# How to store Handplanes?



## Muina (8 May 2011)

I just saw one of Lie Nielson's videos on Youtube and I noticed the guy (I think Deneb Puchalski) kept putting the planes down with the sole flat on the bench and the blade out.

Thinking about it, I realised I've seen a lot of the big guys doing the exact same thing, but I've always been taught to put the plane down on it's side so that you don't blunt the blade prematurely.

So is this a solution to a problem that's not really that much of problem at all or is it just because these guys know they can sharpen a blade in less time it takes to think about putting the plane down on it's side? 

Thanks

Anthony


----------



## Anonymous (8 May 2011)

i always when in use put them onto one side; when in storage i put them with the heel resting on an oak strip so the blade isn't in touch with the surface.

There's no set way its just what i have been taught so this what I do, If i forget to do the above I don't fret.


----------



## yetloh (8 May 2011)

Most children who did woodwork at school will have been taught to put a plane down on its side. The reason for this was that you could never be sure what a child might be putting the exposed blade onto if it was put down on its sole. Quite apart from things like files and screwdrivers, school benches would often have nails driven into them by by bored or mischievous children. 

Using a plane in your own workshop on your own bench is quite another matter, and putting it down directly onto a wooden bench (as I do) is not going to harm the edge. I also store my planes flat on a shelf and do not bother to raise the toe of the plane simply because I can see no good reason to do so.

Jim


----------



## matthewwh (8 May 2011)

I agree, although putting them down on their side is good practice and I wouldn't criticise anyone who did so. 

Putting a plane down on a wooden suface with the cutting iron out isn't going to instantly blunt or damage the iron. Having said that, resting the weight of your smoother on the centre of its carefully prepared cambered cutting edge on a surface that has a risk of containing embedded particles of silicon carbide etc probably isn't the most respectful way to treat your tools.

Jim - I believe the main advantage in keeping planes propped up on shelves is that it allows air to circulate so any moisture or condensation that forms on the tool can evaporate before it causes a problem. Having them make full contact with a hygroscopic material like wood invites the possibility of moisure being held against the surface. 

Both situations are very unlikely to cause a problem and reasonably easy to sort out if the worst does happen. On the side and propped up are theoretically the safer way and are therefore good habits to get into, but its not a big deal if you don't.


----------



## woodbloke (9 May 2011)

I get into the habit of having a few lolly sized sticks of material kept in a pot in the tool well (it also contains other assorted detritus) so planes rest on one of these when not in use. Placing them on their sides is sound practice in my view, but I find them easier to pick up again if they're left in the 'normal' operating position on the bench top - Rob


----------



## pedder (9 May 2011)

I take the plane of the shelf just before I use it. After I've used it, I've a lot of shavings. I fold a shaving double or tripple and let the plane sit on the folded shaving with the edge downwards. Never hit my bench nor my body with a mounted plane iron.

Hope that makes sense. 

Cheers
Pedder


----------



## Sawyer (9 May 2011)

For about 25 years, I've kept them with the toe resting on a thin strip of wood, but have always wondered if it may encourage the casting to deform. No doubt, very unlikely, and it's never happened to my planes. Latterly though, and following the purchase of a couple of very nice Cliftons, I've made each plane its own 'bed' to sit on. This is simply a bit of chipboard with nose and tail-shaped raised ends and strips down each side so the plane sits snugly. Where the blade is, I've routed out a groove so that precious edge is never in contact with anything more than thin air.

Now, each plane has its unique place in the tool cupboard which all looks very organised. Another advantage.


----------



## Benchwayze (9 May 2011)

Sawyer":3gijbels said:


> For about 25 years, I've kept them with the toe resting on a thin strip of wood, but have always wondered if it may encourage the casting to deform. No doubt, very unlikely, and it's never happened to my planes. Latterly though, and following the purchase of a couple of very nice Cliftons, I've made each plane its own 'bed' to sit on. This is simply a bit of chipboard with nose and tail-shaped raised ends and strips down each side so the plane sits snugly. Where the blade is, I've routed out a groove so that precious edge is never in contact with anything more than thin air.
> 
> Now, each plane has its unique place in the tool cupboard which all looks very organised. Another advantage.



Ref: Deformation of casting. I wondered about this too. Again, never happened, but in theory I suppose it could. 

I just saw sheet cork mentioned in General Woodwork, and seconded it's use for tool drawers. I thought.... ( Please don't ask me how), but I thought, why not make a cork-lined tray for my bench-planes and set it out when planing? Hmmm. Thinking deeply! Is this just another 'accessory' to litter the bench? 

John :mrgreen:


----------



## jimi43 (9 May 2011)

Sticks of oak....







The woodwork teacher at our school used to clip you around the ear if you put them sole down...I think this was just part of the sadistic traditions of teachers of that era to keep order.

I fail to see any practical reason...but the airing idea might be valid. I know that a No.7 I had in a wooden box was corroded where it sat in that box on the sole.

Old habits die hard though...so that's how I shall be storing them!

Jim


----------



## woodbloke (9 May 2011)

jimi43":35z9ns5t said:


> The woodwork teacher at our school used to clip you around the ear if you put them sole down...I think this was just part of the sadistic traditions of teachers of that era to keep order.
> 
> Jim


Quite right too Jim...I was tempted on plenty of occasions, but never acually did any 'clipping' :lol: - Rob


----------



## Muina (9 May 2011)

It's just second nature to me now, I don't even think I could put a plane sole down if I concentrated so hard my eyes hurt.

Thinking about it the only real time it'll make any difference is when the blade's just been sharpened, after all if the first stroke knocks the edge off then contact with the bench will too, therefore why get a blade that sharp in the first place?

Of course then the debate about sharpness comes in 

I suppose only in quantum sizes would it make a difference but woodwork's not really about microscopic sizes (unless your a serious extremist... which I am )

Anthony


----------



## yetloh (9 May 2011)

matthewwh":3a860dfj said:


> Jim - I believe the main advantage in keeping planes propped up on shelves is that it allows air to circulate so any moisture or condensation that forms on the tool can evaporate before it causes a problem. Having them make full contact with a hygroscopic material like wood invites the possibility of moisure being held against the surface.
> 
> Both situations are very unlikely to cause a problem and reasonably easy to sort out if the worst does happen. On the side and propped up are theoretically the safer way and are therefore good habits to get into, but its not a big deal if you don't.



I'm sure you are right, Matthew but I am much luckier than many in having a dry warm workshop - something I always wanted and have at last achieved.


matthewwh said:


> I agree, although putting them down on their side is good practice and I wouldn't criticise anyone who did so.
> 
> Rob, a tool well eh! I grew to hate mine for all the debris and tools that filled it because it because I am too undisciplined to clear up at the end of a session. I filled it in a couple of years ago and it is one of the best changes I have made in my worshop - debris and tools have to be cleared and I have a working area which is much bigger and more useful.
> 
> Jim


----------



## Benchwayze (9 May 2011)

A tool well is something that's going to be absent from my new bench too Jim, for the same reasons. 

I do tend to leave the clearing up until the last! Hopefully excluding the well should improve my habits! 

John


----------



## jimi43 (9 May 2011)

I've never understood tool wells at all.

Jim


----------



## Scouse (10 May 2011)

Sawyer":3ezvjglt said:


> ... but have always wondered if it may encourage the casting to deform.



This had never occured to me, but now I'm curious, since it was mentioned in a post a few months ago. Does raising the toe cause the iron to move? I've never noticed, but I've never measured either.

Chris Schwarz noted in a Youtube video, that I can't find at the moment, that resting the plane on it's side was to protect the blade from metal objects which may be hidden by shavings on the bench and was popularised by woodwork teachers in the mid 20th century. Prior to this, he said there was no reference at all about resting planes on their side. He continued that you should be in control of your working environment and should know where hard objects were on the bench and where it was safe to place a plane. Indeed, he concluded, resting the plane on it's side could cause more damage by leaving the blade exposed to being knocked; on a clean bench, the blade is only resting on wood which will do no damage. I'll try and find the video...

For the record, mine are stored raised slightly to allow air to circulate and help prevent rust, as noted above, but on the bench I just put them down; it's a chunk of metal, not a Fabergé egg... :wink: :mrgreen:


----------



## Jacob (10 May 2011)

yetloh":37lhm56t said:


> ...
> 
> Rob, a tool well eh! I grew to hate mine for all the debris and tools that filled it


But that is exactly what it's for. You can carry on working on the bench without having to move everything off all the time, and with less risk of dropping your workpiece onto a tool, a nail or a screw left lying about. Particularly handy if you are generating shavings and chippings - just sweep them into the well along with any other bits n bobs hidden thereunder.
Every bench should have one.
Storing handplanes: in a cupboard? (see rusty chisels thread :lol: )


----------



## woodbloke (10 May 2011)

yetloh":elc7430g said:


> Rob, a tool well eh! I grew to hate mine for all the debris and tools that filled it because it because I am too undisciplined to clear up at the end of a session. I filled it in a couple of years ago and it is one of the best changes I have made in my worshop - debris and tools have to be cleared and I have a working area which is much bigger and more useful.
> 
> Jim


All the tools I use are stored directly above the bench, so that at the end of each session the well is cleared and the tools put back on the wall. The well is also useful for keeping stuff like marking gauges for the duration of a job where a particular 'set' is needed, so that if it's in the well, I know that I ought not to alter it. I also use it to keep smaller components that will be used later on in the job as well as an old 'baccy tin with all my most used drill sizes in it. Also the tool well bottoms are removable so that I can cramp from the other side of the bench...very handy sometimes :wink: I can see why people don't like them, but for me the advantages outweigh the disadvantages - Rob


----------



## Sawyer (10 May 2011)

When working, I always put planes on their side by second nature and have even heard it said that chisels must always be put down with bevel downwards to preserve the edge. Of course, we are not always working on the bench are we? The received wisdom about planes on their side may not matter too much on a bench top, but on a hard floor..... Best to acquire the 'on the side' habit so as never to absent-mindedly grind that sharp edge onto concrete, &c.

Personally, I like tool wells. My workshop has a concrete floor, which I hate dropping tools on and things roll off benches all too easily. Experience shows however, that the next one needs to be deeper; at least 2.1/2", so that a plane (on its side) will be below bench level (ah yes, another reason to put them down on their side!)


----------



## Harbo (10 May 2011)

I was taught to lay them on their side which I tend to do most of the time.
My bench is an ex school one with a well which I find quite useful.
I store my planes in drawers on bubble wrap sprayed with Camellia Oil.

Rod


----------



## twothumbs (13 May 2011)

My understanding is..................The reason for laying planes on their cheek goes back to the days of wooden planes where a knock could loosen the wedge. Resetting the blade was a nuisance of course, and sitting the plane on the blade could slacken the iron and wedge if it was not over tight; not loose, but not tight. Sharpening was a nuisance compared to metal planes so you also didn't want to blunt the edge more than was necessary. Benches often had a batten to sit the front of sole on. Bench hands would get short shift from the foreman for fiddling about and not getting on with the job with loose wedges. I also suspect that it may also relate to when joiners had to sharpened their tools at home in their own time.


----------



## Alf (15 May 2011)

I'm amused that the damning of tool trays came up in a discussion on which way up to put your hand plane. By and large, like Pedder, I find the plane generates a rather nice bed of shavings to stand on, but when that's not an option I just sit the plane over the tool tray. Voila! Supported heel and toe, mouth not touching anything. Genius, no? No? Oh well, takes one to know one...


----------



## Benchwayze (15 May 2011)

Well... Errr! Sorry Alf!  

Whenever I misplace something, the last place I look is in the well. What I seek is usually there, but why I don't look there first I just haven't a clue! So my new bench won't have a well!

Then I suppose things will lie around on top of it! 
I am a lost cause I fear! 

john


----------



## yetloh (15 May 2011)

Alf":2tpra319 said:


> I'm amused that the damning of tool trays came up in a discussion on which way up to put your hand plane.



I think that may be my fault but I find these diversions are often as interesting as the original subject of the thread.

Jim


----------



## Muina (15 May 2011)

yetloh":24qez5p1 said:


> I think that may be my fault but I find these diversions are often as interesting as the original subject of the thread.
> 
> Jim



I agree actually, at college the whole class often ends up moving from topic to topic in theory and, honestly, very rarely get much work done 

Regarding tool wells, I think they're so useful but kind of defeat the point of having them if they're full of stuff. Because nothing ever fits perfectly in the tool well on my bench when it gets full it creates a huge bump at the back of the bench which just makes it worse for when I'm flattening or sawing with the bench hook.

I'll be gradually replacing parts of my bench soon and the first thing is the top so I'm going to incorporate as many little things as I can to make the life of my tools a little easier. Also I can make the tool well as big or as small as I see fit, and I'm going to make one of those removable dust panel things for it too 

Anthony


----------



## jimi43 (15 May 2011)

I have two shelves under the entire length of my bench on which I keep mallets, hammers, drills and such stuff that I regularly use. I find this is more than close enough for me to just reach for and requires a certain amount of discipline to keep tidy...it's actually the only place in my entire workshop that IS tidy! :mrgreen: 

Jim


----------



## Alf (16 May 2011)

yetloh":231ufeac said:


> Alf":231ufeac said:
> 
> 
> > I'm amused that the damning of tool trays came up in a discussion on which way up to put your hand plane.
> ...


I wasn't apportioning _fault_ - I thought it was reasonably clear that my amusement was because I use the tool well for the purpose under original discussion. I like following a thought off topic towards interesting conversation and am frequently guilty of it. On which note, if you ever end up with your bench in the middle of the w'shop and not against a wall, I discovered the tool well can save a _lot_ of tool tragedies of the tool-meets-floor-inna-terminal-way variety. And I discovered a 24" rule I'd completely forgotten I had when I cleaned it out the other month too. Bonus!


----------



## yetloh (17 May 2011)

It wasn't meant as a criticism, Alf, perhaps I should have said it was me wot started it. I do agree with you aboput tools rolling off the bench. If only I had the space to have my bench accessible from both sides, but I haven't so it has to go against a wall with northern light from behind me, which is less than ideal. It means I need the lights on to work at the bench at any time, but I do have good lighting.

Jim


----------



## timber (11 Oct 2015)

hang them on wooden pegs by the front handle on the wooden wall in front of my smaller work bench.
My large wood working bench a giant double , bought from Allens Engineers of Bedford, I cut into 2/3rds. 1/ 3rd lengthwise on my large bandsaw > How did I do it ?????????? answers please and why did I do it?


----------



## CStanford (11 Oct 2015)

I soaked a piece of MDF with WD-40. It is the bottom shelf of my plain-Jane construction lumber bench. I set the planes down with cutters extended but cap irons off-pressure. When working, I leave pressure on and set them down on their soles. It does not dull the cutters. Using them dulls the cutters. Setting them down gently on the cutter does not. Setting them on their side invites a a cut.


----------



## yetloh (11 Oct 2015)

Isn't it bizarre how a thread can sometimes spring back into lihe after four years dormancy.

Timber,

It must have seemed a sriously good idea at the time!

Jim


----------



## Benchwayze (11 Oct 2015)

I need a hangar for all my planes, and i don't mean a hook in the wall! :mrgreen:


----------



## Jacob (11 Oct 2015)

I just leave mine kicking about on the floor under the bench.


----------



## JonnyW (11 Oct 2015)

Scouse":gws1e3r1 said:


> Sawyer":gws1e3r1 said:
> 
> 
> > ... but have always wondered if it may encourage the casting to deform.
> ...



Pretty much what Chris Schwarz says in his book Handplane Essentials. He used to set them on their side, but for the reasons stated by Scouse, he just sets them on his bench blade out. However you are speaking of a man who periodically services and maintains his bench top (re-flattening etc etc). 

Jonny


----------



## Benchwayze (11 Oct 2015)

Jacob":3r3bji3y said:


> I just leave mine kicking about on the floor under the bench.



Jacob,

That's the only place I can store my veneers, (In a 'portfolio'!)


----------



## matthewwh (12 Oct 2015)

Sussed it:


----------



## Bluekingfisher (13 Oct 2015)

Having watched a recent Paul Sellers video, his view is a plane should be left on the bench sole down, a practice undertaken by all old time craftsmen.

Placing the plane on it's side will expose the cutting iron to the dangers of other metal object on the bench.

The practice was on leaving it on its side was taught to school boys who were more likely to dump the plane down onto another metal onject on the bench thus damaging the cutting edge.

I guess this makes sense but we are all grown ups and able to make our own decisions and look after our own tools most fitting to the way we work.

David


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (13 Oct 2015)

At the bench sole down is fine, however I reckon that putting a plane on it's side is good practice if you do site work as you are often working on concrete floors or indeed in homes when you need to put the plane on a dinning table or shelf but do not want to risk scratching it. I try to put planes down on the bench sole down but usually put them on their side as it's become a muscle memory. 
Paddy


----------



## griggs (13 Oct 2015)

Remember seeing it mentioned somewhere that a disadvantage of placing the plane on its side is that you can inadvertently knock the lateral adjustment out, not the end of the world I guess compared to dinging the iron.


----------



## D_W (13 Oct 2015)

yetloh":a66iu9fx said:


> Isn't it bizarre how a thread can sometimes spring back into lihe after four years dormancy.
> 
> Timber,
> 
> ...



It's always amusing how many people think there's much of a difference. 

I had someone in my shop lately who doesn't use hand tools and who chewed me out about not setting *planes that I made* on their soles, because it was "wrong". 

Must've been in fine woodworking at some point.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (14 Oct 2015)

D_W":1zu71coq said:


> It's always amusing how many people think there's much of a difference.
> 
> I had someone in my shop lately who doesn't use hand tools and who chewed me out about not setting *planes that I made* on their soles, because it was "wrong".
> 
> Must've been in fine woodworking at some point.



David, I've seen pictures of your shop, and I'm certain that once you put a plane down - regardless of the manner in which you do so - you will never see it again under the mess! :lol: 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (14 Oct 2015)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> D_W":15agf2yy said:
> 
> 
> > It's always amusing how many people think there's much of a difference.
> ...



There is truth to that!!

Also, if I put one on end like the video above, there is a 100% chance that something else in my shop would hit it and knock it over, even if I was personally 4 feet away. If you have enough junk, it becomes like billiards. 

(inability to organize - or lack of interest in doing it on a continuous basis - is one of the reasons I need to downsize my piles)


----------



## AJB Temple (14 Oct 2015)

I found myself drawn to this thread. I had do woodwork and metalwork at school until I was about 16 (after which all I did was mathematics) and I still have some of the things I made then. My woodwork teacher was absolutely obsessed with putting planes down on their sides, and with the blade facing away from the boy / planer. He was more worried about boys cutting their fingers on the exposed blade than anything else. 

