wood precisely because he doesn't use the cap iron to full effect!


What is Sellers not doing, in this instance?
ISTR he says he sets his cap about 2mm from the edge?



Mr T":1dvtbsft said:


> I still maintain that the two part yoke is inferior to the cast yoke.


What's your thinking behind this, Chris?
I did wonder about this the other day, as my 4½ two-parter seems a little loose in its cap iron slot, while my 4 has a solid cast tab and the iron assembly doesn't rattle so much.... both cases before installing the lever cap, of course. 



Mr T":1dvtbsft said:


> So I think it's a technique problem related to strength and weight considerations.


With respect, I think it's nothing to do with weight or strength... Purely technique and body mechanics (yes, this stuff again, sorry. No microtensions, I promise!). 

My reasoning is that we have many female students at the boxing and martial arts classes. Even those tiny fighters can be shown (in a matter of minutes) how to apply enough leverage to push over 1400lbs of weight - Far more than it takes to move a handplane... 
We have this exercise where all the other students lock themselves together in this sort-of rugby scrum kind of assembly. It's solid as you like and you can even walk across them... and yet a scrawny girl of just 4' 10" can still deliver the leverage to push them all over. We do it slow first and then speed it up to almost full punching speed - It works by simply taking up a stance and just bending the lead leg to transfer your bodyweight through to and along your extended arm. 

Now obviously there's some basic physics involved and it's just a training trick/party piece, but it demonstrates how power delivery works and develops the techniques for doing so at speed. Translated, it's what makes the Jab such a solid hit in boxing. 

When you're handplaning, the body position is basically much the same. Even the hand positions are similar, you just start with them closer to your body than in a boxing stance. The weight transfer works the same way as well, with the main requirements being that the feet must support the hands (ie good foot placement), and the line of your force must align with the body... meaning that you can only be so high or so low before your body is pushing out of alignment. In the latter case this comes down to your opponent's head height, or in woodworking that'd be the bench height. 
The rest is good technique to keep things aligned and working as they should. 

This is the very difficulty I've had in handplaning up my own bench components, as I knew from the start I would be very low down for such work... I just didn't have experience with the forces and the techniques behind it. 

But while I fully acknowledge that fighting and woodworking are very different activities, the human body doing them is the same and the mechanics behind it work the same too. I may not (yet) know much about working wood, but I have a reasonable understanding of the body that works it.


----------



## Ttrees (14 Mar 2018)

Tasky":1oi362j6 said:


> ED65":1oi362j6 said:
> 
> 
> > Wide open mouth (frog set back the full way)
> ...


The 45 degree frog should be flush with the 45 deg casting on the plane body.
Older planes don't have that adjuster screw BTW
And as far as I know...Paul has not made it known yet if he uses the cap iron, or will demonstrate
it in future.
He certainly has enough planes to designate one as a proper smoother. 



Tasky":1oi362j6 said:


> But while I fully acknowledge that fighting and woodworking are very different activities, the human body doing them is the same and the mechanics behind it work the same too. I may not (yet) know much about working wood, but I have a reasonable understanding of the body that works it.


It sounds to me like your doing both fighting and planing, just like Sir Paul shows


----------



## D_W (14 Mar 2018)

The mechanics of planing are a lot like throwing a bounce pass in basketball. Thrust with the legs and extend with the arms at the end of the stroke. Same as if you imagine you're going to get in a fight with someone and need to push them moderately hard to make them aware that you're not going to be walked over. 

Some modern instruction excludes this (the extension especially), but it's just part of efficient technique. The part that automatically comes with practice is being able to get the plane to start the cut full depth and finish it full depth, and have it go where you want without tipping, etc. The bevel up planes have the ergonomics of a frying pan. That flat footed feeling is probably a wonderful asset for someone who hasn't learned to push a plane without tipping it around front to back or side to side.


----------



## D_W (14 Mar 2018)

Ttrees":19sk2pxz said:


> The 45 degree frog should be flush with the 45 deg casting on the plane body.
> Older planes don't have that adjuster screw BTW
> And as far as I know...Paul has not made it known yet if he uses the cap iron, or will demonstrate
> it in future.
> He certainly has enough planes to designate one as a proper smoother.



Paul has stated in his blog something to the effect of the cap iron only being there to hold the blade in place. He's also made comments about the plane not having issue preventing tearout set as such (2mm or whatever). There's a whole host of issues with that, not the least of which is that the plane is much more solid and less chatter prone with the cap set reasonably close (even if it is only just having a little bit of effect). 

Paul is quick on the white pine in his videos, and no doubt he can cut a quick mortise and pine set of dovetails, but watching him demonstrate dimensioning a stick is painful. I don't think the average viewer is much beyond new, but that is his market and that's what he needs to cater to. Getting too technical and getting away from the touchy feely message he likes to gimmick about "lifestyle" would probably cost him in terms of revenue. It *is* a business, not an effort to make the next cartouche award winner (or be one himself). 

While the work that these guys (on this list) is FAR above anything that Paul instructs, I'll bet their balance sheet and income statement isn't as strong as Paul's. or Rob Cosman's. 
http://new.sapfm.org/cartouche.php


----------



## MikeG. (14 Mar 2018)

Tasky":3ib1mk0i said:


> .......My reasoning is that we have many female students at the boxing and martial arts classes. Even those tiny fighters can be shown (in a matter of minutes) how to apply enough leverage to push over 1400lbs of weight - Far more than it takes to move a handplane.........



You don't think there is some self-selection about those participating in martial arts classes? That these might be more physically capable than the average, perhaps?

It's a different sort of strength requirement for planing, too. Most men probably take for granted having a reasonable grip and strong wrists......but how many of us have wives/ other halves who ask us to undo the lid on a jam jar? Being able to hold a plane in a stable position throughout the stroke is easy if (plucking figures out of the air) it takes 30% of your wrist & grip strength to do it, but I wonder how easy it would be if you needed, say 90% of your maximum.


----------



## Bodgers (14 Mar 2018)

I didn't dare open this thread, expecting all out war.

Pleasantly surprised it's relatively civil.

Congratulations all - keep it up


----------



## MikeG. (14 Mar 2018)

D_W":39xvmgxy said:


> ........While the work that these guys (on this list) is FAR above anything that Paul instructs, I'll bet their balance sheet and income statement isn't as strong as Paul's. or Rob Cosman's.
> http://new.sapfm.org/cartouche.php



You're comparing apples and pears. Those on the list make a living from making and selling furniture. Sellers and Cosman don't. 

Professional sportsmen, singers, actors, dancers and so on often (if not usually) have coaches who never performed anywhere near the level of the people they coach, because teaching and performing are two entirely different skills. That works the other way around, too. Some of the very best sportsmen, singers, actors etc have tried and failed as coaches. Just because you can "do", doesn't mean you can teach.


----------



## D_W (14 Mar 2018)

MikeG.":7zrc6wmg said:


> Tasky":7zrc6wmg said:
> 
> 
> > .......My reasoning is that we have many female students at the boxing and martial arts classes. Even those tiny fighters can be shown (in a matter of minutes) how to apply enough leverage to push over 1400lbs of weight - Far more than it takes to move a handplane.........
> ...



it should take very little grip (even 30% constant induces arthritis-like feelings). Same with chisels - we don't white-fist anything. It should be subtle. Sawing, etc, all of it, the same. Alignment is what we're doing. Gripping or manipulating is problematic. 

Put a pen in your hand, as if you're gripping a hammer handle. Lay your hand on top of a desk or table and hold the pencil vertically, then relax your wrist and note the angle of the pencil. It'll be somewhere around 65 degrees from the surface instead of 90. As soon as wrist manipulation enters the equation, planing won't last long (try planing on a low bench with a lee valley BU plane). 

The difference between the average man and a very slight man or the average man and the average woman should be a matter of wattage. Even handles, etc, aren't a real issue for most. A handle sized to fit an average man (3.5-3.75" across the knuckle) is not problematic for a woman with a hand a half inch smaller. My hands (3.5" across) were fine using a plane I made for a friend who has a span of 4.75" across the knuckles. The plane was awkward at first, but not uncomfortable after a short period of time. too small is instantly uncomfortable with rubbing pinkies, etc, on the tops of planes. I've experimented making planes with handles that have a span exactly the size of my hand (closed handle and open) and in quarter inch increments up to 1/2", which is about ideal for a closed handle. For open, about a quarter inch smaller is ideal. 

Anyway, finger pressure or wrist strain are a problem that should not occur. Shoulder and upper arm fatigue are the stopping point, but not for intermittent work.


----------



## D_W (14 Mar 2018)

MikeG.":r0eb2ecy said:


> D_W":r0eb2ecy said:
> 
> 
> > ........While the work that these guys (on this list) is FAR above anything that Paul instructs, I'll bet their balance sheet and income statement isn't as strong as Paul's. or Rob Cosman's.
> ...



Cosman tried and couldn't. Sellers doesn't. All or almost all of the individuals on the cartouche list are teachers, with the glaring exception (without looking further) being Mack Headley, but I'd imagine even Mack does some instruction (less so than the others because he drew a museum salary). 

The difference between NBSS, Phil Lowe, etc, is their target market. They are teaching fine work, not "lifestyle woodworking". 

The real difference between these guys and paul is that paul trained as a joiner (not a cabinetmaker) and the background of the folks on the list above is finer work. There may be a similar list for bricklayers, etc, around the united states, but SAPFM is period furniture. I can't imagine that topic drawing in beginners in volume - it's too complicated and not much in the gimmick of "this is something accessible to everyone".


----------



## MikeG. (14 Mar 2018)

D_W":39zz4cwd said:


> ....... Alignment is what we're doing. Gripping or manipulating is problematic.......



It's more than that. *Holding* alignment is what we are doing. You aren't aware of this requiring any strength, but that is because you may be somewhat stronger than the women that were the subject of the opening post. I absolutely agree that we don't tense up ("white knuckle", in your words). What I am looking for is a reason why beginner women are, according to the OP, unable to plane, whereas beginner men make much more progress. Never minding the plane, can you think of any physiological explanation for the observation, other than strength (which you've dismissed)?


----------



## Ttrees (14 Mar 2018)

MikeG.":3sk776g9 said:


> What I am looking for is a reason why beginner women are, according to the OP, unable to plane, whereas beginner men make much more progress.



They have nicer fingernails than mine


----------



## Tasky (14 Mar 2018)

Ttrees":1eoc1lwj said:


> The 45 degree frog should be flush with the 45 deg casting on the plane body.


Ah, gotcha. 



Ttrees":1eoc1lwj said:


> Older planes don't have that adjuster screw BTW


You mean pre-Bailey infil types, or the proper wooden ones?
TBH, I can understand why the frog might need to advance and close off the mouth, but why would it go so far back from it? Dun't that bend the blade?



Ttrees":1eoc1lwj said:


> And as far as I know...Paul has not made it known yet if he uses the cap iron, or will demonstrate it in future.


What exactly are people meaning when they say "using the cap iron"?
Near as I can see, he puts it on, adjusts it to distance and goes with it. 

He _does_ also mention that the term 'chip breaker' is erroneous, because it doesn't break anything and is a term carried over from machines that do break chips... He suggests that a cap iron is mainly there to tension the cutting iron and help stop blade chatter, pointing out that many planes old and new do the same thing at the same angles without having a cap iron.... which makes sense to me, at least. 



Ttrees":1eoc1lwj said:


> He certainly has enough planes to designate one as a proper smoother.


Enough?
Naw, he's only got maybe 50 of them... But then he's not a REAL woodworker, like some of them in YouTube Land!! :lol: 
Cue another rant about people who collect tools and don't use them....



Ttrees":1eoc1lwj said:


> It sounds to me like your doing both fighting and planing, just like Sir Paul shows


Not at the same time, though. 
He doesn't really look to be fighting the plane either, though, which is what got me wondering if I had it right. 



D_W":1eoc1lwj said:


> The mechanics of planing are a lot like throwing a bounce pass in basketball.


But without pushing down toward the ground?  



D_W":1eoc1lwj said:


> Paul is quick on the white pine in his videos, and no doubt he can cut a quick mortise and pine set of dovetails, but watching him demonstrate dimensioning a stick is painful.


To me, he looks about the same doing Sapele and Oak too...



D_W":1eoc1lwj said:


> Getting too technical and getting away from the touchy feely message he likes to gimmick about "lifestyle" would probably cost him in terms of revenue. It *is* a business, not an effort to make the next cartouche award winner (or be one himself).


His YouTube, his touchy-feely blog and half his Masterclasses are free, though. I don't believe his YouTubes are even monetised. 
I think that, if he were a full-time business in this respect, then between the training courses and whatever actual work he does making things for sale (rocking chairs, apparently), he'd have a load of own-brand kit to flog, a-la Cosman... but without the ridiculous price tag. 



MikeG.":1eoc1lwj said:


> You don't think there is some self-selection about those participating in martial arts classes? That these might be more physically capable than the average, perhaps?


What, a 4' 10" woman stepping up against a 16st guy nearly 6'?
How about Big Dave, standing 5' 6" and who came to us carrying 24st of beer gut?
Nope, not at all. 
We have all sorts, some of whom are very fit practitioners of previous martial arts or sports, while others never even took their PE kit with them to school. 

The fun part is in seeing what different people find works best for them. 
For example, I'm a tall, skinny thing with long arms, so I'll keep you at distance and drop you with sniper-precision strikes to your key targets... and bevcause I smoke heavily, I'll do this very quickly so I don't get out of breath!!
My wife, on the other hand, is one of those short-pineappled Fat Bottomed Girls (who make the rocking world go round) and will use all her weight to get in close and hammer you hard in the solar plexus, ribs or even kidneys. 



MikeG.":1eoc1lwj said:


> but how many of us have wives/ other halves who ask us to undo the lid on a jam jar?


While mine does this, she's also able to shut a bathroom tap far tighter than I myself can undo it. 



MikeG.":1eoc1lwj said:


> I wonder how easy it would be if you needed, say 90% of your maximum.


As long as my body is aligned, wrist _strength_ shouldn't be a factor... and I say this having broken both wrists several times, yet still being able to go boxing and swordfighting. 
While parts of me did ache after all that planing, there was not the slightest hint of a twinge in my wrists, which is something I'm quite experienced in noticing. 



D_W":1eoc1lwj said:


> A handle sized to fit an average man (3.5-3.75" across the knuckle)


That's the average, is it? 
I think I see where one of my problems is... !! :lol: 



MikeG.":1eoc1lwj said:


> What I am looking for is a reason why beginner women are, according to the OP, unable to plane, whereas beginner men make much more progress.


Men are taller and more naturally aligned with the typical bench. 
Women's natural alignments differ and do not lend themselves so immediately to a male-oriented working setup.... or to throwing a punch, which you see in the stereotypical 'Chick Punch' that looks more like a whipping-with-the-arm motion. However, it takes only a bit of instruction and corrected practice to get the right alignment. 
But in the same way, women's natural alignment does make them better beginners at rifle marksmanship, while there's a rough equality with both newbies of both genders in shotgunning and archery. Newbie swordfighters can go either way, while newbie women can be scarily gifted with staff weapons!
All this relies more on joints and body alignment than outright strength.


----------



## Ttrees (14 Mar 2018)

Tasky":30q6r3jr said:


> Ttrees":30q6r3jr said:
> 
> 
> > Older planes don't have that adjuster screw BTW
> ...


I meant standard older Leonard Bailey designs similar to yours. 



Ttrees":30q6r3jr said:


> And as far as I know...Paul has not made it known yet if he uses the cap iron, or will demonstrate it in future.