I am a bit obsessed with high end Japanese kitchen knives, and the standard practice is always place them on the board with the (razor) sharp edge facing away. I have just been resurrecting to use my various planes from 30 years ago, that have rested in waxed paper and boxes for quite some time. Mostly Record and Stanley. I would have no problem putting them down on the sole - because I am careful with my tools! having been impressed by their chisels, I am tempted to buy a Lie Nielsen bronze plane no 3 and a No 6 jack that I have been offered for £200 the pair. Seems like a good deal as both the planes and the boxes are pristine. It is however, pure tool lust as I already have perfectly serviceable planes around these sizes. They almost look pretty enough for display!


----------



## iNewbie (14 Oct 2015)

I'd buy 'em an ebay 'em if you don't want to use them.


----------



## D_W (14 Oct 2015)

iNewbie":3ug930lz said:


> I'd buy 'em an ebay 'em if you don't want to use them.



Ditto that, they don't come around for essentially less than half price very often. Even if you don't want them terminally, they won't lighten your wallet any in the exchange.


----------



## AJB Temple (14 Oct 2015)

Thanks. Yes, I have since looked at the new price for these, which is well in excess of double. So I have purchased them this afternoon for £180 cash. I have no idea what the advantage of bronze is, if any, but it appears to be some sort of limited edition thing. Very well made. From reading up a bit on them it is apparently recommended to change the blades for Clifton as it is apparently better carbon steel than the material LN use. 

On the subject of eBay, I think the smart thing to do is maybe eBay the old planes. Two of them are quite nice and belonged to my dad, so they will be kept, but one of them is a No 4 Stanley and the handles are plastic in a fake wood effect and the other is a Record No 8 which is not in great condition really. There are few block planes that I may as well keep but I will never use the wooden planes again. They actually came out of my school workshop as they were thrown away when I was 14 and the woodwork teacher let my dad have them. Never been used by me.


----------



## yetloh (14 Oct 2015)

You certainly bagged yourseelf a bargain. I am sure there will be lots of people on here who would dispute the suggestion that Clifton steel is better than LN. I personally doubt that you would detect any significant difference. Personally, I would stick with what you have and invest the cash in a block plane of comprable quality.

On the ssubject of school woodworking, my experience sounds similar to yours. A few years ago I attneded a woodworking evening class held in a school worshop, where the clapped out benches were peppered with almost buried nails and panel pins driven in to catch the unwary by bored daytime pupils. In that context the adice drilled in about puttiing planes down was eminently sensible. 

Jim


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Oct 2015)

When I was at school the woodwork master refused to have nails in the 'shop - if nails were absolutely essential, we would have to go to the maintenance man's 'shop and ask for the exact number we wanted.


----------



## AJB Temple (15 Oct 2015)

The advice on plane irons came from David Savage. It is in an article on his site fine furniture making dot com where he has some interesting views on planes, chisels and steel. I am quite interested in Japanese and American artisan made kitchen knives, and this tends to result in an obsession about the merits of different steels (especially Japanese blue and white 1 and 2) and how sharp they can be made, how durable and for how long. Many people like the high carbon steels and accept the drawbacks. I am not a great fan of semi stainless in knives, but planes are a different animal. 

I will be running the Lie Nielsen blades over my knife stones today. Looking at them I am not sure these planes have ever been used as there is no secondary bevel or micro bevel on the blades and they seem to measure at exactly the factory standard setting and have no marks other than what appears to be the original grind. The soles appear to be 100% flat and dead square to the sides, which is nice machining. The bronze one in particular is extremely well finished. Whether or not they will work better than my old Stanley's and Records will be interesting to see. The record No 8 (which possibly belonged to my grandfather) is obviously quite long and I don't think it is dead true (although it is flat). The LN machining and finish quality is much higher which surprises me for modern stuff. 

Adrian


----------



## Jacob (15 Oct 2015)

AJB Temple":1kvkog9v said:


> ....The LN machining and finish quality is much higher which surprises me for modern stuff.
> 
> Adrian


Record, Stanley were making practical planes for practical people. Machine finish quality is not that important from a practical point of view - low friction is achieved when the high points of a surface are buffed up a bit e.g. you can flatten a sole with 80 grit and go straight to 400 grit to make it low friction.
The new retro planes are high finish because people imagine this has value. It's also easier as they are made of softer ductile steel (inferior?) as compared to the cast steel of the old ones. I managed to impart a deep scratch to a Clifton almost the first time I used it and hit a nail. It wouldn't have marked a Record.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (15 Oct 2015)

> The LN machining and finish quality is much higher which surprises me for modern stuff.



Not surprising in the least to most of us who have been around LN, LV and Clifton planes for many years. That is their selling point -- that they are well made. Indeed, they are the stuff that Stanley in their heyday could only dream about!

That is not a comment about better or worse design or whether the Stanleys or Records cannot work as well, or even better, than these modern planes. It is just a statement about the quality of production notable in the fit of of their part, steel, and durability.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Bluekingfisher (15 Oct 2015)

AJB Temple":imwfq77c said:


> The advice on plane irons came from David Savage. It is in an article on his site fine furniture making dot com where he has some interesting views on planes, chisels and steel. I am quite interested in Japanese and American artisan made kitchen knives, and this tends to result in an obsession about the merits of different steels (especially Japanese blue and white 1 and 2) and how sharp they can be made, how durable and for how long. Many people like the high carbon steels and accept the drawbacks. I am not a great fan of semi stainless in knives, but planes are a different animal.
> 
> I will be running the Lie Nielsen blades over my knife stones today. Looking at them I am not sure these planes have ever been used as there is no secondary bevel or micro bevel on the blades and they seem to measure at exactly the factory standard setting and have no marks other than what appears to be the original grind. The soles appear to be 100% flat and dead square to the sides, which is nice machining. The bronze one in particular is extremely well finished. Whether or not they will work better than my old Stanley's and Records will be interesting to see. The record No 8 (which possibly belonged to my grandfather) is obviously quite long and I don't think it is dead true (although it is flat). The LN machining and finish quality is much higher which surprises me for modern stuff.
> 
> Adrian



Keep your planes lying on the floor under your bench, apparently it does them no harm at all. :wink:


----------



## AJB Temple (15 Oct 2015)

Interesting. I inherited, begged or bought most of my tools when I was a student, and had no idea until quite recently that this high end stuff even existed, or was so expensive. I have been for over 3 decades using a set of Footprint bevel chisels that my dad gave me when I was about 17. They have red plastic handles. I recently replaced them with LN because I had quite a bit of stuff stolen (since returned, to my amazement as police got lucky). There is no doubt the LN socket chisels are better made, but the Footprint set, which I expect cost rather little, have excellent steel and are still extremely functional, despite much abuse (such as using one as a scraper on a violin top). Most hand tools haven't really changed much in years it seems. In some ways we have gone backwards - screwdrivers these days are often rubbish.


----------



## Jacob (15 Oct 2015)

Footprint tools have always been excellent. Being cosmetically "better made" doesn't make LN etc any more useful.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (15 Oct 2015)

> ... In some ways we have gone backwards - screwdrivers these days are often rubbish.



Agreed. When tools get made to a price point, and the price point get lowered constantly to remain competitive or to maximise profits (usually the latter), then what you end up with is a photocopy of a tool.

For example, I have some nice screwdrivers, made in the 70s or 80s, but I needed to hollow grind the tips to prevent them camming out of a slot. How often do you find screwdrivers made correctly?










> Footprint tools have always been excellent. Being cosmetically "better made" doesn't make LN etc any more useful.



Relax Jacob ... no one necessary disagrees about the ability of a cheaper plane like Footprint to work as well as a LN - if you know how to do so. There is no doubting that the LN will have less backlash, have general better fit and finish, and survive better if both fall off the bench. More importantly, some of us actually derive enjoyment from the tools we use, and there is no doubt which one will provide the greatest pleasure. Understandably, that is not your interest. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Oct 2015)

Screwdrivers? Buy Wera or Wiha.


----------



## shed9 (15 Oct 2015)

If the likes of Lie Nielsen, Clifton, Veritas, etc didn't exist, the wood working world would be a duller place for it.

My own £0.02 on this one, I have a whole range of planes from Stanley type 9's, LN, LV along with many others. After using all of them extensively I always go for the LN's whenever I can. Sure you can probably achieve the same end result with most tools but the enjoyment of using LN usurps sheer function every time for me. 

That said, you can argue until the cows come home on the merits or folly of high end high cost tools over low cost mass produced options but the bottom line is the options are out there.


----------



## D_W (15 Oct 2015)

Jacob":26g5tq2k said:


> AJB Temple":26g5tq2k said:
> 
> 
> > ....The LN machining and finish quality is much higher which surprises me for modern stuff.
> ...



The old records must've been made from something different. I don't favor buying new planes for anything other than indulgence (or perhaps one to learn what a plane should function like if someone is in complete isolation and can't otherwise learn), but one thing I haven't heard from anyone who grinds or cast is that the new planes aren't higher quality castings than the old ones by a mile. 

they're ductile and they should be plenty hard. The issue isn't whether or not the casting is better (to me), it seems the opinion is that the newer ones are better castings, but that the ways that they're better don't provide any material benefit in the long term. If they did, stanley would've made their planes out of malleable cast, but as it was, they only did that for planes they expected people to drop. 

Many of my stanley planes had deep scratches from nails, screws or staples.


----------



## D_W (15 Oct 2015)

shed9":1p7vw4j9 said:


> Sure you can probably achieve the same end result with most tools but the enjoyment of using LN usurps sheer function every time for me.



As far as arguing, I think everyone will do it all the time, period, about every aspect. I started with LNs. One stanley and I guess 5 LNs. I no longer have any LNs, and the only stanley I use regularly is a #4. 

I went...
LN..
Stanley/Millers falls, to
mostly wood..

If I didn't dimension wood from rough, I probably would've stopped at step 2. I like the irons better in the old planes for matters of workflow and sharpening with stones that are pleasing to sharpen with. 

Use of the cap iron in those middle planes all of the sudden negates anything LN has done to "improve" the planes, and there is a user effort tax on the premium planes that are absolutely perfectly flat, and that is the amount of friction they force the user to work through. Wax lasts less long, and through the cycle of wax to no wax and wax again, they require more effort if you don't consciously push only forward on them. 

There is also a lack of feeling of engagement with them that the bailey patterns haven't lost. Working a bailey plane hard is akin to the feeling of driving a truck with a full load, it's engaging.


----------



## mouppe (15 Oct 2015)

To answer the original question in the thread, I store my handplanes vertically in a tool cabinet. I have rare earth magnets embedded in the cabinet back which keeps the planes in place.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (15 Oct 2015)

D_W":839eod05 said:


> shed9":839eod05 said:
> 
> 
> > Sure you can probably achieve the same end result with most tools but the enjoyment of using LN usurps sheer function every time for me.
> ...



The choice of blade steel depends on the wood you work, how you sharpen, and how frequently you believe is reasonable to sharpen.

There are no absolutes. Softer carbon steels, such as in the Clifton plans, as well as in vintage irons, hone up easily and take a good edge, and would satisfy one working with softer woods than I do. I am not saying that they are soft woods, just softer compared to the rock hard stuff I have to deal with. This is the other end of the spectrum. It is not your norm. Steels such as A2 are much preferred to O1 because they resist abrasion better. PM-V11 is even better still, and some prefer HSS (M2).

Planes work as well as the blade is sharpened, so do not attempt to evaluate a blade or plane unless you have mastered the steel you are using. 

David, you and I are going to disagree about chipbreakers for a while yet. Our preferences are diametrically opposite. Having said this, it is also relevant to point out that the hole position on LN chipbreakers is different from those on a Stanley and a LV. I have no difficulty setting up a LN chipbreaker on a LN plane and getting straight shavings (which indicates that the chipbreaker is working). I can get the same result on a UK Stanley #3, and on a LV Custom #4. They all work well when set up correctly. 

But these are smoothers and they get the least use of the planes. Jack plane? I predominantly use a woody. Jointer? I have two metal planes (LV #7 Custom and a LV BU Jointer - both far, far more engaging than a Stanley #7!) and a woody. Which do I prefer? They are different. Also what is different is that I do use machines as well. They blend in with my handtools - dimensioned boards are finished with handplanes. If I was only working with handtools, then it might be different. But I am not. Consequently, one cannot speak in absolutes, only with similar work patterns.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (15 Oct 2015)

Part of the problem with the LNs and chipbreakers is that some of the planes need to have the chipbreakers replaced to work correctly. My 7 just ran out of adjustment as the chipbreaker was close enough to the edge to do anything, as opposed to being in the middle of adjustment as it should've been. 

the thing that's missing from the modern chipbreakers is spring. I know there are people who prefer them, but the fit of the plane is abrupt without that spring, and there's a reason leonard bailey didn't design his cap iron like that and a reason all of the old woodies are the same way as baileys (they are just flat after the hump instead of half moon shape). 

Certainly, the modern type cap iron setup will break chips, that's not rocket science. It's just not as good fitting in the overall design of the plane. 

I'll disagree on the irons being for soft woods and hard woods only because I've switched only to vintage irons and used them on some pretty hard stuff (persimmon and cocobolo). I think most people will prefer the harder irons if all they are doing is smoothing very hard woods, though. 

Long conversations about abrasion resistance usually indicate that someone is taking a shaving too thin to be productive. But that kind of stuff is the bread and butter of catalog ad copy. 

I shipped a plane to brian holcombe. It has a relatively soft iron and I was very concerned about that. I know brian is a very skilled user, but sometimes people are looking for something specific and I was very put off by a couple of my irons in stock (dwight and french, and even some of the non-laminated but tapered irons from sheffield) until I used them. I'm sure they wouldn't last as long taking a 1 thousandth shaving, but at several thousandths, the gap closes considerably and you can use them right up to dull with absolutely no chipping. Brian, to his credit, picked up on that right away, all i did was suggest that if he was put off by how easily the plane iron can be sharpened that he should give it a couple of weeks of work first before deciding he doesn't like it. 

Some of these things are why I make strange comments like "I think I might not have much advice to offer on forums at this point". 

It's sort of in the same vein as the chisel edge holding. I found out quickly last year that a stanley chisel that may fail at 30 degrees in very hard wood will all of the sudden perform world champion quality work at 32, and that the difference between the premium expensive chisels and the cheap ones is a matter of a very few degrees. 

Things I thought 5 years ago have been turned on their head.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (15 Oct 2015)

> Certainly, the modern type cap iron setup will break chips, that's not rocket science. It's just not as good fitting in the overall design of the plane.



Without further explanation, this makes no sense. Either a chipbreaker does its job or not. Doing its job includes not just bending the shaving at the leading edge, but the ease and stability of placement there. Most of the Stanley chipbreakers I have used have too much spring, and this means that they move when tightened in position.



> Long conversations about abrasion resistance usually indicate that someone is taking a shaving too thin to be productive. But that kind of stuff is the bread and butter of catalog ad copy.



David, that is simply double-talk. Yes, multiple shavings will place more abrasive wear on an edge simply because they are more numerous. However, thicker shavings also place extra wear on an edge, which is more akin to result of increased impact. I have the results of testing completed with different steels at different cutting angles, and the high angles lead to increased wear owing to increased stress on the blade edge. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (15 Oct 2015)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> > Certainly, the modern type cap iron setup will break chips, that's not rocket science. It's just not as good fitting in the overall design of the plane.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's not double talk. The issue has to do with clearance. I don't think clearance reduction is linear from one type of iron to another. What I mean is that on a thin smoother shaving, an iron without much wear resistance soon hits a critical situation with clearance because there isn't enough shaving pressure to push the plane down in the cut. Not the issue of double as many feet, but the issue of what level of clearance is critical for plane function - criticality being determined by when you have to push the plane down in the work to maintain a cut - as soon as that starts, the end is near for work before the next sharpening. 

With 1 thousandth shavings, you get to that point very early on in the wear cycle of an iron. With 5 thousandth shavings, the difference in time between something like V11 and older laminated irons is not really very pronounced. It just takes too long for the wear bevel on the iron to get large enough for clearance to be a problem with thicker shavings. 

As far as the cap iron goes, it's not a matter of whether or not the cap iron just does it's job or not, but also how the iron assembly stays in the fit of the plane - the spring in an old wooden cap iron makes the wedge and abutment fit better. The spring built into a stanley cap iron makes it so that the iron and cap iron assembly will stay together along with good adjustability over a wider range of settings with the screw that keeps the lever cap on. 

If you think about all of these cap irons, when they were made (which is when they were actually economically useful), and why anyone would've gone to the effort to make a cap iron that was bent instead of just making it a slab with a subtle amount left on the end, it would make sense that they cared about the fit of the planes and how a sprung cap iron affects it vs. one that's not sprung. 

If you're not dimensioning wood with a softer iron and a harder iron, the conversation about what's different at various shaving thicknesses (not various woods or various effective planing angles, but the thickness of the shaving) really isn't going to mean much. It would be interesting if you posed (on SMC) a question to brian holcombe about what he thinks of the try plane iron, I haven't really had much discussion with him about it except he did mention that he was surprised how well it performs all the way until the wear catches up with it). I haven't primed him with any of my thoughts, and he could give you a very good idea on what he thinks of its longevity. 

Now, I do have some experience using metal planes with modern irons and heavy shavings, and recently with V11, too. I sharpened a V11 iron and intended to use a veritas custom plane to dimension a try plane body. I was disappointed that the additional planing time before a plane comes out of a cut with a thin shaving didn't translate to the same advantage of that plane over my wooden try plane with a butcher iron when it came to shavings that I commonly take sizing a blank (.005+ wide shavings). I have no doubt that if I took 1 thousandth shavings, the butcher iron would've run out of steam in 1/3rd the time that the veritas iron did, but with thicker shavings they were much closer to even. And I only sharpened the butcher iron on a washita (I ran the V11 iron through jasper until it was extremely keen and smooth cutting). It's a matter of clearance and not sharpness with those thicker shavings. 

That trial was enough to convince me to bag modern irons for good, I just don't have a need for the smoother that holds the edge the longest, because it is a tiny fraction of the time I spend planing something.


----------



## David C (15 Oct 2015)

I am not clear why chipbreakers suddenly made an appearance in this thread.

The new improved style has several advantages. The flat top does not cause problems like the curved top of some Clifton planes. Lever cap comes too far over the top of the curve and limits out adjustment.

The classic Stanley design was thin and lightweight. Several articles have attested to the improvement in function caused by fitting modern thick C/Bs to thin blades.

The L-N CB bends the thick blades a little. I do not see how this can be described as without spring?

Veritas have more or less copied the design as have IBC and of course the multitude of Chinese knock offs.

I have used the new models for a considerable time and can find no disadvantages at all.

I think Krenov type plane builders will be benefiting from a nice sturdy Hock version.

David Charlesworth


----------



## n0legs (15 Oct 2015)

If this turns into a sharpening argument I'm calling the police.




Sole down on a wooden workbench, preferably in a spot recently cleared :-D


----------



## D_W (15 Oct 2015)

David C":1ach7drf said:


> I am not clear why chipbreakers suddenly made an appearance in this thread.
> 
> The new improved style has several advantages. The flat top does not cause problems like the curved top of some Clifton planes. Lever cap comes too far over the top of the curve and limits out adjustment.
> 
> ...