What exactly are people meaning when they say "using the cap iron"?
Near as I can see, he puts it on, adjusts it to distance and goes with it. 

He _does_ also mention that the term 'chip breaker' is erroneous, because it doesn't break anything and is a term carried over from machines that do break chips... He suggests that a cap iron is mainly there to tension the cutting iron and help stop blade chatter, pointing out that many planes old and new do the same thing at the same angles without having a cap iron.... which makes sense to me, at least. [/quote]

YOU will have to watch or read David W's (Weaver's) efforts to make it widely known the influence of the cap iron/or chipbreaker depending on what you like to call it.




Ttrees":30q6r3jr said:


> It sounds to me like your doing both fighting and planing, just like Sir Paul shows


Not at the same time, though. 
He doesn't really look to be fighting the plane either, though, which is what got me wondering if I had it right. [/quote]

YOU must have missed or not seen/listened to what he says then, on his youtube channel....
Maybe you put the dinner on when he mentions and demonstrates "fighting" only a few videos back.

(disclaimer)
Capitals ore not intended to be shouting, just trying to be a bit clearer with the quotes.

Tom


----------



## David C (14 Mar 2018)

Once I had a lady with wrists like matchsticks, so I dug out my 5 1/4.

I believe this was known as the lad's jack plane.

This worked out very well.

Usually I recommend a N0. 5.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth.


----------



## MikeG. (14 Mar 2018)

Tasky":1vgn85w5 said:


> .........Men are taller and more naturally aligned with the typical bench.........



The OP specifically said that they tried using duck-boards to get over the height thing. So it isn't that.

The men and women were given the same teaching, and the women often outperformed the men on the rest of the course....other than with a plane. I think we need something other than "natural alignment" as an explanation, given that this has been accounted for. Some people have dismissed the (undeniable) difference in strength as a factor, but haven't yet provided me enough reason to agree with them.


----------



## D_W (14 Mar 2018)

We're talking about something that is like a simplified multivariate analysis. We can say "women", that's probably a factor. "strength", certainly that's a factor, but it isn't a descriptor in its entirety. I think there must be other characteristics more common in women that would create this difference (and some of the conclusion in the first place could be due to small sample or confirmation bias - as in, are we forgetting about the thinly built or poorly coordinated men who can't get it together?). 

Anyway, sure strength has something to do with it, but i don't think someone with half of my strength would have trouble planing. They'd have trouble planing as much as fast, though. 

It is something else, because the amount strength needed to keep the toe of a plane flat on wood is not that great. The inability to coordinate the move in the first place, or the lack of sense (observing and understanding what needs to occur) could be a factor, and whether or not the characteristics behind that are correlated to men more than women, I don't know. 

My father coached baseball (here in the states, that kind of thing is popular), and then he took a break and lost the position. When he wanted to come back, he had to coach girls softball instead (another popular school sport). He would always remark about the inability of most of the girls to "generate power", which in baseball is coordinating leg drive, hip turn and a release. Of course, that's not universal - there were some girls who could hit a softball with serious authority. His contention, though, was that almost all of the girls "wave the bat", which means they don't do much other than a light twist at the waist and use their arms. 

Maybe it's hormonal (and you might think I'm being stupid saying that, but hormones affect how we think and act and what gives us satisfaction) - I wouldn't be surprised if you could tie hormone levels in men to these types of coordinated physical moves. Again, multivariate type of thing, where there are multiple factors and this is just one.


----------



## Ttrees (14 Mar 2018)

Apart from my off topic fingernail comment which was actually a psoriasis joke :roll: 
I really do think this one method would teach anyone to plane easily and faster than all methods 
combined.
That, and maybe a constant recording of _get behind the plane_ on repeat in the workshop.

This method requires a flat bench and a dark crayon.
A fire door makes a quick planing and assembly bench.
Cover the reference part of your bench with dark crayon, black is best,
and rub your board for a second on the bench, to reveal the high spots which will have witness marks.
Once you do that for a few minutes you will have the right geometry/muscle memory to plane 
after that.
Good luck


----------



## MikeG. (14 Mar 2018)

Ttrees":32t9tg2d said:


> Apart from my off topic fingernail comment which was actually a psoriasis joke :roll:
> I really do think this one method would teach anyone to plane easily and faster than all methods
> combined.
> That, and maybe a constant recording of _get behind the plane_ on repeat in the workshop.
> ...



Sheesh. What a way to complicate something profoundly simple. What a way to put off newcomers.



> Good luck



Yeah, they'd need it.


----------



## Bodgers (14 Mar 2018)

Tasky":2r8a6f5t said:


> What exactly are people meaning when they say "using the cap iron"?
> Near as I can see, he puts it on, adjusts it to distance and goes with it.
> 
> He _does_ also mention that the term 'chip breaker' is erroneous, because it doesn't break anything and is a term carried over from machines that do break chips... He suggests that a cap iron is mainly there to tension the cutting iron and help stop blade chatter, pointing out that many planes old and new do the same thing at the same angles without having a cap iron.... which makes sense to me, at least.



http://www.woodcentral.com/articles/tes ... _935.shtml


----------



## D_W (14 Mar 2018)

Tasky":1evfr0f6 said:


> All this relies more on joints and body alignment than outright strength.



Two things - if paul registers folks for several hundred dollars per class, why would he need to sell gear? I can't imagine screwing around with tshirts would be as profitable, and it would completely ruin his gimmick which is "I'm not selling you anything, buy my video subscription and pay to come to my classes...but that doesn't count as selling you something. Look, I'm not "beholden" to tool companies! Buy my videos". 

He's not a real woodworker like the guys all over youtube....like him....what? He's on youtube for one reason. It's free exposure to sell a recurring subscription on his website. If it wasn't, I doubt he'd do it. I have to imagine that it has driven more traffic to his site than anything else. If he's really selling advertisements to his site on ebay (loose use of the word sell), it would be senseless to turn on adsense and make about a dollar for every 3000 viewers or so. It would irritate more people than that and cost him traffic to his site.

re: the hand size, the hand sizes that I've made for other folks have been mostly 3.5 to 3.75, some up to 4. Mine are just over 3 1/2 (and I consider my hands small). The one oddball has been the guy who got me into woodworking, 4.75 across the knuckles. It caused his plane to look a bit clownish when I made it, but so be it. 

re: who to compare paul to? Makers like Mack Headley, George Wilson, etc. You won't find those guys doing a lot of youtube, though Mack is now retired from CW (I think) and may give classes. I think George (who I talk to frequently) would probably like a second lifetime or maybe five more to build all of the things he'd like to build. I doubt there's much to be made being a maker of that caliber. George's shop rate in retirement is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 bucks an hour.

(edit: I did look up Mack's page to see if he's teaching - no mention of it, but you can see furniture from his shop there. I did find him listed as giving some classes at this place: http://www.wwotsv.com/wwotsv_webpage_003.htm

That kind of work is not so accessible by a beginner, but I doubt they're looking for a beginner. The course cost is about the same as Sellers' course costs, and i don't think they sell online videos. I don't think they'd get many views on youtube, either, but I know which classes I'd rather go to.

I've never known George to do anything other than take apprentices )


----------



## Ttrees (14 Mar 2018)

MikeG.":2sqq16a9 said:


> Sheesh. What a way to complicate something profoundly simple. What a way to put off newcomers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You seem to think a flat surface is a bad thing Mike  
Profoundly simple, yet the thread is still going strong!
Have you got anything to add, like some advice on your techniques? ...
Cause all I'm hearing is rock throwing at the moment, and a disregard for the cap iron
previously 

Tom


----------



## John15 (14 Mar 2018)

''Sheesh. What a way to complicate something profoundly simple. What a way to put off newcomers.''

I'm not sure about putting newcomers off, some of the nonsense being spouted here is putting me off.

John


----------



## MikeG. (14 Mar 2018)

Winding sticks and your eyes, Tom. This thread, though, isn't about what to remove, or how to set the plane to remove it. It is about the Best Plane for a Woman (the clue is in the title). As we've proved for the last 12 hours, it is perfectly possible to have an adult and reasoned conversation AND stick to the topic. The topic here doesn't include anything at all about setting the plane, but only about plane choice, and any reason that choice may be different for a woman than a man. It really isn't complicated.


----------



## Ttrees (14 Mar 2018)

How can anyone know what plane they "like" if they don't know how to plane in the first place?
I was giving my opinion on the best way to get used to planing, so one could make a decision later
Winding sticks aren't gonna help someone get a feel for a plane and use the thing right for the "first time" within 10 minutes
You have to learn how to push a plane first 
Then you can choose the accuracy you want to aim for after that 

Tom


----------



## MikeG. (14 Mar 2018)

Ttrees":2wo5xw5u said:


> How can anyone know what plane they "like" if they don't know how to plane in the first place?
> I was giving my opinion on the best way to get used to planing, so one could make a decision later
> Winding sticks aren't gonna help someone get a feel for a plane and use the thing right for the "first time" within 10 minutes
> You have to learn how to push a plane first
> ...



Go and read the opening post again Tom. No one was asking students to make a choice about which plane they liked.

Men and woman beginners were given the same teaching, and despite the women having a higher over-all attainment on the course than men, they couldn't plane, but the men could. 

Now, your points may well be perfectly fair enough in a discussion about planing in general, but they are completely off-topic in this discussion, which is about what it is that made planing for the women in that particular class so difficult. If you have anything to say on that subject, rather than your little hobby horse, it would be good to hear it.

And no, you weren't giving "giving an opinion on the best way to get used to planing"........you were talking about flattening a board. These are not the same thing. Being as you had just said that people should use a reference surface and a marker pen, it's a bit ironic that you should then say: "_Winding sticks aren't gonna help someone get a feel for a plane and use the thing right for the "first time" within 10 minutes. You have to learn how to push a plane first _"


----------



## Mr T (14 Mar 2018)

This thread has moved faster than I can keep up, just got back from the workshop and it's about two pages longer . Way back Tasky asked why I don't like two part adjuster yokes. It's because I find that the two parts can drift apart making adjustment difficult. ED65 PM'ed me a fix for this a while ago(I can't find my PM's under this new system!). But I would prefer not to have the issue so favour the cast yokes.
Tasky also said that it's not an issue of strength and body weight rather technique citing martial arts technique. I would agree to some extent but for beginners who have yet to develop technique men can use strength and body weight to compensate but women may not have this option. I spent some time studying the ladies technique ( a bit like a golf pro studying gold swing) and it seemed to be a problem of just not being able to keep the sole flat on the wood. With good technique once the shaving is started there should not be any need to press down, the action of the shaving pulls the sole down onto the wood. The students had difficulty getting that starting shaving or lost it part way through the cut.

D_W commented about tension between instructors in the UK. For my part I have great respect for the likes of Peter Sefton and David Charlesworth and Paul Sellars has certainly helped many newcomers on the woodworking journey. With Paul though I just cannot resist taking the Mick from his holier than thou Life style Woodworker thing.

Chris


----------



## NickN (14 Mar 2018)

Mr T":isc3ew7z said:


> D_W commented about tension between instructors in the UK. For my part I have great respect for the likes of Peter Sefton and David Charlesworth and Paul Sellers has certainly helped many newcomers on the woodworking journey. With Paul though I just cannot resist taking the Mick from his holier than thou Life style Woodworker thing.



I certainly wouldn't be enjoying my relatively new hobby and the skills I'm learning if it weren't for Mr Sellers - it was his outdoor workbench build in a plain old garden using improvised equipment and cheap tools that was the lightbulb moment for me. The moment I realised that it wasn't necessary to have a shop stuffed full of expensive machinery, or be able to produce perfect joints immediately. In other words, woodworking was actually accessible for mere peasants such as myself.
But I agree about the blog posts, some of them are rather amusing and some completely baffle me.

My thoughts on the original question though are that I'm pretty sure many women can use the exact same planes as any man, and indeed probably ought to try if possible, as there's a reason certain planes are used in certain scenarios. As Tasky said though, what is probably different is the technique needed to achieve a good result with that tool - and I think there's been a few good theories about ways that could work effectively, things like making it easier for a female to get their body weight behind the plane rather than just relying on arm muscle, by using a taller bench.

And yes, then there'll be the petite or more mature ladies for whom technique isn't going to overcome a basic lack of the strength required in the necessary places. We all have things we can't do for various reasons (my eyesight prevents me flying fighter planes) and in woodworking it's surely no different - there will be a few who simply can't manage to successfully achieve some of the heavier tasks required. They could always get a planer-thicknesser...


----------



## Andy Kev. (15 Mar 2018)

Mr T":25ybmhkg said:


> This thread has moved faster than I can keep up, just got back from the workshop and it's about two pages longer . Way back Tasky asked why I don't like two part adjuster yokes. It's because I find that the two parts can drift apart making adjustment difficult. ED65 PM'ed me a fix for this a while ago(I can't find my PM's under this new system!). But I would prefer not to have the issue so favour the cast yokes.
> Tasky also said that it's not an issue of strength and body weight rather technique citing martial arts technique. I would agree to some extent but for beginners who have yet to develop technique men can use strength and body weight to compensate but women may not have this option. I spent some time studying the ladies technique ( a bit like a golf pro studying gold swing) and it seemed to be a problem of just not being able to keep the sole flat on the wood. With good technique once the shaving is started there should not be any need to press down, the action of the shaving pulls the sole down onto the wood. The students had difficulty getting that starting shaving or lost it part way through the cut.
> 
> D_W commented about tension between instructors in the UK. For my part I have great respect for the likes of Peter Sefton and David Charlesworth and Paul Sellars has certainly helped many newcomers on the woodworking journey. With Paul though I just cannot resist taking the Mick from his holier than thou Life style Woodworker thing.
> ...


From your observations it looks like it might be a question of physiognomy i.e. the fact that men and women are built differently. For instance, women benefit from bicycle saddles and rucksacks which are designed specifically for their frames. Workbenches have evolved for the men who predominantly used them although I think the only thing you could adjust there would be height and you're already addressing that.

That leaves the design of the planes used and it seems to me that you have only two things to fiddle about with in that area: the front knob and the rear handle. (That said the optimal length of the plane used for any given task might have a different average value for men and women.) If funds were no object it might be interesting to experiment with the various combinations of front knob and handle which Veritas offers in its customisable planes. There's also the option of those continental planes which have the weird rhino-horn thing in place of a front knob.

You also mention the matter of keeping the planes flat. Would the answer to that perhaps be to use a plane with a relatively long toe (if that's the term)? The various LA Jack planes spring to mind. On the other hand, they could be a bit on the heavy side. Maybe a narrower LA Jack needs developing specifically for the female user.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (15 Mar 2018)

Having seen this thread continue to grow, I can't resist adding my 2d's worth! I used a golf analogy in a previous thread about planing technique, and I'll trot it out again. I remember my octogenarian grandmother beating me, a reasonably fit teenager, at golf, and learned that an advantage in physical size and brute strength fades away to nothing in comparison to skill - she had played golf most days of the week for most of her adult life. I could hit the ball further, but she could 'read' the course and conditions and could hit a ball pretty much with her eyes shut (muscle memory) and with finesse coming from regular practice. Of course, her clubs were sized to the correct length for her height - as were mine.

I think that as long as a plane is set up correctly (and I think that "correctly" is identical for both genders), and the workpiece is positioned correctly for their size/shape, and correct technique is used, women can use pretty much any plane with every bit as much skill as a male counterpart.