I think most copy the lie nielsen design because it's convenient to grind out of bar stock. If that was a good way to make a cap iron, it would've been done for hundreds of years, but that's not how they were done for hundreds of years. 

I brought up the cap iron because (maybe I can't remember exactly why) for the context of stanley and wooden planes, it will take both types and make them go from chattering and tricky to use on difficult grain to able to plane everything and stop you in your tracks with the stock parts. 

I wouldn't count chinese copies of lie nielsen planes as doing anything, the planes probably got into their hands because of an original thought by LN that they might be interested in working with someone to make some planes overseas to meet demand. However, there is zero thought on the part of the quangsheng planes, they were copies of the LN designs and the 3rd version of woodcraft's planes had to be redesigned so that they would be more of a copy of LN's planes to 

The one chinese company that is making planes capably and not copying those of someone else is Mujingfang. They are using a type of cap iron in their continental and other planes that is essentially a 200 year old design, though I'm sure they could easily make the slab type. Since they are fitting a wedge, they are keenly aware of how important that spring. You can get away without it in a metal plane, but it's not an improvement. All it does is narrow the range of effective use for the lever cap retaining spring - it's essentially like taking suspension travel out of the equation on a car. 

Lie nielsen called it an improvement over a stamped cap iron, but they don't know enough about what a cap iron is for to make that decision. I'm convinced manufacturing ease and the ability to pretend that there is an improvement on something to an unknowing crowd, or some part of either of those, is probably what dictated the desire to call it that from the standpoint of other manufacturers. 

It's clear that none of the other manufacturers know much about the bailey plane design either. to sum up what we had from all three:
Clifton - had a "stay set" cap iron, which is not compatible with using a double iron to eliminate tearout, at least not for very many sharpenings
Lie Nielsen - has no clue how to use a cap iron properly, or didn't initially. they call it "fiddly" out of some sort of incompetence, or possibly desire to stick to their absurd solution of high frogs. I think they are a great company, but they've demonstrated incompetence on this topic. I know they didn't know how to set a cap iron properly because many of their planes can't actually be set with the cap iron close enough for the chip to be broken - the adjuster runs out of travel if they are set like that, and they can't be used. 
Lee Valley - the cap iron does not have a practical benefit. 

I hope I didn't sugarcoat that too much!!

The two original designs are still the best. It's the later users that have been deficient, not the earlier planes and plane designs. No true practical improvement has been made since the mid-types of stanley planes, with the possible exception of the large adjuster wheel on some of the later types.

(I am not that familiar with the clifton types, I would regard the original stanley cap iron as the best type ever made in a metal plane. There have been some planes that I've seen - one millers falls, for example - where the lever cap doesn't sit on top of the cap iron hump, and that's an error on their part. If the cap iron was flat, the problem would be the same, though - it limits the pressure on the cap iron close to the iron. Also, the talk of lack of spring isn't in regard to bending the iron, it's in regard to the amount of flex that occurs between the lever cap and the back of the cutting iron. Just a little improves fit. LN planes lack it. The shape that stanley bailey plane cap irons come in is also optimal for breaking chips without adding much resistance, but LN and others don't start that way. The user has to fix them)


----------



## mouppe (15 Oct 2015)

So in summary, you know more about everything than anyone else, including Veritas, Lie Nielsen, Clifton, thousands of happy woodworkers and generations of craftsmen. As I wrote in the other thread in which you so kindly enlightened us with your vast knowledge, thanks for showing us all how wrong we've all been. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## shed9 (15 Oct 2015)

mouppe":2z1koju0 said:


> So in summary, you know more about everything than anyone else, including Veritas, Lie Nielsen, Clifton, thousands of happy woodworkers and generations of craftsmen.




That's also how I read it...


----------



## woodbrains (15 Oct 2015)

mouppe":15jldpox said:


> So in summary, you know more about everything than anyone else, including Veritas, Lie Nielsen, Clifton, thousands of happy woodworkers and generations of craftsmen. As I wrote in the other thread in which you so kindly enlightened us with your vast knowledge, thanks for showing us all how wrong we've all been.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





mouppe said:


> Hello,
> 
> In summary it is also total bunkum. Suspension is for cars. Planes require a flat, firm and rigid bedding of the iron to perform best. A cap iron that puffins the blade into and arc fails to do this, hence the multitude of variations which have been devised to prevent it. Spring in the cap iron to improve abutment of the wedge in a wooden plane is arguably a good thing, but is not indicated in metal planes. Besides the massively thick irons in an old woodie would not bend into an arc from cap iron pressure like the flimsy Bailey blades. In any case, having made many Wooden planes with Hock irons, there really is no benefit in reality from a curved cap iron with abutment. I and many many others make perfectly working woodies with flat cap irons.
> 
> Mike.


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2015)

woodbrains":161pqj0l said:


> mouppe":161pqj0l said:
> 
> 
> > So in summary, you know more about everything than anyone else, including Veritas, Lie Nielsen, Clifton, thousands of happy woodworkers and generations of craftsmen. As I wrote in the other thread in which you so kindly enlightened us with your vast knowledge, thanks for showing us all how wrong we've all been.
> ...



The irons in old woodies are cut hollow along their length so that they bed at the top and bottom of a plane. If you're convinced a laminated plane design is as good as an early 19th century design with abutments and wedge fingers all the way down to the top of a sprung cap iron, then i'm not going to spend any time trying to convince you of anything, but I will leave you with one thought - why do you think that planes in china, japan, the united states, england and continental europe all used a more expensive to make system than a cross pin and a wedge, and why do you think the cap irons for every one of those that tapers the iron fat side down evolved with a sprung cap iron like I'm talking about. Somewhere, someone got the idea in this thread that the spring is to flex the iron, and that's not the case. I didn't say it. The irons are already made biased, until the modern era eliminated that detail (which was after planes became an accessory in a shop vs. a main working machine). 

Mouppe - I know more about planes that a very large percentage of users, and that includes professional users. If that bothers anyone, it's not for me to worry about. 

I usually assume that when someone gets more experience, their opinions will converge much closer to mine than where they started. It's not by chance.


----------



## G S Haydon (16 Oct 2015)

Mike, it might just be my wooden planes but when I look down the plane iron after securing the cap iron there is a visible deflection, very similar to a Bailey, sometimes more. 

There is always some deflection on a double iron, this means the lower part of the iron and the top are in contact with the bed, the middle is not. On the limited amount of planes I've seen there seems to be evidence on this with polish on the top of the frog and at the bottom where the iron seems to be in closer contact.

I bet the wooden planes you make are wonderful, no question. I'm assuming you've made laminated Krenov style planes with a cross pin? if you don't mind me asking are they mainly smoothers or at least planes working on wood that has seen the heavy lifting done by machines? With the lighter touch and finer work it's not perhaps the hardest workout for proving there is no benefit to abutments and sprung cap irons.

If there was no benefit to having a wedge and abutment why were great lengths taken to make them that way? Same with the cap iron, it's all very precise stuff, highly evolved over a long time frame by people who were building totally by hand. More costly in terms of time and money spent.

As has been alluded to on another thread there is nothing like the threat of starvation to make someone fast and efficient at what they did. If all the effort of abutments, cap irons etc were a waste of time they would of vanished within no time.

I also don't think it's beyond reason for us to question the current designs and offerings provided and compare it with the past and discuss how they might be improved or benefits of modern designs. Modern makers have the quality and attention to detail to very high standards but were they made for an experienced hand tool user market? Surely the volume of most talented and experienced hand tool users were gone after WW2? I hope I don't offend anyone with this comment but I'm not sure there are many people alive today who could replicate the pace, rhythm and quality that people were able to do in the past.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Oct 2015)

Back again ... David our time zones make a long discussion difficult ...



> With 1 thousandth shavings, you get to that point very early on in the wear cycle of an iron. With 5 thousandth shavings, the difference in time between something like V11 and older laminated irons is not really very pronounced. It just takes too long for the wear bevel on the iron to get large enough for clearance to be a problem with thicker shavings.



I'd like to answer this precisely, but need to look up the reference that lurks at the recess of what is left of my brain. Somewhere I recall reading (may have been on Steve Elliot's site) that the chipbreaker experiences a wear bevel in place of the blade. 

Regardless, I want a smoother to take shavings of all thicknesses - both gossamer and heavy - since this is a plane for fine work. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but I would imagine that the majority of the shavings made with a smoother would not be coarse, and then that would indicate that the steel of the blade becomes more relevant in holding an edge. The chipbreaker is not going to help a lot in this particular situation. 

This is bye-the-bye as it is not really the bigger factor here.



> As far as the cap iron goes, it's not a matter of whether or not the cap iron just does it's job or not, but also how the iron assembly stays in the fit of the plane - the spring in an old wooden cap iron makes the wedge and abutment fit better. The spring built into a stanley cap iron makes it so that the iron and cap iron assembly will stay together along with good adjustability over a wider range of settings with the screw that keeps the lever cap on.



Dave, it is this area where I see that we have begun to talk at cross-purposes. You are referring to the design of a chipbreaker and its effect on the action of a wedge in a woody. Your argument for a springy chipbreaker to to aid here. But we have not been discussing the chipbreaker of a woody. We were discussing the Stanley chipbreaker being too springy and that the LN and LV chipbreakers being not springy at all. These are for metal planes. the chipbreaker design for a woody is irrelevant here.

In any event, the chipbreaker for a LN and LV is not just a flat piece of steel. It has a ledge at the leading edge. When the screw is tightened, the steel acts as a spring. What I like about the LN and LV breakers is their stiffness (a stiff spring), which in this context is an advantage. This may not be the case with a woody - which makes sense - but that situation is not the debate. In a metal plane the blade is not expected to flex. Indeed, improvements to chatter in old Stanleys can be seen just by adding a thicker blade (regardless of whether the aftermarket blade is deemed necessary). 



> If you think about all of these cap irons, when they were made (which is when they were actually economically useful), and why anyone would've gone to the effort to make a cap iron that was bent instead of just making it a slab with a subtle amount left on the end, it would make sense that they cared about the fit of the planes and how a sprung cap iron affects it vs. one that's not sprung.



Where did the design come from? Do we have research ... patent papers? Perhaps Kees has some info. 

Steve Voigt makes these ..












Steve does a good job, but these look a whole bunch easier to make than the LN and LV breakers ... bend (with a template) in a vise and smooth with files. Hardly rocket science. Perhaps that is how they were made in days of olde? Nothing I say here must be seen as a criticism of chipbreaker use - you know I am the biggest supporter. It is just that I have not yet read information to support your earlier contention that the Stanley chipbreaker is the best shape.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (16 Oct 2015)

A bit long winded this thread so this may be repeating something already said. 
But IMHO the purpose of the cap iron is to transfer the pressure of the wedge or lever cap to as close to the edge as possible so that the blade is tightly pinned down at that point. It doesn't matter much what is going on elsewhere, bent or straight blade, as long as it is firmly held at the pointy end.
It follows that a thin springy cap iron, or a two part stay-set, is going to do this better than a thick one. The advantages of the chip break effect and protection for the face of the blade are secondary.

PS Rather than replacing the blade with a thicker one there is an easier way to reduce chatter in a conventional Stanley; basically you pause for thought and ask yourself what you are doing wrong, and correct it. It's about technique not blade thickness. If it chatters you are doing it wrong.


----------



## CStanford (16 Oct 2015)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> > Certainly, the modern type cap iron setup will break chips, that's not rocket science. It's just not as good fitting in the overall design of the plane.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In other words planes get dull when you use them? 

Stanley breakers do stretch a little when you sock them down, but I kind of like that. It's easy enough to allow for it.

Jacob is right about chatter, too. I usually get a little bit at the start of the cut. I change what I'm doing and it helps. Leaving a board a little long and trimming the start and finish marks works better though. One shouldn't make a habit of finish planing any board that has been cut to exact length unless it can't be avoided for some reason, and it usually can. Might spoil the fun of all the analysis, wheel-reinvention, and flogging of deceased members of the equine species though. A scraper and gasp even a sanding block take care of residual and occasional unavoidable outcomes. But for goodness sake let's don't let expediency get in the way of all the fun.

Cheers,

Charles


----------



## Mr_P (16 Oct 2015)

What are these "cap irons" of which you speak ?






On a serious and back on topic note, I'm a tall chap and have two huge former metalworkers 
benches so all my small planes (upto and including my 4 1/2) are always at hand and I still
have almost 21" infront of the red cabinet.


----------



## Jacob (16 Oct 2015)

CStanford":18d3kz5a said:


> ......I change what I'm doing and it helps. Leaving a board a little long and trimming the start and finish marks works better though. ...


There need not be start and finish marks. Practice practice!


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2015)

Hi Derek - I don't see steves cap as being easier to make than the veritas type, given what LV is using to make the caps (it's easy to take flat bar stock and shape it, but bending metal with a stamp and then finishing the edge is a bit different).

I'm not sure how steve is doing his, but it does look like he's got a little less spring than some of the old ones, and I'm sure he experimented to get there. 

I'd like to compare this cap iron, though, one that's typical of historical caps for wooden planes (there are details on those that don't exist on modern cap irons):

http://www.hyperkitten.com/pics/tools/fs/part263.html

And I don't need to mention the stanley type, everyone knows what it looks like. 

I'm thinking of two different things when I talk about how the bailey plane fits well and how a plane with abutments fits well. I can describe it as this: If you turn the screw that retains the lever cap on a stanley a quarter of of a turn, the adjustability doesn't change much. It gets a little tighter. The lever cap still closes easily, the plane still adjusts easily. If you do that on a premium plane, you go from snug to impossible really quickly. That variation affects how well the cap is bedded at the iron.

As far as smoothing goes, I take coarse smoother shavings until I can go left to right on something with continuous shavings, and then I back off and take one or two thin shavings. The bulk of the work is probably done more at 3 thousandths plus. There's a difference between me and someone pulling a dead flat board off of a machine planer. But, someone using a machine planer with a board that has any attitude, or a board that has sat a day or two would do well to duplicate what I just described.

It is more important that an iron is chip free for the final step than that it is blindingly sharp. 

Kees might be able to help with historical references, but I don't really get too far into that, I just try to learn about the things that are in my hands.


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2015)

CStanford":1d9nxh10 said:


> ...need a longer board....chatter at the ends.
> 
> Charles



Skew the plane ten degrees or so and give it a tiny bump of momentum to make sure it starts in the cut and you should have no marks. I always smooth plane stuff last (last before assembly at least). The only catch is that can be tough on drawers or things of that sort if you can't get a firm hold on the drawer such that the starting bump doesn't move the drawer instead of the plane.

I'll bet warren smooths finish sized stuff, too (I know he does, of course). 

Seriously, though, skew the plane a little bit, feel if it's in the cut to start and give it a tiny tug to stay in the cut at the start of the board and the rest is a breeze. if it doesn't hook up in the wood right away at the edge, abort the stroke and do again.

It's faster to do this than it is to plane then scrape. If it isn't, something's not right.


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2015)

Mr_P":jwz1elq3 said:


> What are these "cap irons" of which you speak ?



There's one on that rabbet plane!!

It's funny, most people have chipbreakers on most of their planes but not rabbet planes. You've got none on most planes, but your ECE rabbet plane has one.


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2015)

Jacob":kvjqp04d said:


> A bit long winded this thread so this may be repeating something already said.
> But IMHO the purpose of the cap iron is to transfer the pressure of the wedge or lever cap to as close to the edge as possible so that the blade is tightly pinned down at that point. It doesn't matter much what is going on elsewhere, bent or straight blade, as long as it is firmly held at the pointy end.
> It follows that a thin springy cap iron, or a two part stay-set, is going to do this better than a thick one. The advantages of the chip break effect and protection for the face of the blade are secondary.
> 
> PS Rather than replacing the blade with a thicker one there is an easier way to reduce chatter in a conventional Stanley; basically you pause for thought and ask yourself what you are doing wrong, and correct it. It's about technique not blade thickness. If it chatters you are doing it wrong.



Well, it does those things, too, but it's there to mitigate tearout also. It costs more to make a thin iron and a cap iron than it costs to make one thick iron. The evidence is in the old tool catalogs. 

Stanley's genius was in getting the iron very thin so that you could literally maintain it with a single stone without anything else. The cap iron set up is genius, too, it provides support at the edge from forces that are further back, and it's just about ideal for mitigating tearout at a fairly wide range of settings without making too much extra resistance. 

Modern makers are good at making very accurate planes, but in terms of genius of design, they are not remotely close to being in the same class as bailey or the individuals who refined the late 1700s double iron planes. The problem for them that handicaps them is that their market doesn't demand it as a matter of economic need, and they don't use the tools in the same context as professional users would've when the best designs were made. Actual design is replaced with things like heavier irons, heavier castings, flatter iron backs, flatter castings.


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2015)

G S Haydon":3qhvm22e said:


> Mike, it might just be my wooden planes but when I look down the plane iron after securing the cap iron there is a visible deflection, very similar to a Bailey, sometimes more.
> 
> There is always some deflection on a double iron, this means the lower part of the iron and the top are in contact with the bed, the middle is not. On the limited amount of planes I've seen there seems to be evidence on this with polish on the top of the frog and at the bottom where the iron seems to be in closer contact.
> 
> ...



Very well put, Graham. Before anyone can attempt to put together technical papers describing why something modern is better, they first have to understand the underlying drivers of the original designs - economic need, professional makers and professional users. Those things are very hard to overcome with makers testing their tools using machines and getting feedback from non-professional users.


----------



## Mr_P (16 Oct 2015)

D_W":2unecxll said:


> Mr_P":2unecxll said:
> 
> 
> > What are these "cap irons" of which you speak ?
> ...



Impressive D_W, most impressive, I put that their on purpose to see if anyone spotted it.

Mr P edantic here its actually an Ulmia.


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2015)

Mr_P":33d2j231 said:


> D_W":33d2j231 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr_P":33d2j231 said:
> ...



I figured it might be an ulmia, but I am lazy and type the first thing that comes to mind. 

I have one of the same thing (ulmia). It's a good plane, and in the rare case that a rebate needs to be sized with no tearout at the corners, it can work in any direction once it's set up, and take a thick shaving doing it. 

And do it until the iron is completely dull - no pussyfooting around needed. Bit of a pain getting the iron in and out, though. 

Moupe and others might get irritated by my directness, but I am a windbag with substance in my wind, not just a regular windbag!!


----------



## swagman (16 Oct 2015)

_Moupe and others might get irritated by my directness, but I am a windbag with substance in my wind, not just a regular windbag!!_

*Ouch!*


----------



## mouppe (16 Oct 2015)

[/quote]
Moupe and others might get irritated by my directness, but I am a windbag with substance in my wind, not just a regular windbag!![/quote]

You call it directness. I call it arrogance and rudeness. I believe it was in the rust-related thread you accused me of being a "mark" and a "newbie" for using jojoba oil. Similarly, it seems that anyone using a LN plane is a fool in your opinion. I've been on other forums where a pompous windbag joins and proceeds to compose lengthy posts about how his way of doing things is the only way. I don't mind reading your input, but perhaps you could refrain from belittling everyone else who does things differently?