One point that no-one else has yet made - that may help explain some of the examples of women finding plane work difficult quoted earlier in the thread - I make from an observation with a sample size of two(!). I attended a basic blacksmithing course a while back, and there were a couple of ladies on the course of similar age to myself. They both struggled with something that I, and the other blokes, found easy - even though we were all new to blacksmithing - repeatedly hitting a small piece of metal accurately with a hammer.

Thinking about why this might be, it occurred to me that there was perhaps a "cultural", for want of a better word, difference between us. I had grown up doing DIY etc. and was used to whacking nails etc. with hammers - I already had a basic level of hand-eye co-ordination, and a "feel" for the way things behave in these situation. It occurred to me that these two ladies had not got the same basic "skill level" because they'd not engaged in similar DIY-type activities over the years and so were starting from a lower level of basic readiness. I fear that the instructor put them off learning further, as he did not recognise their difficulty for what it was.

Cheers, W2S


----------



## Sheffield Tony (15 Mar 2018)

Are you sure it is a gender related difference. I would guess on a regular course you get participants many of which fall into two categories:

-Those who have tried woodwork already, enjoy it and want to build skills.

-Serial craft course participants, who try lots of things looking for what does it for them, and may benefit from transferable skills.

I would guess a women's day event might attract people with more diverse motivation and experience ?

I think W2S is thinking on similar lines.


----------



## Andy Kev. (15 Mar 2018)

No, I'm not sure. However, the physiological differences between the sexes around the back and hip area _might_ lead to slight but significant differences when it comes to addressing work pieces on the bench with a plane. If that is the case then it would make sense to analyse such differences and modify the ergonomics of planes for women accordingly - there's no doubt that planes have evolved to suit the male physiognomy. That said, I think that the points you and W2S are making have almost certainly got something in them. The whole matter would probably be a fascinating subject for proper Investigation and Analysis.


----------



## Mr T (15 Mar 2018)

Woody2Shoes":2yf3z12x said:


> Thinking about why this might be, it occurred to me that there was perhaps a "cultural", for want of a better word, difference between us. I had grown up doing DIY etc. and was used to whacking nails etc. with hammers - I already had a basic level of hand-eye co-ordination, and a "feel" for the way things behave in these situation. It occurred to me that these two ladies had not got the same basic "skill level" because they'd not engaged in similar DIY-type activities over the years and so were starting from a lower level of basic readiness. I fear that the instructor put them off learning further, as he did not recognise their difficulty for what it was.
> 
> Cheers, W2S



That is very true Woody. I think the oft quoted and related thing about women having less spacial awareness is also down in good part to socialisation. Boys play with construction toys, girls play with dolls.


Andy Kev.":2yf3z12x said:


> You also mention the matter of keeping the planes flat. Would the answer to that perhaps be to use a plane with a relatively long toe (if that's the term)? The various LA Jack planes spring to mind. On the other hand, they could be a bit on the heavy side. Maybe a narrower LA Jack needs developing specifically for the female user.



We did find that they could cope better with a LA Jack than the standard Bailey no. 5, this bears out your suggestion. Unfortunately I only have one LA Jack.

As I will be retiring next year I don't think I will spending too much cash on plane design for women. 

Chris


----------



## John Brown (15 Mar 2018)

So the answer to your question "Best plane for a woman", appears to be that Paul Sellers(note spelling, Mr_T), isn't a very good woodworker.

Hope that helps.


----------



## John Brown (15 Mar 2018)

If you'd turned the question on its head, the answer would have been "Amelia Earhart", and we could have all gone back to whatever we were doing.


----------



## D_W (15 Mar 2018)

Watch out for the gimmick. Paul's a wrestling promoter, of himself. He's the face, and tool companies are the heel. It's all about verisimilitude.


----------



## Mr T (15 Mar 2018)

D_W":2vtzmze4 said:


> Watch out for the gimmick. Paul's a wrestling promoter, of himself. He's the face, and tool companies are the heel. It's all about verisimilitude.



I didn't get any of that  

Chris


----------



## Tasky (15 Mar 2018)

Ttrees":1haastd2 said:


> YOU must have missed or not seen/listened to what he says then, on his youtube channel.... Maybe you put the dinner on when he mentions and demonstrates "fighting" only a few videos back.


Can you recall which video? 
I don't actually watch that many of them. 



MikeG.":1haastd2 said:


> The OP specifically said that they tried using duck-boards to get over the height thing. So it isn't that.


There's more to it than just height alone, though. That's almost the same as putting you on stilts. 
I have long arms to go with my long legs, and I don't have things like boobs to get in the way, but there are a great many more differences in the structure and dynamics of female musculo-skeletal mechanics. Often these are quite subtle differences but with great effect on outcome, many simply having knock-on effects on other body parts. The knees are a big one, for example, which are affected by the hips and vice versa. 

One big aspect is what I'll call muscle bind. 
Muscle groups _tend_ to work in complimentary opposition to each other - One side pushes, while the other pulls. When you throw a punch, your right arm goes out while your left arm comes back toward the body. When you draw a bow, the bow arm pushes while the string arm pulls, and the chest muscles spread as the back muscles contract. Stuff like that. 

When you plane, you're stood to the side of the wood and both arms are moving in the same direction. As a result, different muscle groups conflict at various points in the stroke and prevent others from behaving complimentarily. 
When you punch, your body pivots around the knees and hips, twisting the torso to match the lines of movement. You can't do that with planing, as both arms are essentially following the same single line. The muscles instead bind. 



MikeG.":1haastd2 said:


> Some people have dismissed the (undeniable) difference in strength as a factor, but haven't yet provided me enough reason to agree with them.


It's a factor, in that men can still use that strength to compensate for lack of technique and push through the muscle bind... but a woman with good technique probably trumps a strong man most of the time. And I bet her planes would be in better condition at the end of it!! :lol: 



D_W":1haastd2 said:


> are we forgetting about the thinly built or poorly coordinated men who can't get it together?


That'd be me on both counts!!



D_W":1haastd2 said:


> He would always remark about the inability of most of the girls to "generate power", which in baseball is coordinating leg drive, hip turn and a release.


Yup. Sounds a similar example to my 'Chick Punch', with the exact same reasoning behind it. 



Bodgers":1haastd2 said:


> http://www.woodcentral.com/articles/test/articles_935.shtml


Bookmarked, for detailed attempting later on! 
I think I saw a video of his along the same lines, although I was getting concertina shavings no matter how far back I set the cap iron. 



D_W":1haastd2 said:


> Two things - if paul registers folks for several hundred dollars per class, why would he need to sell gear?


If Cosman can sell a flippin' Shooting Board™ for £150 and a branded Jewellers Loupe™ for £50, surely one would be a fool not to jump on that bandwagon?



D_W":1haastd2 said:


> it would completely ruin his gimmick which is "I'm not selling you anything, buy my video subscription and pay to come to my classes...but that doesn't count as selling you something. Look, I'm not "beholden" to tool companies! Buy my videos".


You don't have to buy his videos either, though. 
I haven't paid a single penny for his content (bar my ISP bill) and most of what goes up on WWMC ends up on YouTube for free anyway. 
I got given his Working Wood 1 & 2 book for Christmas and found most of it has already been covered in his free videos. 

TBH, I don't know how me makes money aside from classes and book sales, unless he still sells some furniture, but plenty of others are doing that and well enough... 



D_W":1haastd2 said:


> re: the hand size, the hand sizes that I've made for other folks have been mostly 3.5 to 3.75, some up to 4. Mine are just over 3 1/2 (and I consider my hands small).


Mine were just over 4 ¼" when I measured. I usually take XXL in motorcycle gloves (if they go that big), which I think is about Size 11 in Army gloves. 



Mr T":1haastd2 said:


> I spent some time studying the ladies technique ( a bit like a golf pro studying gold swing) and it seemed to be a problem of just not being able to keep the sole flat on the wood.


Going back to my ramble about muscle bind, for a sec...
Something I found useful at times was 'throwing' the plane in a more sideways motion, while standing more side-on to the wood. It opens up the torso and hips, allowing for better twist and support to the arms. 
Not a complete 90º to the planing line, but more like 40-60º to it. 

Might be worth playing around with that, seeing if it helps?



Mr T":1haastd2 said:


> With Paul though I just cannot resist taking the Mick from his holier than thou Life style Woodworker thing.


Which I think is fair enough, heh heh!
He is quite a poetic and spiritual person... bordering on Hippy, in some respects. While he doesn't exactly get in your face about his rather definite Christianity, it's obviously a big part of his life and I don't begrudge him whatever makes him happy. He's merely sharing that happiness and it's yours to take or leave. I skip over those parts and get on with the woodwork! 



NickN":1haastd2 said:


> The moment I realised that it wasn't necessary to have a shop stuffed full of expensive machinery, or be able to produce perfect joints immediately. In other words, woodworking was actually accessible for mere peasants such as myself.


It's what makes Sellers a favourite of mine, too. That, and I like the 'working class' feel to some of his stuff. 
Cosman can do some good things, but it often seems he is a one-trick dovetailing pony. 



NickN":1haastd2 said:


> As Tasky said though, what is probably different is the technique needed to achieve a good result with that tool - and I think there's been a few good theories about ways that could work effectively, things like making it easier for a female to get their body weight behind the plane rather than just relying on arm muscle, by using a taller bench.


I agree. 
Much of our fighty classes with women are about exploring each woman's body mechanics and finding different approaches to making the techniques work for them. 
With swords, for example, I'm often too tall to perform the upward stabs and thrusts against my opponents, so rather than perform the technique rote, I throw my back leg outward, which lowers my body and gives me the angle to deliver the attack. 

I just don't know enough about planing yet to offer much thought on the solutions. 



Woody2Shoes":1haastd2 said:


> It occurred to me that these two ladies had not got the same basic "skill level" because they'd not engaged in similar DIY-type activities over the years and so were starting from a lower level of basic readiness.


Transferable skill?
It's worth considering. 
My wife was able to plane about as well as me, though and she's hideously better at spinning the nunchaku, despite having no such previous experience. 



John Brown":1haastd2 said:


> If you'd turned the question on its head, the answer would have been "Amelia Earhart",


I seem to recall she disappeared without a trace, though, so perhaps not the best after all...?


----------



## John Brown (15 Mar 2018)

"I seem to recall she disappeared without a trace, though, so perhaps not the best after all...? "
Behaviour this thread will probably emulate in due course.


----------



## D_W (15 Mar 2018)

Tasky - Paul's main revenue generator is probably his subscription service. 

Rob has something like that, too. Get a couple of hundred or a couple of thousand people on the hook to pay $10 a month or whatever and you've pretty much got it wrapped up. 

Based on the portfolios of the two, I've seen Rob do fine work. I have seen Paul use his name on a piece that went to the white house, but that it sounds like others probably did the bulk of work. I don't think paul is going to make and sell anything and have anyone pay a premium. 

Rob has a captive audience for his tools, and he has at least one person on staff making them. It's part of his gimmick (he also has ten kids from what I understand). He doesn't peddle the "pay me 900 pounds to come to my class and don't let anyone tell you that you should waste a couple of hundred pounds on new tools" narrative that paul does. 

They're both wonderfully nice guys from what I can tell (I have had conversations with Rob where I was dogging something that he did, but he handled my complaints with class. He is a genuinely nice guy. He could've just fired a salvo back. i haven't talked to paul sellers, but have no reason to. I talked to George Wilson yesterday on the phone. If you have access to a George or Phil Lowe, you don't need to refer to paul....or Rob. that doesn't mean I'm a master woodworker, but I have specific wants and design questions, and i'm not looking for random advice, i'm looking to bounce ideas off of a toolmaker). 

At any rate, figuring that you spend your time driving subscribership and setting up classes, why would you get involved with making shoot boards? I'd bet that Rob's employee takes a couple of hours to finish one of those from start to finish, and when Rob is around and not teaching, it appears he makes them to. I don't get the sense that kind of thing (Rob's setup for saws is actually a little station to station factory) is Paul's wheelhouse. It's not mine, either. As soon as I made 5 of them perfectly in a row, I'd be bored. 

Tool circuit (TM) here, by the way, now has a shoot board and some fixtures for about 600 bucks, so you're going to have to raise the bar. 

You can see the high dollar shoot board that i like (something has to be smaller than about 2" wide for me to actually shoot it, you can just plane to a mark in the vise otherwise). I have taken some private comment flack on youtube over this (and Derek Cohen lined me out on it, too). 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWZE4vC8IHY


----------



## Tasky (15 Mar 2018)

John Brown":3tqdhy65 said:


> Behaviour this thread will probably emulate in due course.


How come?
We're all being civil, contributory and mostly on-topic.... 



D_W":3tqdhy65 said:


> Rob has something like that, too. Get a couple of hundred or a couple of thousand people on the hook to pay $10 a month or whatever and you've pretty much got it wrapped up.


I think Rob has the complete portfolio!!
I did notice he started doing Poor Man's videos, where he perfects dovetails without $2,000 worth of handtools, instead using a sharpened screwdriver and an old hacksaw... but that was after heavy criticism and drama on one of his other videos. 

I'd be interested to see some of these guys look into the Woman's Plane issue, actually. Certainly if a new design of plane is needed (which I don't believe), they'd surely be well-placed to get one out!!



D_W":3tqdhy65 said:


> I have seen Paul use his name on a piece that went to the white house, but that it sounds like others probably did the bulk of work.


He said he put a team together, I think...
It's pretty ugly-looking, though. 



D_W":3tqdhy65 said:


> He doesn't peddle the "pay me 900 pounds to come to my class and don't let anyone tell you that you should waste a couple of hundred pounds on new tools" narrative that paul does.


I don't even know how much Sellers charges for a class... Mostly it's all about how you can make tools for two quid that "will last you a life time of REAL woodworking". 



D_W":3tqdhy65 said:



> when Rob is around and not teaching, it appears he makes them to.


But still... £150 for something Rob himself shows you how to make in his own videos???!!!!
I can't even imagine who would actually buy that!!



D_W":3tqdhy65 said:


> Tool circuit (TM) here, by the way, now has a shoot board and some fixtures for about 600 bucks, so you're going to have to raise the bar.


.............................................. :shock: 



D_W":3tqdhy65 said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWZE4vC8IHY


Oh, that's you, is it?


----------



## D_W (15 Mar 2018)

I made the reference about pro wrestling because the youtube stuff is the draw to get you to pay. 

In the old days, pro wrestling was on TV to try to get you to go pay for a ticket (PPV and national network contracts changed that). 

There is some value in what paul shows. You can work with hand tools. Beyond that, there's nothing unique. You probably wouldn't want to build the clock that he showed, because it's pretty grotesque. A bit of time in learning about design and sourcing more attractive parts, and you could make a much nicer clock, etc. 

If I was funneling people toward a paying subscription and 250-900 pound sessions working white pine, I would want to do something to draw them in, too. It's basic business. Youtube provides an avenue for exposure that's cheaper than a magazine add and reaches hundreds of thousands of people if you work the gimmick right. 

For example, I can talk about making an infill shooting plane. Do you think many people are going to make one? No, if I wanted to turn ads on and make a draw for my channel, I'd make a book about "easy hand planes" with a bunch of laminated planes, make a few videos, and make sure that the subject appealed to people who may not actually be able to make even those (they pay the same as someone else). 

if you're appealing to a limited audience, your classes are like those I linked on the Shenandoah page. The topical material that paul covers is a given for classes like that (they regard those skills as something you should show up with, not an end itself). It excludes beginners, and you can't gimmick it on youtube - at least not with the expectation that it will drive much traffic. 

What happens on youtube if you make detailed videos that show more than a simple topic is that you get a lot of one minute watches on ten minute videos. People are looking for production value and entertainment, not the idea that they might forge through something that is difficult for them. This plane in the video was difficult for me - for a master builder, it would've probably been easy, and there would be some fine details on it that would differentiate it from a plane that an amateur made.