----------



## Jacob (16 Oct 2015)

mouppe":3mn4ehld said:


> ....belittling everyone else who does things differently?


I get accused of that too! 
The problem is that "doing things differently" actually tends to mean _doing things the same way_ as everybody else under the influence of the magazines, tool sellers, the usual suspects.
I think people feel safe in this crowd and don't welcome doubt of any sort!


----------



## CStanford (16 Oct 2015)

Jacob":qjkhw4k1 said:


> CStanford":qjkhw4k1 said:
> 
> 
> > ......I change what I'm doing and it helps. Leaving a board a little long and trimming the start and finish marks works better though. ...
> ...



No need. No need to borrow trouble. Why crosscut to exact length before a board is planed and smoothed to thickness? If you have a problem incising and sawing a clean cut off I'd say that's where practice is needed not in sweating a little chatter at the start of a cut that should be cut off as waste or at worst scraped and sanded out.


----------



## CStanford (16 Oct 2015)

D_W":3lmo5ub8 said:


> CStanford":3lmo5ub8 said:
> 
> 
> > ...need a longer board....chatter at the ends.
> ...



I do skew the plane and it helps but ultimately I don't worry about it that much. I use a No. 08 when shooting drawers to size (I don't own a 7 other than my son's and it's put away). The 08 rarely chatters. Can't think of the last time it did. Once the side is shot, I don't touch it. Not even with a smoother. The chance that I'm going to put a smoother on a drawer side after the drawer has been glued is exactly zilch. It's not a best practice, not even close to it. See Alan Peters, not Warren Mickley. I still don't get the whole Warren thing and probably never will. It's difficult for the rest of the world to follow Warren since he has nothing in print of which I am aware.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Oct 2015)

> I'm thinking of two different things when I talk about how the bailey plane fits well and how a plane with abutments fits well. I can describe it as this: If you turn the screw that retains the lever cap on a stanley a quarter of of a turn, the adjustability doesn't change much. It gets a little tighter. The lever cap still closes easily, the plane still adjusts easily. If you do that on a premium plane, you go from snug to impossible really quickly. That variation affects how well the cap is bedded at the iron.



Hi David 

I'm sitting here with a LN #3 and playing with the adjuster to test out your observaton. I do not experience what you describe. The adjustment is smooth all the way through. 

I have a favourite Stanley #3. In terms of actual performance I can get it to work as well as the LN. However that is not altogether a fair comparison since I did spend quite a bit of time tuning the Stanley - and did not have to tune the LN - and the Stanley has a Veritas PM-V11 blade and chipbreaker. The main difference (outside of fit, finish and looks) is that the Stanley's adjustments have significantly more backlash (feel sloppy). I am used to this, so this is not a big deal. Nevertheless, it points to the LN being consistently precise rather than going from "snug to impossible".



> As far as smoothing goes, I take coarse smoother shavings until I can go left to right on something with continuous shavings, and then I back off and take one or two thin shavings. The bulk of the work is probably done more at 3 thousandths plus. There's a difference between me and someone pulling a dead flat board off of a machine planer. But, someone using a machine planer with a board that has any attitude, or a board that has sat a day or two would do well to duplicate what I just described.



I am curious to know what you are building and what wood you are using to plane in this fashion. Any coarse or medium shavings I take are generally with a longer plane. If I use a machine, I leave room to complete the process with a jointer plane (as I believe that the finish is better and the machine leaves its own marks anyway), and then to a smoother. I do not go from the power jointer to a smoother. The same goes if I use a tablesaw - I rip close to a line, then use a jointer plane. I use machines as I am working with very hard wood. I end up taking fine shavings when the parts are together (such as the M&T in drawer frames) as I am flushing them out. That is the time for caution and precision. What are you building that is dealt with in a more cavalier manner?

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (16 Oct 2015)

Taking a thick(ish) shaving with a No. 3 or 4 is my idea of torture unless the irons are ridiculously curved and that becomes a scrubbing operation. You need at least the mass of a 4.5 or bigger plane IMO but why would anybody need to remove baulk with a smoother? Sure don't get that one.


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2015)

It's harder to take a same-thickness shaving with a 4 1/2 than a #4. 

I'd consider 4 thousandths to be a thick smoother shaving. something just under 2 to be finish in most cases (really, you could finish off of 4). 

I'm not sure why, charlie, I'd go to alan peters for planing advice instead of warren. Warren makes a living using tools, and not making studio furniture. I discounted his advice for a long long time, and when I stopped doing that, I found he was correct.

Derek mentioned a lot of tools that alan peters had that weren't hand tools. 

Perhaps I could ask the question of george, though with the planes, it goes back not to what he wanted to use at williamsburg, but what they were required to use.


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2015)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> I am curious to know what you are building and what wood you are using to plane in this fashion. Any coarse or medium shavings I take are generally with a longer plane. If I use a machine, I leave room to complete the process with a jointer plane (as I believe that the finish is better and the machine leaves its own marks anyway), and then to a smoother. I do not go from the power jointer to a smoother. The same goes if I use a tablesaw - I rip close to a line, then use a jointer plane. I use machines as I am working with very hard wood. I end up taking fine shavings when the parts are together (such as the M&T in drawer frames) as I am flushing them out. That is the time for caution and precision. What are you building that is dealt with in a more cavalier manner?
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek



I'll refer back to something that warren said, and that's he's never understood the need to have a heavy plane to take a significant shaving. We provide the momentum, not the plane. After the cut starts (which is a bit more difficult with a lighter plane than a heavy plane), a heavy plane is more work. 

Maple, Cherry, Beech - those would be the three things I work the most. Occasionally (once a year or so), cocobolo. 

What's more cavalier? Cabinets (cases), kitchen cabinets, planes? Pretty much everything?

If I had a good power planer and jointer, I'd go straight to a smoother for most things, the exception being glued joints and match planed areas. I think that's probably standard procedure in most power tool oriented shops. A friend of mine has a DJ 20 and DC 580 planer with spiral heads. You can glue up off of the jointer without an issue. The planer leaves no tearout, so compression from the knives is all you're planing out.


----------



## CStanford (16 Oct 2015)

I'll refer to Alan Peters who used nothing but a heavy plane (and this was so even when he was at Barnsley before the shop was mechanized). Whom do you imagine the vast majority of people would listen to? Should listen to?


----------



## CStanford (16 Oct 2015)

D_W":2n4vk0j5 said:


> It's harder to take a same-thickness shaving with a 4 1/2 than a #4.
> 
> I'd consider 4 thousandths to be a thick smoother shaving. something just under 2 to be finish in most cases (really, you could finish off of 4).
> 
> ...



What does he use tools to make? Why do you have such a disdain for 'studio' furnituremakers? Alan Peters' work was far from being 'way out there' as that term can sometimes connote.

Alan Peters' entire apprenticeship was done in a completely unmechanized shop.

What exactly does Warren Mickley build? I've never been able to figure it out. Help us out here. Do you live near him?


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Oct 2015)

> If I had a good power planer and jointer, I'd go straight to a smoother for most things, the exception being glued joints and match planed areas. I think that's probably standard procedure in most power tool oriented shops. A friend of mine has a DJ 20 and DC 580 planer with spiral heads. You can glue up off of the jointer without an issue. The planer leaves no tearout, so compression from the knives is all you're planing out.



David, I have a good power planer (thicknesser) and jointer: A Hammer A3-31 with spiral heads. It is amazingly good (and quiet) and I rarely see even the glimmer of tearout. Nevertheless I still use long planes on the surface since there will always be faint machine marks. In addition, even if I joint edges on the machine, they are still not clean enough (for my liking) to glue up. I always use a jointer plane. 

It is great having a machine such as this, but there are many boards I will just flatten and finish with handplanes. It comes down to size and hardness (and often I am too lazy to walk over and set up the machine, which is tucked away in a corner). My jack plane makes short work of waste, and the jointers remove the remainder. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2015)

mouppe":pdeewlqp said:


> I don't mind reading your input, but perhaps you could refrain from belittling everyone else who does things differently?



There's a certain amount of "everything is OK" kind of talk that after you see it 100 times, you just get worn out, that's kind of I guess why I take the direct route. 

I've noticed over the years, too, that if you take that track, it often leaves discussions untouched. I love when people prove me wrong, I learn from it. I learned to use the cap iron without direction because I assumed that someone who advocated it (and who was belittled on other forums for advocating it all the time) insisted that it worked and that I was wrong. I thought I was going to prove him wrong, and he proved me wrong. 

I'm sure not everyone agrees with my conclusions because they come from someone who is moving toward doing work entirely by hand (or who has in many cases - I have). 

The perspective is different, there are a lot of things I don't agree with derek on (or LN/LV) because they're not dimensioning wood from rough at this point (derek due to machines, and LN and LV might have the tools to dimension from rough, but it's to meet a market niche, not to have people doing it competently with physical economy). 

Here's an example - a friend who I gave a plane to went to an LN event last year. I told him to set the cap iron close on their planes and blast off a shaving and see what they do. So, he went to a piece of test curly maple, set the cap close and whizzed off several thick shavings - with a lie nielsen 8. They went into a panic, and someone rushed over to "fix" the situation by putting the plane back to smoother setting and suggesting that users buy and use a #8 to smooth because the mass makes it easier. When a company is recommending a 10 pound plane to smooth, how do you even respond to something like that?

That's what makes me testy sometimes, and other times, I'm trying to pry an answer out of people so I can learn something, even though people often don't want to give one.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Oct 2015)

Sorry Charlie, I was typing at the same time as you - did not mean to sidetrack. I am interested in a reply to your question.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (16 Oct 2015)

Alan Peters smoothed with a No. 7 his entire career. I gather that this was very common at the Barnsley workshop. 

http://www.barnsley-furniture.co.uk/


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2015)

CStanford":1fbtn3p5 said:


> What does he use tools to make? Why do you have such a disdain for 'studio' furnituremakers? Alan Peters' work was far from being 'way out there' as that term can sometimes connote.
> 
> Alan Peters' entire apprenticeship was done in a completely unmechanized shop.
> 
> What exactly does Warren Mickley build? I've never been able to figure it out. Help us out here. Do you live near him?



I don't have any real disdain for studio furniture makers, I'm just not interested in having studio furniture, so that cuts it off. I think alan peters sounds like he was a fine man, and the brief interviews I saw of him late in life, he had practicality that is lacking in most of the instructional material provided now - practicality that arises out of experience. I don't find any of his comments as irritating as the one that I seem to be fielding often now in private messages on youtube, which is "krenov said plane handles are uncomfortable, and so they are. I plan to make a plane like yours with no handle because it will give me more holding options". Really. People preferred handles for centuries and now they are out because of one guru.

I do live near warren (and am several times within a few miles of where he is). I'm curious about what he builds, too, since he doesn't seem to know much about taking and posting pictures. That's one of the reasons I didn't follow his advice. I don't get the sense that he's the kind of person who wants a visitor (different than George).

As for where I'd go for information in going hand tool only, I would say texts from a time when people did it - though it can be difficult to find something comprehensive. I read about four carving texts until I had the good sense to talk to george and ask him what to read, and he recommended a book edited by paul hasluck. what a revelation. I probably should try to find more about planing, where some of the old texts advocate exactly the opposite of what new agers recommend (specifically, things like jacking with the grain instead of across it whenever it's possible to). 

If you know of texts from, lets say, late 1800s or earlier that describe planing, I'd love to know what they are.


----------



## CStanford (16 Oct 2015)

Are you saying you don't know what he builds?

If a long plane is cutting fine why would you put it down? Why not take it all the way to the finish line? There's no law that says you have to go jack-jointer-smoother every single time you plane a board.

For God's sake don't tell me you've never just gone ahead and finished off a board with a jointer or a No. 6. Please. That's just insane, especially working our hardwoods the vast majority of which aren't really that difficult to plane. Cherry is a flippin' breeze to plane.


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2015)

CStanford":3lakadwi said:


> Are you saying you don't know what he builds?
> 
> If a long plane is cutting fine why would you put it down? Why not take it all the way to the finish line? There's no law that says you have to go jack-jointer-smoother every single time you plane a board.
> 
> For God's sake don't tell me you've never just gone ahead and finished off a board with a jointer or a No. 6. Please. That's just insane, especially working our hardwoods the vast majority of which aren't really that difficult to plane. Cherry is a flippin' breeze to plane.



Of course I've finished wood off of a jointer (or for a while, off of a panel plane that I'd made), but exterior surfaces always with a smoother for the thin shavings. If I omit anything, it's the jack, not usually the smoother.

All of the woods I listed are nice to plane, that's why I use them. Hard maple isn't always great, but it's not awful like ash can be awful sometimes (and sometimes ash can be 100% agreeable).


----------



## CStanford (16 Oct 2015)

Not that my smoother doesn't perform just fine but I tend to call it a good day when the 08 has handled everything down to the finish line. Things seem to move along at a slightly better clip when this is the case.


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2015)

CStanford":1glz8r35 said:


> Not that my smoother doesn't perform just fine but I tend to call it a good day when the 08 has handled everything down to the finish line. Things seem to move along at a slightly better clip when this is the case.



You're probably in better shape than me. Which isn't saying much. 

I'll be interested in seeing how griggsy (different than this forum) and brian holcombe get along with the two planes I made them, which were explicitly for labor reduction on their part since both of them do a lot of hand work. 

I'm not ever going to make planes in any quantity, but I'd love to make a market for someone who will. I don't *need* the effort reduction that comes with my planes, but it's awfully nice to have. 

Charlie, I don't know if I've ever asked you, but do you have a power jointer and planer, or do you do most of your rough work by hand? I've only seen your marples jack in the happy face picture you put up.


----------



## CStanford (16 Oct 2015)

Use a long plane all day for a couple of days and you'll get it. It is not that fatiguing. Hell, it all makes you tired. Hard to blame any one thing. Just moving around a shop all day does that.

The only electric tools I own are an old 1970s era Delta Homecraft gap-bed lathe and a Sears Craftsman grinder from about the same period. I have access to a longer bed Powermatic lathe that I use on occasion.

I do have a circular saw, power drill, and a few others in my carpentry kit. I never use that stuff in the furnituremaking though. I'm tempted to use the circular saw for rips but really haven't to this point. I think I ripped some sheet goods with it when I made a lumber rack. I use those tools for the occasional framing job that comes up.

When I'm removing a lot of material I use a Marples wooden jack, a razee-style. I do have a Stanley scrub but use it rarely it seems. Not sure why.


----------



## David C (16 Oct 2015)

Alan Peters did his apprenticeship at the Barnsley workshop, Froxfield, some time after the war. He started in January 1949.

It sounds as though Edward Barnsley was persuaded to start adopting machinery around 1956. 

David


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2015)

CStanford":1keblpw0 said:


> Use a long plane all day for a couple of days and you'll get it. It is not that fatiguing. Hell, it all makes you tired. Hard to blame any one thing. Just moving around a shop all day does that.
> 
> The only electric tools I own are an old 1970s era Delta Homecraft gap-bed lathe and a Sears Craftsman grinder from about the same period. I have access to a longer bed Powermatic lathe that I use on occasion.
> 
> ...



Thanks Charlie, I'm not sure I ever got the nuts and bolts of the operation from you before. It's helpful for context.


----------



## David C (16 Oct 2015)

I have never read so much hot air about the relative merits of different styles of chipbreakers.

If anyone can suggest an experiment which will demonstrate differences, I would be happy to reproduce it. 

C/Bs are held against the blade by lever cap force, which is adjusted with the central screw. There is a component which is defined by the C/B shape, but I suspect that the lever cap screw setting is more important.

David Charlesworth


----------



## CStanford (16 Oct 2015)

D_W":30lqlmti said:


> CStanford":30lqlmti said:
> 
> 
> > Use a long plane all day for a couple of days and you'll get it. It is not that fatiguing. Hell, it all makes you tired. Hard to blame any one thing. Just moving around a shop all day does that.
> ...



I've owned all the relevant 'big' power equipment in the past. Lately, people have asked about me doing kitchens. I could very well be about to buy that stuff all over again.


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2015)

David C":1i6it8ar said:


> I have never read so much hot air about the relative merits of different styles of chipbreakers.
> 
> If anyone can suggest an experiment which will demonstrate differences, I would be happy to reproduce it.
> 
> ...



Certainly it's more important that the lever cap screw is the right tension. That can be a wider range with a cap iron that has more spring. 

In the grand scheme of things, this is pretty low in comparison to things like bed angle, cap iron or no cap iron. The only reason it is brought up and discussed in such detail is the ridiculous notion that Lie Nielsen somehow improved the cap iron, which is one of the more absurd things I've heard.

As far as the rest of the details, i can't really have much of an informed conversation about much of this stuff except with folks who dimension wood by hand. The biggest difference in function between optimal and suboptimal with all of this stuff occurs at the try plane level in dimensioning. The idea of coming up with an experiment to show something is what gives us things like derek's comment about the increased wear bevel on the back of an iron on a double iron plane. Certainly the research pictures show increased wear on the back of an iron when a cap iron is used, but in actual use, the iron works in the cut longer, anyway, and the wear never comes into context. 

I can have educated discussions on this stuff with charlie since he's working by hand, or with Brian Holcombe on another forum because he's working entirely by hand. I sent him planes because I expect they will improve his experience working wood by hand. If he doesn't agree with me, in time he won't be able to resist saying so. Anyone else not in the same boat just doesn't have the context to decide. 

Talking about the full range of plane function with people who don't dimension by hand is like having discussions about large rip saws with people who don't cut more than dovetails and tenons with hand saws. They never develop a sense of physical economy to understand why things are made the way they are.


----------



## CStanford (16 Oct 2015)

David C":20iie7ow said:


> I have never read so much hot air about the relative merits of different styles of chipbreakers.
> 
> If anyone can suggest an experiment which will demonstrate differences, I would be happy to reproduce it.
> 
> ...



Actually the lever cap holds the blade/chipbreaker assembly to the frog as a unit. If the cap is designed correctly, the old Stanley and Records seemed to be, tightening the rather short chipbreaker screw puts the breaker into a degree of tension, the lever cap shouldn't be so tight as to disturb this relationship. I like the Record breakers with their profound 'hump' but can't say to a scientific certainty whether it makes any difference. I SUSPECT that this 'hump' makes the breaker effective at settings less close than those extrapolated by a study of the Kato & Kawai video, and hence the general effectiveness of these old warriors over the years at settings back from the tip of the iron. 

At the very least this explanation makes me feel good!

With a reasonably tight mouth the humped breaker will really push a chip over against the leading edge of the mouth. That's a good thing, right?

Cheers,

Charles


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2015)

CStanford":2sqs6u1w said:


> I've owned all the relevant 'big' power equipment in the past. Lately, people have asked about me doing kitchens. I could very well be about to buy that stuff all over again.



That sounds familiar, but I'm charged only with building one kitchen. The amish guys tell me there's money in trim and money in kitchens and bathrooms.


----------



## CStanford (16 Oct 2015)

There is, but like any sort of contracting it's easy to get blistered if you aren't careful. My biggest investment would likely be computer software rather than tooling.


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2015)

CStanford":2vyro5gh said:


> David C":2vyro5gh said:
> 
> 
> > I have never read so much hot air about the relative merits of different styles of chipbreakers.
> ...



It is an accurate explanation, it's a thing that makes a preference in feel for an experienced user. As far as cap irons go and using them properly, there really aren't many. The explosion of videos of people using cap irons and talking about it on youtube makes me suspect, because they are all very recent, and many of the people claimed they learned to use the cap iron as they're demonstrating long ago. 

Just a suspect as I would've loved to hear how Lie Nielsen determined that their cap iron is an improvement when they didn't know where it was that it should be located in relation to the end of an iron. 

The newbies will think I'm being very harsh on the toolmakers, but this is not that - it's just fact. The very people who sell us the tools couldn't be counted on to tell us how to use them properly, and we were propositioned with suboptimal (to say in the least) things like toothed irons and high angle frogs. 

Charlie, there's been enough congruence in our comments today that I'm sure that I'll step out under a rain cloud later!


----------



## shed9 (16 Oct 2015)

The type of tool under discussion here has essentially five very basic constituent parts (six if you include the handles component) and yet some of you are falling over yourselves to suggest it’s Harry Potter magic and that the main vendors of today haven’t a clue in what they are doing.

The level of arrogance here is staggering.


----------



## CStanford (16 Oct 2015)

David C":389jdu6e said:


> Alan Peters did his apprenticeship at the Barnsley workshop, Froxfield, some time after the war. He started in January 1949.
> 
> It sounds as though Edward Barnsley was persuaded to start adopting machinery around 1956.
> 
> David



Quite right. Peters was probably one of the last to do his apprenticeship, at Barnsley at least, with no powertools. There are some relevant quotes related to this in one of this books. I'll post these later, in another post.


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2015)

shed9":24if02ge said:


> The type of tool under discussion here has essentially five very basic constituent parts (six if you include the handles component) and yet some of you are falling over yourselves to suggest it’s Harry Potter magic and that the main vendors of today haven’t a clue in what they are doing.
> 
> The level of arrogance here is staggering.



I think you need to reread. What I've suggested at least, is that the assertion that the current plane improvements are improvements for beginners, at least in the mind of beginners. I think if there's any arrogance at all, it would be in the idea that you can just set up shop as a hobbyist, grow a little plane business over a relatively short period of time and outdo people who had a far better context for using planes. 

Think about the idea of saying you have an improved chipbreaker and then finding out that you can't even use it as a chipbreaker was designed to be used. 

What's in the new planes is higher quality castings and probably closer tolerances all around. Nothing otherwise has been designed that actually has improved on anything that stanley made. Stanley made planes to the level that they needed to be made to function, not for a group of white collar retirees taking a class. And they made irons that an individual could put in a box with a single stone and use and sharpen all day. 

As far as the functions of the actual jack planes, try planes (fore/jointer), none of the new planes have anything on an early 1800s double iron plane except that they may be more seasonally stable (even that is mitigated if wood is chosen properly). 

I'd love for someone to tell me what a modern plane does better than a stanley plane. Please don't mention things like setscrews and less backlash, no serious user finds any value in that stuff.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (17 Oct 2015)

David, as I see it, there is a conflict of types of planes and the designs necessary for each. You are derogatory of the "Lie-Nielsen Improved" chipbreaker for the Bailey style plane, but often intermix your reasoning with wooden planes. Therein lies a problem - because it is well possible that the chipbreakers for woodies have different _additional _effects. 

Further, there is the assumption that Bailey did not mention the chipbreaker effect in his patent as this was already common knowledge and in common usage. That it was in common usage I am not disputing. That Bailey came up with his chipbreaker design as part of this process is something I will dispute. _Note that this is not a comment on the chipbreaker effect, but on Bailey's design._

Why is the Stanley chipbreaker/cap iron shaped as it is, and is the “Improved” LN chipbreaker really an improvement?

http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/plan ... _67398.htm

This patent of Bailey in 1867 was for the cap iron (as he referred to it). The patent specifies that the purpose of the cap iron is to connect the blade to the lever adjuster. It is relevant to note that the plane he was describing was a Transitional and not a full metal Stanley benchplane.












Whether or not it was already assumed that Bailey understood the “chipbreaker effect” – since this is not mentioned in the patent – it is only evident that the cap iron was designed for its mechanical properties.

One of the descriptions in this patent that appears to have been overlooked (or, I cannot recall any attention drawn to this point) is this: “As the lower surface of the part B may become worn away, from use of the plane, the opening of the lower part of the throat will- grow wider, and finally become so wide as to render it necessary to glue, or fix on the back 'or inclined face of that part of the throat which .is on the part B, a thin layer or plate of wood or other material of sufficient thickness to bring the plane-iron in its true relation with the front edge of the opening of the throat”. 

What this indicates, in effect, is that Bailey considered that a closed up mouth was important for performance. The importance of a movable frog was to overcome the limitation of the mouth wearing. The significance of this statement is that he was NOT advocating the chipbreaker as a means of controlling tearout, but simply saw it as a mechanical connection to the adjuster.

Please note that I am not negating the use of the chipbreaker as a means of controlling tearout. I am a strong supporter that it works this way. This post is about chipbreaker design, per se. Specifically, “why” did Bailey come up with his design. Unless one can say this, how can one fully understand its current use.

There is a list of Bailey patents here, but none of them are about the shape of the cap iron, per se: http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/wood ... atents.htm

Anyone with a modicum of engineering understanding will twig why the cap iron/chipbreaker is designed the way it is. The answer is simple because it is logical. 

In a world where thin sheet steel is cheaper and profits are maximized when costs are kept down, the round front section is created to stiffen the thin gauge steel. 

Any “spring” is a by-product of this. I do not believe that Bailey deliberately designed in the spring. However it was/is a happy coincidence since it enables the chipbreaker to remain under tension, which prevents it loosening and moving.

So what is it that LN/LV/new Stanley/et al have changed with the chipbreaker? Basically, all they have done is provide the solid section to the leading edge – a solid steel ledge – that Bailey would have done had he been less economical in his outlook ..

Underside of LN and LV chipbreaker ..






Flex/spring (under full tension) …






The question now is, how does this compare in performance to Bailey design in a metal Bailey-style plane? 

Regards from Perth

Derek

p.s. I wrote this article some time back. I plan to re-write it with update on design factors and the experiences gained since that time. Still, there are some points that remain relevant (for metal Bailey planes): http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... eaker.html


----------



## D_W (17 Oct 2015)

The spring is most certainly intentional. mild steel wouldn't have been that expensive back then that a plane couldn't have been made from it if it was deemed necessary.

I do believe that the new design cap irons aren't as good as the original design. There shouldn't be a fascination with that, though, it's a so-be-it thing. Perhaps you can check with the technical staff with lee valley, but I don't believe that they consider the cap iron to be of practical benefit for breaking chips. It's awfully difficult to get information out of them.

Lie Nielsen, I don't know. I do know they weren't aware of the use of the cap iron when they made their improved irons or they'd have never located the slot where it is. 

Also, it appears that the use of the cap iron to mitigate tearout was common knowledge at the time that bailey designed his cap iron. It's also true that the same curvature that exists on his cap, also exists on the old wooden caps. Cap irons eliminated single iron planes from all but the budget lines of makers, and bailey slotted his cap iron for the adjuster post so that they easily went to the end of the iron and beyond. Couple that also with the fact that the profile, the curvature, is almost ideal for actual work breaking chips. There wouldn't have been much reason to mention chip breaking in a patent, there's nothing about breaking chips that needed to be patented. If bailey wanted to market the novel idea of a fit with some spring in it and connectedness between the lever cap and a thin iron, then he did that just fine. 

I'd really be curious what the "improvement" is in the lie nielsen and lee valley cap irons. Nobody has specified that. Perhaps there's some bit of stuff about them being heavier, but that itself would again point back toward the makers not knowing how to set a cap iron (which we know is true), because a properly set stanley plane will stop you in its tracks before it chatters (different than the skip that charlie mentioned, which is due to a cut that is not engaged immediately). For over a hundred years, anyone who introduced that type of plane and sold it to professional users could have easily put a slab-style cap iron in their planes, and if it was an improvement, it would've sold immediately. Nobody did until makers who literally did not know what the cap iron was for were designing improved versions. 

There is also a fascination with thick irons that amateur users have or had, which also suggests that the same users don't know how to use a plane. A thick iron covers up a poorly fitted plane in some cases (not that the makers of premium planes would have them poorly fitted, so it's got to be a marketing issue), or a bad design as one that doesn't support the iron near the cutting edge. Again, the need for this "improvement" that's not an improvement didn't show up until the designs and users had no clue what the cap iron was for.

Again, I am not talking about spring as the ability of the cap iron to bend the iron, I don't have any idea how anyone got that idea. 250 years ago, irons were made with the back literally cut hollow and didn't even need to flex to bed only at the top and the bottom of a plane. It takes very little of that type of flex for that to happen. I am talking about the give that the hump on the stamped cap iron has, AFTER the iron is already bedded tight against a frog.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (17 Oct 2015)

Hi David

It is relevant to separate what one believes from what one knows. One is speculation and the other is fact. 

Often speculation contains much fact - just that the observations that lead to it have not been organised into a coherent framework. What I am saying it that I do not disregard your speculations, and am spending time trying to sift through them to determine what the important elements are. That is what you should be doing - explaining why the parts do what they do, otherwise you will continue to have detractors. 

I believe that some of the mechanisms that we recognise in the way the chipbreaker works came about serendipitously. The spring you refer to in the Bailey chipbreaker is an example. The thickness of the steel is so different from chipbreakers in woodies, and the Bailey chipbreaker simply could not have any structural integrity without the front rounded section.

The spring I experience in woody chipbreakers, such as made by Mathieson, is similar to the amount of spring in the LN and LV. The Stanleys I have stand out as closer to cooked spaghetti by comparison.

None of this is to imply that the LN is "improved" because LN knew what they were doing. I believe, as you do, that their structural improvements were serendipitous. LN appear to have been the last to recognise that the chipbreaker can be used for tearout control. They have steadfastly supported high bed angles instead. Lee Valley were headed down this path at one time, when the Custom planes were first conceived, but changed direction (not easy to do when they were as far down the path as they were) and managed to offer everyone a choice (of high beds and chipbreaker control). 

At the end of the day, for the chipbreaker to work, the blade must be stable and the leading edge of the chipbreaker must control directional change of the shaving at the ideal angle to create downward pressure.

The thick blades are a hang over from the days when blade stability and tight mouths were the go in controlling tearout. What the demonstrations (for example, Rob Cosman) did show was that the thicker blades _do_ have a positive effect in this regard. You may believe that they are unnecessary and that other factors are more important, but facts are facts. It has been demonstrated. 

What has also been demonstrated is that a thicker chipbreaker can and does support a thinner blade and improve stability. This may not be the function we now seek, but facts are facts (I know this very well since my first review actually was the "new improved LN chipbreaker" about 15 or so years ago. I had/have photographic evidence - the article is somewhere on the WWW - someone with the Badger Pond CD may well find it there). 

So the question comes up "do we still _benefit _from the thick blades?". My answer is "they add something, and a lot of small things are accumulative". This is not the same as the question, "do we_ need_ thick blades?". The answer to that is obviously "no". On the other hand, life is about freedom of choice, and I like the thicker blades as they are easier to hone and the newer, flatter blades are easier set up with the chipbreakers.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## G S Haydon (17 Oct 2015)

I think I've read that one before Derek, what improvement in surface finish did you get using the LN & LV variants over the Stanley?


----------



## D_W (17 Oct 2015)

Derek, I have about 75 double iron pairs in my box, and very few of them are similar to the LN or LV cap irons. There are a couple that I would call clapped out or flattened for some reason, but most of them have a lot of spring. 

I just measured two, one that was out in my try plane, and the next one that was on top of my pile of double irons. Both have a gap of about 3/32nd inch at the top of the hump after they've been tightened down. How much of a gap is there in the "improved" cap irons. The gauge of metal is heavier, but the gap spans the entire distance back to the cap iron screw. Improved irons are not similar, they are a small gap without any curvature. 

The stanley irons are a lighter gauge but the span that the spring spans is far less and the plane is a different design. To go back to what you're suggesting is that the two have something to do with each other, and as you asserted earlier, that's crossing something for wooden planes to metal. 

As for "stability", i'm sure you could show an iron and cap iron that is 3 times as thick as the "improved" iron would be more stable, but you're solving a made up problem. If a stanley plane chatters, it's not set up properly. It's not an issue of design, it's an issue of incompetence. You'll have to pardon me for not being swayed by arguments made on badger pond when none of the involved individuals had a clue what the cap iron was for in the first place. Setting it properly is the very thing that eliminates any instability. 

And the insinuation that I'm working from less solid footings than you are for my assertions on anything related to cap irons is humorous to say the least.


----------



## CStanford (17 Oct 2015)

Anybody interested in understanding the effect of a curved cap iron just need to close the mouth up a little on the plane. Anybody who thinks mouth aperture isn't effective don't get how the two are supposed to work together. The cap iron is curved and the frog adjustable for a reason. People who've abandoned mouth aperture is nothing more than evidence of the 'cap iron pendulum' having swung too far. The two work in concert. Anybody abandoning one adjustment for the other are needlessly tying an arm behind their own back. It's ridiculous.

Stop sniffing the air and get back to basics. It's all in Planecraft, worked out decades ago.

These two adjustments, mouth aperture and cap iron setting are what makes it possible to smooth, if one so chooses, with any plane in the Stanley/Record bench plane line. If you like additional mass, simply set up your No. 6 with a tight mouth and close cap iron and smooth away. Or your 08, 07 or whatever. You don't have to buy a bronze plane if you enjoy finish planing with a heavier tool. This is a good thing, not something to curl one's lip over.


----------



## swagman (17 Oct 2015)

The following should be treated as personal opinions only. 

Stewie;

_I prefer thinner irons because when properly sharpened and set they don’t chatter and the steel in both plane types sharpen up quickly, being only half as thick as irons made by more prominent makers of today, and take and hold a good sharp edge. I also like the lightness of these planes which of course is counter to everything we are being told today._ https://paulsellers.com/2014/05/planes- ... work-with/

_Someone said we should just use thick irons and heavyweight planes and eliminate the possibility. I disagree because there are many other things that we should consider seriously. One thing is that we are using 30-40% more steel, often the wrong steel, and we cannot use only hand methods to sharpen because we must now remove one third as much steel to maintain a good edge to our tools. _ https://paulsellers.com/2012/06/ok-clos ... in-planes/

_The double iron, we think, offered and increase in the effective thickness of the iron without the negative increase in sharpening time. _ http://www.planemaker.com/articles_single_v_double.html


----------



## swagman (17 Oct 2015)

CStanford":qjfyun7z said:


> Anybody interested in understanding the effect of a curved cap iron just need to close the mouth up a little on the plane. Anybody who thinks mouth aperture isn't effective don't get how the two are supposed to work together. The cap iron is curved and the frog adjustable for a reason. People who've abandoned mouth aperture is nothing more than evidence of the 'cap iron pendulum' having swung too far. The two work in concert. Anybody abandoning one adjustment for the other are needlessly tying an arm behind their own back. It's ridiculous.
> 
> Stop sniffing the air and get back to basics. It's all in Planecraft, worked out decades ago.
> 
> These two adjustments, mouth aperture and cap iron setting are what makes it possible to smooth, if one so chooses, with any plane in the Stanley/Record bench plane line. If you like additional mass, simply set up your No. 6 with a tight mouth and close cap iron and smooth away. Or your 08, 07 or whatever. You don't have to buy a bronze plane if you enjoy finish planing with a heavier tool. This is a good thing, not something to curl one's lip over.



Hi Charles. I following may be of interest. 

Stewie;

Set the Mouth Opening.

_While the lion's share of attention goes to getting a keen edge on the blade, several other steps will help you get the best from your plane. One is adjusting the mouth opening. On a bevel down plane, this is achieved by moving the frog forward or backward until the opening is slightly wider than the thickness of the desired shaving. For smoothing planes, very fine shavings are the goal so you will want to set a very narrow gap. The opening can be wider for jointers and wider still for jack planes set up to take thick shavings when roughing out a board._
http://www.highlandwoodworking.com/wood ... plane.html


----------



## D_W (17 Oct 2015)

Charlie, the mouth isn't important at all, except maybe on a bulk removal plane like a jack. Otherwise, its only practical function (assuming one can actually set a cap iron) is to not be so open that a beginner or tired user would introduce a plane to the board at an angle and literally pry a chunk off of the end by accident. 

The mouth works as disaster prevention (e.g., it can limit the damage a jack can do), but it's not very good at elimination of tearout in general until it's so tight that it restricts plane function. 

I tried that already building infills, and even the panel plane set at a hundredth wasn't very good if the wood wasn't top choice stuff (as in, it couldn't leave a finished surface, which is something you like to do off of the panel plane if you can). I set the plane aside (it's heavy, too), and got it back out in 2012 two years later only to find that it's spectacular with a cap iron set properly. But it's still heavy (close to 9 pounds). 

I'm still confused by the idea that a manufacturer can *not* know how to use a cap iron but somehow improve it over a manufacturer that can use one.

It might be that bailey's fascination with closing the mouth was actually for non-finish work rather than the assumption that it was for finishing work. I don't know, though, I don't have his phone number.


----------



## swagman (17 Oct 2015)

Edmund A. Schade's 9/3/1895 (fine frog adjustment)

_This invention relates to planes, and especially to that class of tools *commonly known TO as "smoothing-planes,"* and it has for its object to provide an improved supporting and adjusting device for the plane-knife or plane-iron, whereby the same can be quickly and accurately adjusted with relation to the work to be done, and also to provide an improved clamping device for said plane knife or iron, whereby the same will be firmly held against vibration in the use of the plane._ 
http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/plan ... 545732.htm

Stewie;


----------



## CStanford (17 Oct 2015)

David, get a Primus smoother and you can watch with your own eyes the effect of changing mouth aperture while holding everything else constant - iron projection, capiron setting, neither has to change while you change the mouth opening. It's an eye opener.


----------



## swagman (17 Oct 2015)

Near the end of the 2nd paragraph, Bailey mentions his use of thin steel for plane irons was based on "economics".