----------



## D_W (15 Mar 2018)

Tasky":2w5xur5c said:


> [
> 
> But still... £150 for something Rob himself shows you how to make in his own videos???!!!!
> I can't even imagine who would actually buy that!!



That's generally my contention, but there are always people who say they want to do something, but they really just want to buy it. I'm not in that crowd - except I have a problem with buying too many things that I'd like to build, too - admittedly. 

Rob's main source of sales is probably captive buyers in classes. if you're sitting by yourself somewhere comparison shopping, you're less likely to buy that stuff. But, I'm sure on the opposite side of the coin that he's had plenty of attorneys and physicians who will get pineappled at him if he shows those tools and then says "hey guys, make your own". 

Presumably, the $400-$600 shooting and gadget setups in the US wouldn't sell that well without demonstration, which is a funny thing. Demonstration gets you to believe that you're seeing the competence of the product, but often it's more the demonstrator. WIA and other very high dollar tool festivals here specialize in that kind of thing. Getting you in the mood and showing demonstrations in a context that don't have much to do with your shop. 

The typical buyer for all of these "made by other people" tools probably doesn't frequent forums, has more money than time, and is looking for a bit of escapism. I guess I am, too - on all of those fronts, but my escapism is in the satisfaction of making and thinking about the making, figuring it out and taking basic information from other people (e.g., George can tell me how the proportions of a curve, in general, will look good, but he won't trouble me with trying to tell me how to cut it) but not ceding the details to their step by step. 

I went through the "buying precision" phase at the beginning like everyone else, but not of things like dovetail markers and shooting boards. It's fun for a little bit, but design, proportion and the gloomy threat of making junk is far more motivating and lasting. Making an iron that is tapered, hollow tapered, in it's length and then tapered by width, and then hardening it in a coffee can forge ..those are my details. I wouldn't figure them out if I ceded them to someone else, and they wouldn't have been suggested. I have learned what difference those kinds of things make over time (ex. forge - heat treating can be done by anyone).


----------



## D_W (15 Mar 2018)

Tasky":1vln6ns0 said:


> I did notice he started doing Poor Man's videos, where he perfects dovetails without $2,000 worth of handtools, instead using a sharpened screwdriver and an old hacksaw... but that was after heavy criticism and drama on one of his other videos.
> 
> I'd be interested to see some of these guys look into the Woman's Plane issue, actually. Certainly if a new design of plane is needed (which I don't believe), they'd surely be well-placed to get one out!!



Rob is no dummy - if the market wants it, he'll do it. That "poor man's tools" gimmick sells well. Sometimes it's true (no fit person could match my planing rate - and I am unfit - if they had a bevel up plane and i had a stanley), and sometimes it's not (the router plane that paul made out of a chisel is something that should be cast aside - you can see him struggling with it on pine, it's a worthless endeavor). 

That is a gimmick that sells well, though. Make things seem accessible, and a large fraction of customers will be calc 1 washout equivalents (the sort of endless supply and high turnover that you see in intro physics and calculus classes) where the idea of doing it was attractive, but sweating the details of doing anything difficult ends up being a stopping point. Rob is opening his content to a larger market segment. Smart guy (and like I said, a man of principle with lots of kids, and in my experience, a genuinely nice guy who probably doesn't get a fair shake in forum opinion). To borrow the wrestling analysis, I'm always surprised how paul is made to be the face and rob the heel in so many of the debates about "the right teacher". You don't need "the right teacher", you need a personal mentor and a desire to make something good and be able to learn independently and figure things out to some extent. There is plenty of information available to do that. My turning point in going from making rubbish to at least mediocre things at this point was George sending me a message telling me to call him (I didn't solicit his advice) and then giving me a mildly stiff pep talk about "here's what you did wrong, but I think you have enough ability to do it right". 

At any rate, I can't imagine what kind of insults you'd be subjected to in the comments on youtube if you suggested there might be a different in outcomes or materials for men vs. women. Too much risk. 

Better to play the contrarian ("not beholden to tool dealers") and tell people you have an avenue of hope for them than to divide them at the start.


----------



## Tasky (15 Mar 2018)

D_W":3vufymhh said:


> You probably wouldn't want to build the clock that he showed, because it's pretty grotesque. A bit of time in learning about design and sourcing more attractive parts, and you could make a much nicer clock, etc.


Looking through his website gallery and several threads on here, it seems a lot of people copy his working ideas but put their own spin on the designs. Even I am doing a "Sellers" workbench, but already have different dimensions, layout, a few extras and the like. 

If anything, I'd suspect that he has a deal with eBay, to hike up the price of second hand tools!! :lol:



D_W":3vufymhh said:


> To borrow the wrestling analysis, I'm always surprised how paul is made to be the face and rob the heel in so many of the debates about "the right teacher". You don't need "the right teacher", you need a personal mentor and a desire to make something good and be able to learn independently and figure things out to some extent.


After a certain point you do, yes. 
But everyone needs to learn the basics. Like I said, I've seen how some people already move away from the rote practices taught on YouTube and work independently. Anyone worth half their salt will start doing the same when they decide they don't want to make a straight cabinet, but something similar that uses some of the skills they've already learned. 



D_W":3vufymhh said:


> At any rate, I can't imagine what kind of insults you'd be subjected to in the comments on youtube if you suggested there might be a different in outcomes or materials for men vs. women. Too much risk.


But if you can point out the differences, explain why *and* present alternative solutions to the issues - That would win. It's a difference, not a disadvantage and not a divide.


----------



## D_W (15 Mar 2018)

He does have quite an effect on used tool prices. Used to be referred to as the Schwarz effect, but now there are a few gurus and any of them can inflict serious damage.


----------



## John Brown (15 Mar 2018)

D_W":218wuvyx said:


> He does have quite an effect on used tool prices. Used to be referred to as the Schwarz effect, but now there are a few gurus and any of them can inflict serious damage.



Do you have any evidence for that?

Even if true, there's a chance those tools get used for woodwork, rather than joining collections.

I have no vested interest here, but I don't understand how a question about planes for women has morphed into a Paul Sellers bashing fest.


----------



## Bodgers (15 Mar 2018)

John Brown":21uctub2 said:


> D_W":21uctub2 said:
> 
> 
> > He does have quite an effect on used tool prices. Used to be referred to as the Schwarz effect, but now there are a few gurus and any of them can inflict serious damage.
> ...


It is a fairly well known affect. All circumstantial - it would be hard to prove, but if the prices of things like router planes on eBay are anything to go by, nothing much explains their increases other than the way they have been popularised by online woodworkers...

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr T (15 Mar 2018)

Mr T":c5bgvw1h said:


> With Paul though I just cannot resist taking the Mick from his holier than thou Life style Woodworker thing.


Which I think is fair enough, heh heh!
He is quite a poetic and spiritual person... bordering on Hippy, in some respects. While he doesn't exactly get in your face about his rather definite Christianity, it's obviously a big part of his life and I don't begrudge him whatever makes him happy. He's merely sharing that happiness and it's yours to take or leave. I skip over those parts and get on with the woodwork! 

[/quote]

My holier than thou comment was meant in a none religious way, if that's possible. I did not know that Paul had strong religious convictions.



John Brown":c5bgvw1h said:


> I have no vested interest here, but I don't understand how a question about planes for women has morphed into a Paul Sellers bashing fest.





Tasky said:


> I agree, I regret my St Paul quip now.
> 
> Chris


----------



## Chip shop (15 Mar 2018)

Bit of a curious old thread, this one. 

I would have thought the best plane for a woman would be pretty much the same as the best plane for a bloke. Assuming the poor waif has the strength to haul the great lumbering tool out of the cupboard and over to the bench, and then manages to erect a scaff tower so they reach the bench top, I don't really see much of difference.