Stewie;

_ The difficulty experienced from the construction of the cap-iron with the single bend a, is, that it allows of vibration of the cap-iron and the plane-iron while in use, such vibration being productive of what joiners term "chattering," and consequent defective operation of the plane. _

_When thick plane-irons are used, their stiffness may resist the pressure of the cap sufficiently to pre- vent 'buckling or rising of the plane-iron from its bed; but in thin steel plane-irons which I use, the pressure of the cap upon the projecting portion of the plane-iron causes this portion to yield slightly, and of course produces buckling at some point behind, and generally close to the fulcrum. To prevent this buckling or rising, and still use the thin steel plane-irons, I put an extra bend in the cap, so that it shall have a point of impact with the thin steel at the place where .it tends, from the pressure on its projecting edge, and the fulcrum behind that edge, to risefrom its bed, and thus I effectually prevent "buckling" and "chattering," whilst I can avail myself of the economy of thin steel for the plane-irons._ 

_In carrying out my improvement, I make the cap-iron with an additional bend, I, (see figs. 2 and 3,) at a short distance back of its lower end or toe, or at a distance therefrom equal to about double the distance at which such lower edge or toe is to be from the main bend a, or the toe of the bearer B, the same being as shown in figs. 2 and I, so as to cause the cap-iron D' to bear on the plane-iron E'' in three places, or at the toe and auxiliary bend of the cap-iron, and along from such bend to the heel or upper end of the cap-iron. This construction or formation of the cap-iron D' completely obviates the difficulty above mentioned, and is a very valuable and useful improvement._ http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/plan ... _72443.htm


----------



## CStanford (17 Oct 2015)

He already knew the cap iron prevented tearout, he just changed the construction of his to help eliminate chatter, too. These were and are not mutually exclusive. The pronounced hump may very well have been serendipitous on two fronts. I think it was.


----------



## D_W (17 Oct 2015)

CStanford":1rtl5yy4 said:


> David, get a Primus smoother and you can watch with your own eyes the effect of changing mouth aperture while holding everything else constant - iron projection, capiron setting, neither has to change while you change the mouth opening. It's an eye opener.



Charlie, I got one a while ago, a good one, too, beech and lignum, but I didn't find much favor for it (it didn't do anything better than the stanley, but it was definitely a bigger pain in the rear to disassemble to sharpen the iron). I got it to try because you have been recommending it for a long time. I'm glad I bought it right, because it made it a free try more or less, except the cost of shipping.

I've made several planes that relied on the mouth opening to control tearout, and the condition is substandard to the cap iron when trying to get a finish. It does limit tearout on a very coarse shaving to some extent (jack), but even on a try plane it's a second rate method compared to the cap iron. 

to the extent that the escapement of a plane is not 90 degrees or greater, if the mouth begins to interfere with the cap iron setting, it's just in the way and preventing the best setup (which on a bailey plane that hasn't had someone file the mouth open is when the frog and base of the casting are flush.


----------



## swagman (17 Oct 2015)

CStanford":fmshccqg said:


> He already knew the cap iron prevented tearout, he just changed the construction of his to help eliminate chatter, too. These were and are not mutually exclusive. The pronounced hump may very well have been serendipitous on two fronts. I think it was.



Hi Charles. It seems obvious that Bailey's decision to use thinner steel on his plane irons left him with no alternative but to design a more effective cap iron. What was also interesting to read within the patent Edmund A. Schade's 9/3/1895 (fine frog adjustment) , was the mention of smoothing planes. Inferring at that time period, there was an exclusive need only for smoothing planes to be set to a tight mouth opening. 

If that was the mindset during that same time period. Why did STANLEY bother fitting the Edmund A. Schade's fine frog adjustment on all of their bench planes. !!! 

Stewie;


----------



## D_W (17 Oct 2015)

swagman":1lt2abz0 said:


> _In carrying out my improvement, I make the cap-iron with an additional bend, I, (see figs. 2 and 3,) at a short distance back of its lower end or toe, or at a distance therefrom equal to about double the distance at which such lower edge or toe is to be from the main bend a, or the toe of the bearer B, the same being as shown in figs. 2 and I, so as to cause the cap-iron D' to bear on the plane-iron E'' in three places, or at the toe and auxiliary bend of the cap-iron, and along from such bend to the heel or upper end of the cap-iron. This construction or formation of the cap-iron D' completely obviates the difficulty above mentioned, and is a very valuable and useful improvement._ http://www.oldtooluser.com/Patents/plan ... _72443.htm



His explanation of why it still eliminates chatter looks a lot like what I said, that the second bend reduces the span of the spring. 

This leads to another thing in why the long span design in the lie nielsen and other planes is not an improvement - the long span of the old wooden type is needed to get a good fit along the length of the wedge given that the position of the fingers on the wedge is something that won't be constant over the life of the plane. 

When the holding device is switched to a lever cap, the point of contact is one line horizontal instead of two. The design of the "improved" cap iron becomes dopey because it requires a thicker gauge to work properly. The only thing that needs to be correct on the bailey type cap iron is that the lever cap needs to sit on the top of the hump (it can't be too short, and you can't always just take one from one plane and put it with another). 

If the "premium" makers thought the stanley wasn't rigid enough, they would've looked a whole lot more intelligent if they would've just thickened the gauge some. Bailey and whoever else worked with him post stanley were far better designers than anyone at the premium plane making companies. Looking at the design of the adjuster screw and their choice of wood (which is difficult these days), they had a better design aesthetic. The one thing that is just completely offputting on a lie nielsen plane, for example, is the adjuster wheel looks like a slab that comes from an industrial supply center vs. the hollowed wheel on a stanley plane with a tasteful segmented knurl. Lie nielsen would've done well to copy the square sided bedrock plane exactly, all the way down to the knurls on the adjuster. They could keep their color scheme by using bronze and keep the boasts about the tolerances (which means something only to beginners), and get rid of the amatuerish changes they made. Including the cap iron.


----------



## D_W (17 Oct 2015)

swagman":3iqlp6g1 said:


> Inferring at that time period, there was an exclusive need only for smoothing planes to be set to a tight mouth opening.



It could've been a differentiator because the frog has to be made separately, anyway - a marketing attempt. the only need for a very tight mouth opening would've been for users too dopey to know how to seat the cap iron to eliminate tearout. 

The idea of closing everything down tight missed the train when the norris planes were made.


----------



## swagman (17 Oct 2015)

D_W":1ksqam36 said:


> swagman":1ksqam36 said:
> 
> 
> > Inferring at that time period, there was an exclusive need only for smoothing planes to be set to a tight mouth opening.
> ...



Hi David. If we accept the benefit of a closely set cap iron was already established during this time period, then I cant agree with your statement. Within the wording of Edmund A. Schade's 9/3/1895 (fine frog adjustment) patent, it specifically mentions smoothing planes. The inference being that a tightly set mouth was seen as preferable on a smoothing plane only during that time period. I also tend to think Stanley must of realised some production benefits in casting the frog seperately, and as such made the decision to do so on all of their bench planes. 

Stewie;


----------



## CStanford (17 Oct 2015)

D_W":20rtbpl0 said:


> CStanford":20rtbpl0 said:
> 
> 
> > David, get a Primus smoother and you can watch with your own eyes the effect of changing mouth aperture while holding everything else constant - iron projection, capiron setting, neither has to change while you change the mouth opening. It's an eye opener.
> ...



Weird, then, all of the people who raved about Clark & Williams single iron smoothers which controlled tearout completely with frog angle and tight mouth. Placebo effect? "I bought it, it must be good." While I understand Larry's health hasn't been good for a number of years they finally cried uncle on the backorder list and quit taking new orders.


----------



## CStanford (17 Oct 2015)

swagman":3w4xjq43 said:


> CStanford":3w4xjq43 said:
> 
> 
> > He already knew the cap iron prevented tearout, he just changed the construction of his to help eliminate chatter, too. These were and are not mutually exclusive. The pronounced hump may very well have been serendipitous on two fronts. I think it was.
> ...



Don't know why but I'm glad Stanley Co. /L. Bailey or whomever did. I like to stop the mouth down pretty tight on my 08. I don't like an extremely close setting of the chipbreaker on this plane. I get the best performance by paying attention to both adjustments, and more or less 'splitting the difference' which is apparently what the principals had in mind at the time given that both are adjustable -- frog and capiron.


----------



## D_W (17 Oct 2015)

CStanford":37z4c14d said:


> D_W":37z4c14d said:
> 
> 
> > CStanford":37z4c14d said:
> ...



Larry's smoothers are intended to work a fairly thin shaving. I'm sure bedded at 55 degrees, they will work a thin shaving (the finish on softwoods would suffer, though). 

I noticed something watching Larry's video that he had to skew his smoother to limit tearout on the quartered face of a beech billet, and he was already taking a thin shaving. when I work a plane billet, after the try plane (which is set coarse enough that there might be minor tearout - not of the ripping long type, but the kind where it's not smooth to the touch). I never have to skew a stanley plane when finishing the side of a plane billet. 

Long and short, I'm sure they work well, but not as well as a stanley with the cap iron set. 

Larry's been very lucky to have two captive audiences. 
* the first is the users of planes at colonial williamsburg - they are not allowed to use a double iron because the curators have control over what they can use, and they felt that double iron planes weren't common in the 18th century. I think you know where I got that information. 
* there are no other makers of wooden planes for most of larry's time making planes. Only recently are there other options. Also, most people had not clue how to use the cap iron, regardless of what's in text. It's clear. Especially with most of larry's clientele - I'm sure there are some advanced users, but you know where most of those planes went. 

One of the reasons I made a few planes available is some of the information that Larry has gotten wrong. First, Larry described a double iron plane iron as needing to be wider because the fingers create a shaving trap, and the shaving has to be narrower than the plane iron to avoid a clog. I've disproven that (all I had to do was find a properly made english griffiths plane that wasn't clapped out). There are several reasons why larry thinks that this trap exists, I won't go through them unless someone wants to hear what they are, but it's safe to say he's not correct on any of them. Second, larry asserted that you can't set the cap iron in practice at a distance that would make it effective. That's also untrue, it's actually pretty easy to set the cap iron too close on purpose, but at a distance where it still hasn't gone past the end of an iron. 

So, what do I think? I think Larry was able to make all of those statements for so long because only warren seemed to know that they were bunk. 

I know that with my planes, you can remove more wood and leave a cleaner surface for the same level of effort. 

Steve Voigt tells me that there's nothing in print that really describes how a double iron plane needs to be made so that it doesn't have problem. I don't read as much historic stuff as steve does, I just know I was able to keep hunting until I found an old plane in good enough shape that was well made and hadn't moved around too much or got worn out. After that, I know exactly what I'd look for in an old plane were I to buy. 

A similar problem in finding a *good* single iron plane exists - it's not easy to find an old one that's not worn out. I did manage to also find an unused JT brown jointer from the early 1800s. You can work with it, of course, but it's much less capable than my try planes. Not a boast, but as george says, simple fact. 

I don't sell planes, but I would be willing to take a set of tasks with my plane against the same set with larry's plane (and a much more competent user can be chosen for larry's planes than I am with mine), and I'm sure that I would be done first and the surfaces would be brighter. The latter doesn't matter so much, you can do a million things to finish a surface. The former matters to me some. 

If you're not into my brand of proof, all you have to look at is how double iron planes eliminated single iron planes. Larry's only argument against that is that the single iron planes must've been so good that they got used up and disappeared. I find that pretty far fetched. It's still all out there in text if anyone thinks I've misquoted.

(Larry wouldn't have backorders if he worked at the same rate that the vintage makers worked at. The fact that he has a backorder list is of his own design).


----------



## bugbear (23 Oct 2015)

I note the view that teachers/instructors/masters "in the old days" used to
state (with some vigour) that planes should be placed on their sides,
and that placing them down on their soles (possibly on a lath) is a
modern development.

I was reading George Ellis' _Modern Practical Joinery_ last night (as you do)
and found this:

(page 31, 1908 edition)

_Planes when out of use for more than a few
hours, should have the wedges released,
as the continued tension is injurious to the plane.
When temporarily out of use, bench planes
should their fronts resting on a thin slip of wood
screwed to the bench top to keep the cutters
free from damage. On no account should
planes be laid upon their sides on the bench,
as apart from the danger of running the
hands against the cutters, if the soles are exposed
for any length of time to the action of the sun
they will cast, and it at all unseasoned, split._

BugBear


----------



## D_W (23 Oct 2015)

That's an interesting narrative. If you look around, there aren't a whole lot of really old planes that haven't split somewhere. If the plane's in good shape, it will still often have cosmetic splits. 

I've got a jack that I made last year, for some reason it's got a very light split in the sole that doesn't get to the ends. I think it's almost inevitable with beech unless the plane is heavily oiled when made and then touched up from time to time and never exposed to much change in relative humidity.

I'm also curious about having the wedge set. In my opinion, some of that is necessary in a new plane, but not many people are using new planes. There are certain woods (cocobolo being one I have experience with) where the sole of the plane will bulge if the wedge is set and the plane left to sit for a while, but I haven't experienced the same thing in beech. Time will tell. 

I wouldn't want to put a plane on its side for a lot of reasons, including the above, and I doubt that it's a modern thing, as most of the old paintings and pictures of shops that I've seen show planes handle-side up. 

Thanks for that excerpt, bugbear.


----------



## bugbear (23 Oct 2015)

D_W":2co0st1f said:


> I wouldn't want to put a plane on its side for a lot of reasons, including the above, and I doubt that it's a modern thing, as most of the old paintings and pictures of shops that I've seen show planes handle-side up.
> 
> Thanks for that excerpt, bugbear.



I always liked Alf's practical suggestion - put the plane down, sole down, on a pile of shavings.

Because (for obvious reasons) there really ought to be some shavings handily nearby.  

BugBear


----------



## Mr_P (23 Oct 2015)

D_W":26d66840 said:


> That's an interesting narrative. If you look around, there aren't a whole lot of really old planes that haven't split somewhere. If the plane's in good shape, it will still often have cosmetic splits.
> 
> I've got a jack that I made last year, for some reason it's got a very light split in the sole that doesn't get to the ends. I think it's almost inevitable with beech unless the plane is heavily oiled when made and then touched up from time to time and never exposed to much change in relative humidity.



I've bought more than my share of job lots over the last few year years and rusty metal planes can often be found with perfect wooden ones. I'm sure I've read on here that timber for planes was air dried for upto a decade and then soaked in linseed for a year or so. 

People often refer to beech as not dimensionally stable so you would think a poor choice for planes but guess its how you treat it and quarter sawn also helps.


----------



## D_W (23 Oct 2015)

I have found it (with properly sawn billets) to be perfectly stable. I am closer to paying a lot of attention to beech than most, but less knowledgeable about it than a professional maker would be. 

It still moves if it's not sawn perfectly pith on center, but most of the planes (even the later ones with other quality compromises) were made with pretty straight wood and the planes with twist (the ultimate result of poor wood choice more than anything else) are the rare example of a plane made with the pith off center by a large amount - horizontally. 

That's bench planes. 

Later molding planes are more of a grab bag. I'm sure everyone on here is already familiar with that. 

Beech and apple are *horrible* if they are not properly sawn. The worst. They are the two worst woods I have had with cracking and checking, too, but they make such a great plane that doesn't exhibit any of the problems of other woods I've used. 

(ditto on the old planes. My oldest plane is an early 1800s american plane that was nearly unused. Someone put it very dry and I was lucky that when the dryness reduced its width, the iron didn't blow out the sides, but it was very tight. I don't have any metal tools older than the 1860s or so, and they are in rough shape.)

I don't think beech planes are going to make much more of a comeback than being shop jewelry like a lot of C&W and japanese planes have become until or unless it becomes fashionable to work wood entirely by hand again.

(my billets are kiln dried, so I can't compare. A 16/4 beech billet will dry fully in a year, unlike most wood, but it can be temperamental and crack a lot if you let it dry as fast as it'd like. It's extremely transient to oil and water - if you fill the mortise on a new billet with oil, it will soak into the plane in a matter of hours, and if you do it once in a day, again before bed on a long plane, there will be oil on the ends of the plane the next morning - it goes the who way through the straws. But too much can make a long plane heavy).


----------



## David C (23 Oct 2015)

post in wrong thread!!


----------



## David C (23 Oct 2015)

How odd.

Why do we never see cap irons which conform to Baileys patent?

Every one I have seen in the last 40 years touches the blade at tip, screw and maybe top. Never the the top end of the curve.

These were mostly new but a fair number of second hand ones too.

David Charlesworth


----------



## D_W (23 Oct 2015)

David C":3tvihqvv said:


> How odd.
> 
> Why do we never see cap irons which conform to Baileys patent?
> 
> ...



Just my opinion, but I think the bias allows the cap iron to work, and the curve creates enough rigidity. Too much bias toward the back of the hump and there wouldn't be enough pressure at the front to keep chips from going under it. 

As in, if it's not according to patent, i'd rather them be the way they are than have them be off in the other direction. 

If they were set from the factory to have contact on both ends of the hump, the first person to set up the cap iron or repair it would have to bend the cap iron or the bias would be in the wrong place.


----------



## David C (23 Oct 2015)

Yes, It would require very precise tweaking.

David


----------



## CStanford (23 Oct 2015)

David, et al. with regard to Larry Williams' planes I'm simply referring to the number of users who've reported on forums their ability to plane tearout free with them. Tearout free is tearout free, unless for some reason we cannot take these reports at face value. File it in the 'everybody exaggerates on woodworking forums' file? Probably. 

I don't plane tearout free and probably never will. Couldn't care less. I can scrape pretty much tearout free and what it leaves behind sandpaper easily rectifies.

Managing to plane tearout free is about as much an accomplishment as figuring out a different way to turn the shop lights on each day. It just doesn't matter. It's so easily and unobtrusively gotten rid of as to not matter. Or leave a little. Give the hand something to find. Ahhh, HERE the wood protested. And the craftsman let it speak its mind. Leave a surprise or two for somebody to find.


----------



## D_W (23 Oct 2015)

CStanford":tspw36k8 said:


> David, et al. with regard to Larry Williams' planes I'm simply referring to the number of users who've reported on forums their ability to plane tearout free with them. Tearout free is tearout free, unless for some reason we cannot take these reports at face value. File it in the 'everybody exaggerates on woodworking forums' file? Probably.
> 
> I don't plane tearout free and probably never will. Couldn't care less. I can scrape pretty much tearout free and what it leaves behind sandpaper easily rectifies.
> 
> Managing to plane tearout free is about as much an accomplishment as figuring out a different way to turn the shop lights on each day. It just doesn't matter. It's so easily and unobtrusively gotten rid of as to not matter. Or leave a little. Give the hand something to find. Ahhh, HERE the wood protested. And the craftsman let it speak its mind. Leave a surprise or two for somebody to find.



I plane tearout free without skewing the plane. That includes on quartered beech - all of it, not just the nice pieces.

Holcombe does it on the other forum, he planes exactly as my article described. Check out his surfaces. It's not hard and it doesn't take long. I have no clue why anyone would want to leave it (without spending any additional time if removing it) except for the case where they can't manage to eliminate it. Which seems to be the case for a lot of people. 

I mentioned above, and several people get cranked up when I mention larry's planes and single irons - they work. That's fine. they just aren't as capable as a common pitch double iron, except in the hands of novice or beginner users, perhaps the opposite is the case. I don't generally like to judge tools by the level of users...that kind of thing brings us planes with setscrews and such things.

I don't suggest that some average users are getting tearout with larry's planes, but rather larry himself...on a video he made. He actually says it out loud and suggests skewing the plane to remedy it. That's with a smoother, not a long plane or jack.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Oct 2015)

David C":21x1a5jh said:


> How odd.
> 
> Why do we never see cap irons which conform to Baileys patent?
> 
> ...



I suspect this may have ended up in the wrong thread; I've copied the comment over to the "Bailey Style planes, thin irons and cap-irons" thread, and posted an answer (of sorts!) on page 4 of that thread.


----------



## David C (24 Oct 2015)

Thanks,

David


----------



## swagman (24 Oct 2015)

D_W":cq9yoavl said:


> CStanford":cq9yoavl said:
> 
> 
> > David, et al. with regard to Larry Williams' planes I'm simply referring to the number of users who've reported on forums their ability to plane tearout free with them. Tearout free is tearout free, unless for some reason we cannot take these reports at face value. File it in the 'everybody exaggerates on woodworking forums' file? Probably.
> ...



Hi David. Possibly a little unfair of you to only gauge the work of Clark & Williams. The following list continue to make single iron Bd planes. Apologies Derek for not including Veritas that make single iron Bu planes.


http://sauerandsteiner.blogspot.com.au/
http://www.hntgordon.com.au/ 
http://kapeldesigns.blogspot.com.au/
http://www.marcouplanes.com/
http://www.holteyplanes.com/
http://www.lazarushandplane.com/
http://www.billcarterwoodworkingplanemaker.co.uk/
http://www.andersonplanes.com/home.htm
http://www.phillyplanes.co.uk/


----------



## D_W (24 Oct 2015)

swagman":3rfwah0l said:


> D_W":3rfwah0l said:
> 
> 
> > CStanford":3rfwah0l said:
> ...



They all make nice planes, and I'm excluding anything bevel up from my comments because bevel up planes don't work with cap irons. They don't work better than planes with a cap iron, either, they are forced to work in a fairly narrow envelope (one which is fine if someone only wants to smooth).

They can only approach the tearout protection of a double iron plane either by making a tiny mouth aperture (something on the order of 4 thousandths on a high angle plane) or higher angles than the double iron plane +10%. 

The difference here is still a plane that works versus a plane that works better where better is the surface quality and the effort needed. Most people disregard effort because all they're doing is smoothing, and if someone only wants to smooth wood that's come off of a machine in good shape, the single iron design is fine. It's still not quite as good, but it's fine. 

When you back up from there, even if you have a mouth aperture of something like 1 hundredth on a panel plane, it will not control tearout. That's problematic if you expect the panel plane to work with shavings that are an appreciable fraction of the hundredth. How do I know these measurements? I've made planes at them. When I learned to use the double iron properly, the panel plane became instantly more capable. 

(some of the makers you mentioned do make double iron planes, though I don't know if they know how to use them). 

I'd even submit that single iron planes may be better for rank beginners, especially of the type who are late in life and are looking to woodworker to relax and play, and not necessarily make much. Anyone dedicating themselves to hand tool use on a large level is far better off learning to use the planes that appear more pedestrian, but that in the end are more capable of completing a volume of work in a given time or effort envelope. 

The market for any maker selling volume these days isn't experienced users, and none of the makers you mentioned knew how to use a double iron when they started, so I don't expect that the market will be filled with the most capable planes any time soon. It's too small of a market segment to make planes for.


----------



## bridger (24 Oct 2015)

D_W":1j1a5w9q said:


> ....snip....
> 
> planes with setscrews and such things.
> 
> ....snip....




The history of planemmaking is littered with dead end "innovations". Mostly they fade away into obscurity providing fodder for collectors and historians, but some small percentage survive. This includes such oddball mechanical contrivances as double irons and moveable frogs. Whether setscrews to retain cutter position prove to be worth their weight in cnc code or not remains to be seen in the long term. I have one shoulder plane with this feature. It has neither proved to be invaluable nor a nuisance, but that is not a plane that I put a lot of time on, so my sample of one is pretty much meaningless.


----------



## swagman (25 Oct 2015)

http://sauerandsteiner.blogspot.com.au/
http://www.hntgordon.com.au/ 
http://kapeldesigns.blogspot.com.au/
http://www.marcouplanes.com/
http://www.holteyplanes.com/
http://www.lazarushandplane.com/
http://www.billcarterwoodworkingplanemaker.co.uk/
http://www.andersonplanes.com/home.htm
http://www.phillyplanes.co.uk/[/quote]

They all make nice planes, and I'm excluding anything bevel up from my comments because bevel up planes don't work with cap irons. They don't work better than planes with a cap iron, either, they are forced to work in a fairly narrow envelope (one which is fine if someone only wants to smooth).

They can only approach the tearout protection of a double iron plane either by making a tiny mouth aperture (something on the order of 4 thousandths on a high angle plane) or higher angles than the double iron plane +10%. 

The difference here is still a plane that works versus a plane that works better where better is the surface quality and the effort needed. Most people disregard effort because all they're doing is smoothing, and if someone only wants to smooth wood that's come off of a machine in good shape, the single iron design is fine. It's still not quite as good, but it's fine. 

When you back up from there, even if you have a mouth aperture of something like 1 hundredth on a panel plane, it will not control tearout. That's problematic if you expect the panel plane to work with shavings that are an appreciable fraction of the hundredth. How do I know these measurements? I've made planes at them. When I learned to use the double iron properly, the panel plane became instantly more capable. 

(some of the makers you mentioned do make double iron planes, though I don't know if they know how to use them). 

I'd even submit that single iron planes may be better for rank beginners, especially of the type who are late in life and are looking to woodworker to relax and play, and not necessarily make much. Anyone dedicating themselves to hand tool use on a large level is far better off learning to use the planes that appear more pedestrian, but that in the end are more capable of completing a volume of work in a given time or effort envelope. 

The market for any maker selling volume these days isn't experienced users, and none of the makers you mentioned knew how to use a double iron when they started, so I don't expect that the market will be filled with the most capable planes any time soon. It's too small of a market segment to make planes for.[/quote]

Hi David. What are your thoughts on those that already know how to set up double iron to combat tear out, but continue to push the case for Bu Planes.

Stewie;


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (25 Oct 2015)

> Apologies Derek for not including Veritas that make single iron Bu planes.



It's OK Stewie, I gave up reading this thread a while ago. :lol: 

Regards from Perth

Derek

p.s. Veritas make not one but _two_ lines of BD planes - both with chipbreakers. Keep up the good work.


----------



## D_W (25 Oct 2015)

swagman":ufhcxto9 said:


> Hi David. What are your thoughts on those that already know how to set up double iron to combat tear out, but continue to push the case for Bu Planes.
> 
> Stewie;



I guess it's a context issue. If you're doing mostly or only smoothing, it's hard to differentiate much. Derek is the only person I know of who would fit in that category, I doubt many other people who use BU planes would learn to properly set up a plane with a cap iron, because where are they going to learn to do it? In the context of dimensioning, it's a much bigger difference. 

As I find people dimensioning by hand, like Brian Holcombe, I'm going to slip double iron planes into their hands, and I doubt many of them will continue to use their single iron planes (brian was using a low angle jack for rough work, which is a horrible choice). 

Also, most of the things provided as simplified solutions (single irons with various bevels put on them) compare against things that were originally more simple. How many different setups do you have to have in bevel up planes to plane softwoods, hardwoods, figured woods, etc. With a stanley 4, it's one setup, exactly the same every time.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (25 Oct 2015)

I have a wide variety of planes, and they all work well in different situations.

I still dimension by hand. I did so without machinery for over 20 years. That was when I purchased a tablesaw. I only purchased a power jointer/thicknesser about 5 years ago. A Jack, Jointer and Smoother still remain the standard tools, and often it is quicker to use the jack and jointer. But it is nice to use machines for the hard woods we have in WA (Western Australia). 

As many are aware, the woods we have here are highly interlocked. I am not sure why. More so in WA, which is essentially a desert. The forests extend along the coastline below Perth, and this is home to the Jarrah I am so fond of using. The trouble is that much of it is gone, and what I use today is old roofing timbers ... dry and twisted .. harder than my wife's heart. 

But I am not alone here, and many similar woods abound in Oz. It is not by chance that many woodworkers prefer handplanes with high cutting angles and tougher steels to withstand the abrasiveness of the woods. HNT Gordon are popular with 60 degree beds. They sell a lot of HSS blades.

Dimensioning wood is not a new skill among woodworkers, and was going on a long time before the double iron was understood. When something works, you use it. Not everyone is prepared to seek improvements or change their methods. 

BU planes will continue to play a central role in much handtool woodworking. A criticism here (and elsewhere) is that they just act as smoothers. Well, you know that is fine. Not everything is about taking thick shavings, and there are planes for that. For many, a high cutting angle is going to be preferred simply because it is easier to set up, and it is reliable. The finish on hardwood is indistinguishable from a lower cutting angle on a double iron. Further, one thing a BU plan can do a whole lot better than a double iron is plane end grain, such as on a shooting board. 

I also am happy to use a high cutting angle in a BD plane. Today I used a HNT Gordon Trying Plane. Yes, it takes finer shavings than, say a Stanley #7. However, on the edges I was shooting, this is exactly what I wanted, and the narrow boards really benefitted from the delicate touch this plane offers. I could have used a #7, but it was too large for the task.

Between all this are the common angle jacks and foreplanes that are both single- and double iron, and used for rough dimensioning.

And then, to complete the picture, I was planing drawer blades to which I had added a bowed section. This meant that I was planing the faces of two boards with grain running in opposite directions. A double iron was perfect to sort this out. Nil tear out. 

Working with an unpredictable material such as wood requires that one be willing to try different methods to achieve the result one desires. There is no "right" answer. There is only what works. Efficiency comes in many disguises.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (25 Oct 2015)

I wonder why the low angle stanley planes didn't catch on when the users were professionals. And I wonder why the double iron planes wiped single iron planes off the map (despite costing more) until the market was users who on average are low on the capability scale. 

Certainly there were single iron planes in catalogs, but they were to planes about the same in comparison as a soft arkansas is to a washita. A lower cost option that's not quite as good. 

Only once people were unable to use a double iron plane correctly were there so many bold assertions about single iron planes (for quite some time, those assertions were about the superiority of a "simpler plane with fewer moving parts"). 

Certainly, the concept of a single iron plane is easier to understand for a buying segment that is mostly uninterested in learning a skill that will make them more productive. That means the current manufacturers don't have much incentive to do anything other than make their planes as easy as possible for beginners. 

That's what makes me sour. 

If it's about just playing, anything works fine. That's true.


----------



## bridger (25 Oct 2015)

D_W":3uis93is said:


> I wonder why the low angle stanley planes didn't catch on when the users were professionals. And I wonder why the double iron planes wiped single iron planes off the map (despite costing more) until the market was users who on average are low on the capability scale.
> 
> Certainly there were single iron planes in catalogs, but they were to planes about the same in comparison as a soft arkansas is to a washita. A lower cost option that's not quite as good.
> 
> ...




There is an in-between here, which is the pro woodworker raised with machines. In that case, handtool skills have to be developed in a bit of a vacuum, and an easier plane is a good place to start. A block plane serves just fine here. This woodworker needs smoothers more than fore planes, and didn't necessarily learn to sharpen first. They may not see the need to progress to double irons at all, especially if they can't see the other side of the learning curve.


----------



## D_W (25 Oct 2015)

bridger":sl0p5fxq said:


> D_W":sl0p5fxq said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder why the low angle stanley planes didn't catch on when the users were professionals. And I wonder why the double iron planes wiped single iron planes off the map (despite costing more) until the market was users who on average are low on the capability scale.
> ...



i agree with that, if it's just a matter of minimal tasks, pretty much everything can do it.


----------



## swagman (25 Oct 2015)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> I have a wide variety of planes, and they all work well in different situations.
> 
> I still dimension by hand. I did so without machinery for over 20 years. That was when I purchased a tablesaw. I only purchased a power jointer/thicknesser about 5 years ago. A Jack, Jointer and Smoother still remain the standard tools, and often it is quicker to use the jack and jointer. But it is nice to use machines for the hard woods we have in WA (Western Australia).
> 
> ...



Hi Derek. Would I be right in suggesting Bu planes are less prone to chatter, as a result of their lower direction force . 

On the subject of camber, I come across this article that might interest you. 

_Therefore, I sharpen more camber into a blade for a low angle bevel-up plane than for a bevel-down plane to achieve the same functional amount of camber._ http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/297 ... lane-irons

regards Stewie;


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (26 Oct 2015)

D_W":1rx59ugq said:


> I wonder why the low angle stanley planes didn't catch on when the users were professionals. And I wonder why the double iron planes wiped single iron planes off the map (despite costing more) until the market was users who on average are low on the capability scale.
> 
> Certainly there were single iron planes in catalogs, but they were to planes about the same in comparison as a soft arkansas is to a washita. A lower cost option that's not quite as good.
> 
> ...



David, I think that you expect too much, and your conclusions are too critical.

The reason that the low angle Stanley planes did not take off is two-fold:

Firstly, the materials from which the planes were build - grey iron - was too fragile, and the thin beds had a reputation for chipping. No one wants a plane that has a short life span. Planes made today are quite different in this respect.

Secondly, low angle planes were known as block planes (regardless of their length). The name comes from planing end grain, which was their forte given that they had a low cutting angle. It was not until the new incarnation of these planes (by LN and LV) that there was any appreciation that a high bevel angle could turn them into planes for face grain (as well as end grain). 

Further to the latter point, the high bevel angle made cambering of the blade difficult. I recall debating this with Larry Williams on Knots nearly a decade ago. He was/is super critical of these planes - frankly, he is black-and-white about his likes and dilikes. We all know what he likes. (Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is what is happening at this time). Anyway, I deveoped an easy way to camber the blades for bevel up planes, and demonstrated that they are very capable - if you choose ( but not my preference) - of using them as scrub or jack planes, if you so choose. 

The argument that they work best with a fine shaving is the same argument that you must apply to anyone who planes with a wide, straight blade or single iron. The other criticism is that there is a wear bevel on the wrong side of the blade. That is true to some extent, but it is more theoretical than a practical limitation - it all depends on the wood one uses, and the compromises one decides on for the task needed. 

There are pros and cons to all tools. Take the best and use it. Ignore the what does not work for you.

Regard from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (26 Oct 2015)

I think the wear bevel thing was overblown. When that came up, I had to lee valley planes at the time, and I was perfectly happy with them except for the handles caused me significant wrist pain in heavy work (if I liked the type, that would've been easy enough to solve). 

Bridger sums it up well, there's really two cases here (aside from someone who just wants to simplify their kit, if the latter is the case, there's really nothing simpler than a single stanley 7 and stanley 4, but someone meeting bridger's description is unlikely to learn to use a cap iron. 

The other side of the coin is a user like brian holcombe, who is not using power tools. Perhaps there are some on here like that, too. What I say will resonate with him. 

(I didn't like cambering the BU planes, either, but if they were the only thing I had, I'd get used to that without issue - I tossed all of that stuff when I found how easily end grain planes with a continental smoothing plane or a stanley 4 - that is 900-1500 hardness woods).

Part of this whole thing is kayfabe, part of it shoot (I borrow those from wrestling terms). As in, I'm pushing a gimmick a little bit but in reality, I believe it's the case. I do believe that LN and LV are pretty inept about the cap iron. I have no clue what LV's official position is (and you know I think highly of Rob), but I know LN still has no clue. I'm starting to believe that LN lucked out copying stanley planes. they're nice folks, but I am just baffled by their advice. 

(I don't really know larry other than the forums, other than to know he's the only person certain of what he thinks of double irons. I can disprove all of it pretty easily, but he's closer to reality than LN. I also know that he loves to grade his oilstones all the time with diamond hones, and that is something i don't get at all. I also like when he tells george what's what. It's like watching billy ripken try to tell babe ruth how to hit for power)


----------



## Jacob (26 Oct 2015)

D_W":2icmpncs said:


> I..... there's really nothing simpler than a single stanley 7 and stanley 4, ....


Yes there is - a single Record 5 1/2. Standard issue for everybody in the bad old days and all you needed!


----------



## David C (26 Oct 2015)

Odd then that Veritas more or less copied the L-N improved cap iron?

David C


----------



## David C (26 Oct 2015)

And I totally agree with Jacob, 5 1/2 is by far the best all round plane.

David C


----------



## Jacob (26 Oct 2015)

David we must stop agreeing like this people are beginning to talk!


----------



## G S Haydon (26 Oct 2015)

David C":28hxf786 said:


> Odd then that Veritas more or less copied the L-N improved cap iron?
> 
> David C



David they have and have not . The BD plans they have been selling for years is a pressed style rather than the machined type cap iron. It's nicely made and shaped. 

I'm not sure about the custom stuff they offer but I'd assume it's a machined item as is there aftermarket one.


----------



## David C (26 Oct 2015)

True enough Graham, so did L-N.

The point I am trying to make is that the improved version works perfectly well.

I have used it for a number of years and can see no disadvantages, only advantages.

David


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (26 Oct 2015)

I reviewed the LV chipbreaker, comparing it with the LN and Stanley chipbreakers 2 years ago:

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... eaker.html

Small but important differences.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (26 Oct 2015)

I still am getting a chuckle that anyone thinks a cap iron designed by people who don't even know what it's for is an improvement. I did like many other amateurs and at one point had all "improve" design irons and cap irons, but learned over time that whatever is improved must be beginners territory. There is no functional improvement in any of the improved designs. The only thing the improved designs show is that the makers weren't smart enough to understand what they were redesigning.

I don't know what lv does, but ln's traveling sideshow sales force still tells people that the cap iron is there to stiffen the iron. Anyone been to an ln event where they showed how to set it? I doubt it, because you couldn't even set it right on some of their planes, the hole was drilled in the wrong place. I guess that's somehow an improvement, as well as replacing the very good curved front with a flat bevel that their customers can dent. The Stanley style is an ideal shape to break chips right from the start.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (26 Oct 2015)

D_W":she09vj8 said:


> I still am getting a chuckle that anyone thinks a cap iron designed by people who don't even know what it's for is an improvement. I did like many other amateurs and at one point had all "improve" design irons and cap irons, but learned over time that whatever is improved must be beginners territory. There is no functional improvement in any of the improved designs. The only thing the improved designs show is that the makers weren't smart enough to understand what they were redesigning.
> 
> I don't know what *lv *does, but ln's traveling sideshow sales force still tells people that the cap iron is there to stiffen the iron. Anyone been to an ln event where they showed how to set it? I doubt it, because you couldn't even set it right on some of their planes, the hole was drilled in the wrong place. I guess that's somehow an improvement, as well as replacing the very good curved front with a flat bevel that their customers can dent. The Stanley style is an ideal shape to break chips right from the start.