I'd say a No 4, purely because it's my go-to for tickling stuff up (and what my Dad used).

Women, just like Men, come in all shapes and sizes, strengths and weaknesses, so I think the original question is a little nebulous. 

Perhaps "What is the best plane for an individual" is a better question, but if pushed I think I might give the same answer.


----------



## D_W (15 Mar 2018)

Curious which people think is harder, wielding a plane or coordinating a glue-up. 

I get closer to burst forehead veins and injured joints trying to get glue-ups together than with planing. I'd agree with your comment, it should be the same planes. If there is some sort of difference at the outset in initial ability, it should be closed with some experience.


----------



## JimB (15 Mar 2018)

...and now for the downtrodden lefthander :wink:


----------



## D_W (15 Mar 2018)

John Brown":1h7yke5f said:


> D_W":1h7yke5f said:
> 
> 
> > He does have quite an effect on used tool prices. Used to be referred to as the Schwarz effect, but now there are a few gurus and any of them can inflict serious damage.
> ...



router planes. 

I can recall Chris Schwarz before paul doing the same with miter boxes (OK, I'll admit I read little of Chris Schwarz, so I don't know what else he might've tripped - but the miter box effect was spectacular. Boxes too large to be considered worth shipping were going for $275 within a week or two after he described them as being indispensable, or whatever terminology he used). 

Thanks to paul (I'll give him credit on this one), i was able to buy a millers falls router a decade ago for about $25 or $40 or something (can't remember the exact figure) and re-sell a couple of weeks ago for $85.


----------



## D_W (15 Mar 2018)

JimB":3l3uszr2 said:


> ...and now for the downtrodden lefthander :wink:



they need the stanley adapter.


----------



## John Brown (16 Mar 2018)

D_W":z3s4gh5e said:


> John Brown":z3s4gh5e said:
> 
> 
> > D_W":z3s4gh5e said:
> ...


Correlation rather than causation. But, if you're right, then it's probably just a matter of time before they all end up back on eBay, as the buyers' flash-in-the-pan woodworking enthusiasm wanes.

Still has buzz all to do with the original question...


----------



## Tasky (16 Mar 2018)

John Brown":2o5oratx said:


> Do you have any evidence for that?


Sellers has remarked on it in his own blog, about how prices of certain often seem to jump very soon after he blogs about the very same tools. 

But if in doubt - Tell me, how much was a 4-piece set of Powerfix chisels from Lidl, this year? £8, right?

Well....
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Powerfix-4-c ... SwfjRaCJC0 



John Brown":2o5oratx said:


> Even if true, there's a chance those tools get used for woodwork, rather than joining collections.


Which is fine. 
The only gripe is from new woodworkers who hear from Sellers that you can get XYZ tool on Ebay for £20-35, only to find an extra zero creeping in, following that blog. 



John Brown":2o5oratx said:


> I don't understand how a question about planes for women has morphed into a Paul Sellers bashing fest.


Just what happens in the normal conversation. 
Probably my fault, as I mentioned Sellers and his blogs on some of his female students in the original context of the thread. 



Mr T":2o5oratx said:


> My holier than thou comment was meant in a none religious way, if that's possible. I did not know that Paul had strong religious convictions.


He has, although he rarely refers to it directly. I think the best was talking about his own woodworking mentors, where he mentions his biggest one was the son of a carpenter from Nazareth. 

He does mention a LOT that this is what he's done for 50 years, all throughout his career, from back when he apprenticed under men who were as old as 80 at that time, using tools that will last a lifetime of REAL woodworking, etc.... But while he does also mention it, he perhaps needs to mention more often that this is just the method he teaches. 
He's also said he has many different approaches and methods from which he might choose, but that he sticks to a very limited set throughout his videos for consistency in teaching - Might be he needs to start showing some more of these other ones...



Chip shop":2o5oratx said:


> I would have thought the best plane for a woman would be pretty much the same as the best plane for a bloke.


That's my thinking as well. 
Kinda like how both genders can drive the same car, but you just need to alter the setup to fit. 



D_W":2o5oratx said:


> Curious which people think is harder, wielding a plane or coordinating a glue-up.


Glue-up. 
I put that down to experience at this point, though. Too many boards at once, not moving fast enough to level everything before the glue starts to set, general mistakes like that.


----------



## D_W (16 Mar 2018)

John Brown":31l5y80i said:


> Correlation rather than causation. But, if you're right, then it's probably just a matter of time before they all end up back on eBay, as the buyers' flash-in-the-pan woodworking enthusiasm wanes.
> 
> Still has buzz all to do with the original question...



I'll bet a lot of them end up on shelves and stay there. Most of the guys around here who don't participate in forums are a black hole for tools - they talk about selling them, but never actually do it (they don't use their guru-recommended tools, either).


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (16 Mar 2018)

D_W":n9ho5nhd said:


> Curious which people think is harder, wielding a plane or coordinating a glue-up.
> .


ow

Glue-ups are loads harder. It's funny that it doesn't get discussed much here. There are endless conversations about planning and cutting joints, things that I rarely have any issue with, but I hardly ever glue anything together without stress. Today I glued up a new workbench for engine work at 10.15, with a dentist appointment at 11, nice and simple, what could go wrong (note to self-get the clamps set and the bench and table completely clear and the big copper hammer ready just in case, next time, next time)


----------



## Mr T (17 Mar 2018)

Paddy Roxburgh":xaworzoy said:


> D_W":xaworzoy said:
> 
> 
> > Curious which people think is harder, wielding a plane or coordinating a glue-up.
> ...



That's pushing it a bit clamping up a bench in 15 min. I trust you'd done a dry run first! I occasionally have students on my evening class decide to glue up at the last minute and it all goes wrong, finding they had not done a dry run we are still there 30 min after the class should end. A dry run should mean your bench is clear, the clamps are set up to the right length and ready to go and, of course, you know it will go together cleanly.

As a reminder of the original question, women don't have problems with clamps  

Chris


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (17 Mar 2018)

Mr T":2e0omt1k said:


> Paddy Roxburgh":2e0omt1k said:
> 
> 
> > D_W":2e0omt1k said:
> ...


I had about 35 mins and was only doing the short sides of the aprons, it was three pieces per side (the longer side was already done the night before). I really do know about getting ready, I was just being slap dash as it is a bench for the workshop made of 4x2 that will get covered in oil etc.
I did get it together and was only 5 mins late for dentist, but a few curse words were uttered.

To tie this in with the actual question of the thread, my limited experience of working with women (there's a woman welder who works here occasionally and I sometimes make things with my girlfriend and my ex wife makes clothes for a living) is that they are better at organisation/ tidiness than myself and the men I've worked with. If it is possible to expand this tiny sample to the population at large I'm not sure, but even if it is, I suspect it is more to do with acquired skills due to societal gender roles than any actual physiological/ mental differences.


----------



## Mr T (17 Mar 2018)

Sorry Paddy, my arithmetic was up the creek, you had plenty of time!

Chris


----------



## G S Haydon (18 Mar 2018)

Just normal planes with plenty of practice. If a person is of a smaller frame then I would think a #3 and #5 should be a fine starting point.


----------



## CStanford (18 Mar 2018)

Six pages, and counting, of drivel on what planes might be best for a female cabinetmaker? A new low. I'll spare myself and assume that somewhere in there is a bunch of rubbish about cap iron settings for women.


----------



## Bodgers (18 Mar 2018)

CStanford":o7be7n93 said:


> Six pages, and counting, of drivel on what planes might be best for a female cabinetmaker? A new low. I'll spare myself and assume that somewhere in there is a bunch of rubbish about cap iron settings for women.


Hey don't sit on the fence - tell us what you really think...

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk


----------



## Tasky (19 Mar 2018)

Mr T":1gl0umum said:


> As a reminder of the original question, women don't have problems with clamps


But some do experience considerable problems with _cramps_..... :wink:


----------