I assume that is typo - as far as I am aware Lee Valley (LV) does not do "travelling sideshows".

David, we have two separate issues here. The first is that Lie-Nielsen (LN) may be slow in picking up on the area of setting a chipbreaker (which I do believe they are), however that does not make the chipbreaker obsolete. 

I do in part agree with you that the design of the LN and LV chipbreakers can be improved (what can't), but the area that needs to be improved is the angle of the leading edge - it needs to be 45 degrees rather than 25 degrees. However, the LN and LV chipbreakers can be easily modified o meet this criterion.

Beyond this they are better than the Stanley. Why? Because the flex in the Stanley chipbreakers I have experienced (at least as many as you) makes them harder to set up. 

Anyway, I am not going to repeat the points in my review. The point of my posting here, now, is that you have to do better than rhetoric - you need to explain yourself, offer something tangible, reasons that make sense ...

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (26 Oct 2015)

Derek, I have never had any problem with the spring that you're talking about, and I've been through I don't know how many cap irons. I have had one improved design cap iron that is problematic because as you tighten the screw, the entire cap iron backs away from the edge. 

But never a stanley cap iron that moves. I have also not ever heard anyone else mention that they had a problem with that, so I have no clue what you're doing. 

The one situation where I have had caps move in odd ways is old woody irons (that have some damage to them, some tuning is necessary to make sure the area near the slot and the bottom of the screw don't have too much lateral grip to each other) and some infills (where the cap iron hole was not centered). 

I also had the aforementioned (in this thread) problem with a millers falls plane where the lever cap wasn't long enough for the end to sit on the top of the cap iron hump. That was a problem, but that has never happened on a bailey plane I've used. 

If your stanley cap iron is damaged or rusted and has the problem you're describing because the screw grips ,that's one thing. the spring itself has never caused me any issue. Let's remember who figured this stuff out in a vacuum, too, and before there was any kato and kawai video. It took me less than two weeks to have better results from a stanley plane than I could get from my almost newly made 4 thousandth mouth 55 degree infill - I was disgusted with that! It wasn't LN or LV who figured out how to communicate setting the cap, but I have been dealing with peoples opinions - people who know less about it and how it was likely used than I do, both then and now. 

My comment above was to mean that I don't know what LV tells customers (wherever they meet them), but I know what LN tells customers. I haven't ever heard anything about LV other than that I don't believe some of their research group believes it's possible to use the cap iron to control tearout in a practical way. And I didn't hear that from Rob, of course. It's a shame that people like that would be advising. 

I don't generally think lowly of LN, they've done well by me. I just think they have no clue when it comes to some things. They can certainly make a neatly made flat and square plane, they just know less about using their planes than I do. If they don't like that sentiment, that's tough. I can only assume that constantly dealing with beginners sometimes makes people cater to them rather than "expecting a little bit more", as you suggested above.


----------



## D_W (26 Oct 2015)

Jacob":249bvd3v said:


> D_W":249bvd3v said:
> 
> 
> > I..... there's really nothing simpler than a single stanley 7 and stanley 4, ....
> ...



That must be an English thing. A friend's father passed away (he's English, as was his father, of course) and he brought back his tools. A carborundum stone, a washita stone, some card scrapers, a couple of shaves, a stanley 4 and a Record 5 1/2. 

I think he threw away the stones, kept the 4 and gave me the record 5 1/2 to refurbish and refuses to take it back. Not a very sentimental guy!! 

I'd still rather have a 4,5 and 7 if I were using metal bench planes and working wood through all phases from rough.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (26 Oct 2015)

> I have had one improved design cap iron that is problematic because as you tighten the screw, the entire cap iron backs away from the edge.



David, I have gone through many LV and LN chipbreakers, and _never_ had that happen.

But I do know what you are referring to. By coincidence, I was setting up an old Mujingfang woodie today. It has a double iron (HSS blade), chipbreaker more typical of a woodie version, and set with a wedge. I had an awful time getting the chipbreaker to stay put. It would back away from the edge of the blade as the screw was tightened. 

Basically, the problem was the screw, not the chipbreaker. I placed a small steel washer between the chipbreaker and the blade, tightened down onto that, and the chipbreaker stayed put. The problem was that the underside of the screw was slightly out of square. After this mod, the plane produced the shavings expected of a closed up chipbreaker.

I have the opposite problem with the Stanley. Either the thin steel "squashes" and stretches - pushing the leading edge forward - or, the lever cap can do the same. The thicker steel of the LN and LV does not flex at the end of the chipbreaker, which means that it is reliable when setting the distance from the back of the blade. There is flex in these chipbreakers, but this is akin to a wavy washer - it just tightens around the screw.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (26 Oct 2015)

> If your stanley cap iron is damaged or rusted and has the problem you're describing because the screw grips ,that's one thing. the spring itself has never caused me any issue. Let's remember who figured this stuff out in a vacuum, too, and before there was any kato and kawai video. It took me less than two weeks to have better results from a stanley plane than I could get from my almost newly made 4 thousandth mouth 55 degree infill - I was disgusted with that! It wasn't LN or LV who figured out how to communicate setting the cap, but I have been dealing with peoples opinions - people who know less about it and how it was likely used than I do, both then and now.



David, a bit more.

That the Stanley works is not proof that it is better. It just works. But the LN and LV works better (when the leading edge is modified). 

Bringing in emotions says that you are no longer in an objective state of mind. 

As far as I can tell, LN have not altered their policy of high angle frogs to control tearout. LV, on the other hand, could simply have offered a series of high angle frogs and not included the chipbreaker - since that is how the planes were designed to be back in 2011/2 when they were conceived. However, LV decided to include the chipbreaker option, and this is what is available on the new Custom planes. They may be used with- or without the chipbreaker.

As an aside, when I purchased the LV Custom #4 smoother, I specified a 42 degree frog (this is in my review). It was a statement that this plane was be dedicated to be used with the chipbreaker. That was a commitment to my belief in the chipbreaker as a means of controlling tearout.

Lastly, a plane just for you (LN #3 which I modified by adding a #4 handle) :lol: 







Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 Oct 2015)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> By coincidence, I was setting up an old Mujingfang woodie today. It has a double iron (HSS blade), chipbreaker more typical of a woodie version, and set with a wedge. I had an awful time getting the chipbreaker to stay put. It would back away from the edge of the blade as the screw was tightened.
> 
> Basically, the problem was the screw, not the chipbreaker.



I had a similar problem once with a cap-iron screw. It kept moving the cap-iron when it was being nipped up. The problem turned out to be a very small burr on the underside of the screw head at it's periphery - a little gentle attention with a needle file cured it completely.


----------



## D_W (26 Oct 2015)

Cheshirechappie":mebxsekt said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> > By coincidence, I was setting up an old Mujingfang woodie today. It has a double iron (HSS blade), chipbreaker more typical of a woodie version, and set with a wedge. I had an awful time getting the chipbreaker to stay put. It would back away from the edge of the blade as the screw was tightened.
> ...



Thank you, my point exactly.


----------



## G S Haydon (26 Oct 2015)

No worries David C, I had almost assumed they'd come with the machined style but was actually happy enough to see they were the stamped type.


----------



## D_W (26 Oct 2015)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> That the Stanley works is not proof that it is better. It just works. But the LN and LV works better (when the leading edge is modified).



This is the part that's incorrect. I'm not making the statement that the stanley is better because it works. I'm making the statement that it is a better design, period. You seem to be in a very small minority of folks who have learned to use it and actually had it be trouble to set. 

Cheshirecappie's post above describes the only kind of thing that would cause a problem. 

Otherwise, to advocate LN/LV's type is a position that can only be made by someone who either has a small sample not representative of the overall group, or based on someone who is not at a point where they can appreciate the merits of the original:
* better fit to the lever cap with more spring
* it actually always gets to the edge of the iron in every plane
* as set up stock, it already has a desirable profile on it

When you couple with it that the "improved" designs often don't get to the irons, even though they are not a better design to start with, in practice, many aren't even usable and the user has to go to the trouble to request another. Again, because the people who designed "improved" don't even know what entry level capability is.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (26 Oct 2015)

David, that's simply rhetoric. All you say is I am in a minority because I disagree with you. You do not offer evidence or an argument "why" one is better or worse.

What you attribute to Chessirecappie was his supporting my post that the "faulty" LN chipbreaker issue was in fact due to a screw. 

When you state that they are many happy Stanley users compared to LN/LV users is to ignore that there are probably few woodworkers who have used all these planes as much as I have. The samples you want to use as proof are likely very biased in one direction or the other. In other words, there should be more Stanley users that voice improvement with a chipbreaker _simply_ because that is what they own. Stating that "because the people who designed "improved" don't even know what entry level capability is" just confirms what I am saying. Now I do know a bit about these chipbreakers, and I can discuss the pros and cons.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## G S Haydon (26 Oct 2015)

I know Derek & D_W are crossing swords heavily here but I do have experience of the LN style cap iron. As Derek pointed out in the review the LN cap iron screw is not knurled as the LV & Stanley types and it's very thin. I found it less easy to set set accurately. I've had no issue setting the Stanley or Older LV style at all. 

Considering how long the Bailey has been in production and how many professional users chose it I would have thought that Stanley would of changed it if there was a significant flaw. Or forced to by negative feedback. Various other things were tweaked over time but the cap iron concept was broadly the same.

That's not to say the LN style can't work well, it's just my planed surfaces, the setting of the cap iron or the plane in use was not improved by using the LN cap iron.


----------



## D_W (26 Oct 2015)

Derek, I still don't think you're getting it. I'm saying that you're in the minority talking about stanley cap irons moving when set because literally nobody else has ever said it's a problem. I am assuming that chappie is talking about a stanley cap iron that has a physical problem ( a burr ) that is easily corrected. 

For what it's worth, about half of the old cap irons I get have had some kind of wear or abuse that needs to be corrected. I don't describe the type as being defective because of a burr or rust pitting that ill handling has caused. 

I would bet that the majority of recent woodworkers have used both old and new types. The trouble is most of the woodworkers who have used both types recently are in the same group as I'd say are unqualified to give an opinion about what cap iron design is better. Most have probably been told that the cap iron should be thick so it acts like a thick iron. That sentiment is farce because it's dependent on a perceived flaw that comes from improper setup. That goes back to the discussion of is it more important to design a good plane, or is it important that it's good for beginners. I don't know, if I were selling planes, I guess I'd want one that was good for beginners. That gives us heavy planes that have a lot of friction and have some of the parts taken out. 

As far as you're mentioning the people who designed the improved LV chipbreaker, or LN's, who did that? I haven't read your article in a long time, and I can't say I recall ever hearing who was in charge of improved chipbreakers. 

You know more about chipbreakers than the average user. I know more about them (in terms of using) than anyone I've talked with perhaps with the exception of Warren. I have used every type in every type of plane that I can think of except the stay set, so I don't discuss the stay set type (the fact that it doesn't move as the iron is honed is not very appealing to me). i have used others in:
* chinese planes
* japanese planes
* european planes
* english and american planes (all types, improved or not - and I have used LVs, LN's, Hocks, and of course the vintage types). 

You might not like the statement that I am further ahead than you are with cap irons, but it is the case and always has been. As you recall, you were insistent when the topic came up that a cap iron is only the same as a 55 degree frog but that other angles of planes are necessary for more difficult wood. I am assuming you have revised your stance on that by now. If you are only taking thin shavings with a plane, you are not going to get the full picture of anything other than thin shavings (and the stanley cap iron leaves nothing on the table with those, either).

After using all of the above from rough work to finish, I've settled on the original stanley design as being the best design in the context of actual work, and the best to set (and most ready to work when new). 

I discount the engineered machines and discussions about "making an iron" twice as thick and all of that stuff because it is pointless in actual use of a plane that's properly set up. I'd gladly debate what the manufacturers think they know about cap irons and their use in actually using hand tools, too, but it seems exceedingly hard for them to even state what they know.


----------



## D_W (26 Oct 2015)

G S Haydon":vz2hkqpy said:


> That's not to say the LN style can't work well, it's just my planed surfaces, the setting of the cap iron or the plane in use was not improved by using the LN cap iron.



That is spot on what I'm saying. You know how to use the cap iron properly, and any perceived problem that can be marketed at you can be deflected. 

I vaguely recall the knurled screw controversy, but always tighten a stanley cap iron screw with a stanley lever cap and haven't thought further about it. Something I was also disappointed to find in millers falls planes (one of those being one where the lever cap wasn't the right length to hold down the cap iron properly - but 6 other millers falls planes have been fine) was that the end of their lever cap doesn't always fit in the screw slot on the cap iron. I don't think the fact that the end of the lever cap fits perfectly in the stanley screw is by chance). 

Most of the woody cap iron screws are smooth, IIRC, but they have a long throw of spring and too much tension to tighten them by hand.


----------



## D_W (26 Oct 2015)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> David, that's simply rhetoric. All you say is I am in a minority because I disagree with you. You do not offer evidence or an argument "why" one is better or worse.
> 
> What you attribute to Chessirecappie was his supporting my post that the "faulty" LN chipbreaker issue was in fact due to a screw.
> 
> ...



Ok, I went out and reread your article. I have not once ever set the cap ion on a stanley plane at an appropriate distance to subsequently find that under tension, it changes an appreciable distance. That's dozens of that style. It's never occurred. I have no idea what the problem may be with your iron or what occurs when you're tightening it, but using that one as a sample of one to give advice on all of them is bad form.

I have also never heard someone who knows where to set the cap iron say that's occurred with them on a stanley plane. I have heard one thing consistently once people learn to set them - that the plane works better than they ever could've imagined, and now they can spend their money somewhere else (which if one is intending to go up the ladder in woodworking is probably along the lines of carving tools and joinery and moulding planes - or wood).


----------



## G S Haydon (26 Oct 2015)

The woodies cap iron have a nice big screw so although the sides are flat you can finger tighten real nice. The LV does offer and improvement on the screw. I can add enough pressure with my fingers that hardly and screwdriver tweak is needed. However the Stanley style is still offers very easy use.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (26 Oct 2015)

David, there is an easy way of ending this silly sparing. All you need to do is describe what you consider to be important in a chipbreaker - how would you design the "perfect chipbreaker" .... from form/shape, angles, set up ability, etc. All else you write is otherwise simply opinion without substance. This discussion will continue along these lines until you define what it is should be under the microscope. That is what I write about - I give you a chance to agree, criticise, disagree, whatever. Do the same.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (26 Oct 2015)

Derek, a perfect metal plane cap iron and iron would be stock stanley bailey. If someone doesn't like the rigidity, i believe the veritas bench plane has a slightly thicker version ( I haven't used it, it's really about the only type of currently made plane I haven't used - I've used everything else, from japanese planes to planes made by terry gordon). 

A perfect cap iron for wooden planes would be a different design, exactly as the old wooden cap irons are made. they have the curved front and they are ideally designed to work with a wedge. The cap would work with an iron that is hollow along its length since the bed is wood and it can move. The hollow ensures that even if the bed moves a little bit, there will still be a three point fit on the plane more or less. The cap iron may flex the iron, but it doesn't matter, the iron is already biased hollow to begin with. 

That would be it. I'm convinced that beginners would have a little bit of a problem with wooden plane caps, as they've got a lot more spring and can require some tuning to set predictably. 

Anything different than either of those is only different. I remove broken or defective cap irons from the discussion, they're not designed to consider defects.

They are ideal because they are the closest to being properly set up, and they work as well or better than anything else in the hands of someone who knows how to use them. 

This isn't an engineering discussion, we've seen plenty of those where the "best" is supposedly differentiated in a small article outside the context of regular work. That kind of stuff is irrelevant and yields us things like heavy planes and surface grinding to .001", both of those seem nice if you push a plane a couple of times. They also yield dumb things like thick irons that only cover up deficiencies that beginners have, or plane designs that can't support an iron close enough to the edge.

I am doing just the same as you are, I have discounted the only problem you've described with a stanley cap iron because i've never seen it anywhere else. If you are the only person to have that problem, it's not something we need to use as a measuring stick.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 Oct 2015)

Just for the avoidance of doubt, my comment about the burred cap-iron screw was not intended to be 'for' or 'against' anybody's point of view. It was just a simple statement of an experience, that's all. 

The intention was to point out that some problems can be very simply solved, though the cause may not necessarily be obvious to all. I spotted the burr because half a lifetime of engineering experience has made me aware that such things happen, and a feel with a finger-end found it. It may not be at all obvious to a newcomer, especially one with not much practical experience, that such a tiny burr could cause a problem, so I thought it worth the post just to make the possibility of that particular fault more widely known. That's all.


----------



## D_W (26 Oct 2015)

Cheshirechappie":2iz4azys said:


> Just for the avoidance of doubt, my comment about the burred cap-iron screw was not intended to be 'for' or 'against' anybody's point of view. It was just a simple statement of an experience, that's all.
> 
> The intention was to point out that some problems can be very simply solved, though the cause may not necessarily be obvious to all. I spotted the burr because half a lifetime of engineering experience has made me aware that such things happen, and a feel with a finger-end found it. It may not be at all obvious to a newcomer, especially one with not much practical experience, that such a tiny burr could cause a problem, so I thought it worth the post just to make the possibility of that particular fault more widely known. That's all.



I took it exactly as you intended it. 

Do you think the burr was a manufacturing problem, or was it something where someone put a ding in it?

All but one of the movers that I have had...make that two, the second was a shepherd kit poorly made. So other than that, all but one that have moved when set have been older wooden plane cap iron sets and they are not in perfect original condition. All of those are remedied by removing grip from places that shouldn't have grip (smoothing the fit between the screw and the back of the iron, generally). 

This type of tuning is important in woodies. A woody that's got a wedge with sticky finish on it can move the cap iron on the plane since the bed and wedge have a stronger grip than the cap fit. That's also easily solved just by cleaning the surface of the cap, waxing it, and waxing the back of the iron. 

On some of the older ones, there is damage to the iron itself that needs to be filed off. 

When they're functioning, none of any type from any generation should move when the screw is tightened, and thus that whole idea should be tossed unless even one that's not in disrepair is still moving.


----------



## David C (27 Oct 2015)

How old is D_W to have acquired such an encyclopedic knowledge of planes?

Anyone who wishes to return to a standard Stanley iron has got to be crazy. The introduction of Hock irons was one of the best improvements to a Stanley plane in the last century.

I was given a new Sheffield Stanley no.5, in about 2000, shortly before the factory closed. (Given by Stanley). It is dreadful and the sole is so hollow in length that it will not plane a straight edge.

David Charlesworth


----------



## D_W (27 Oct 2015)

38 David. I've acquired knowledge of them by, well, acquiring and using them. If I get a type that I don't favor, I sell it. I went through about everything before I settled on what is the most reasonable for someone to use in a full cycle of planing (from rough lumber to finished) and eventually settled on making planes instead of buying them. Though I just can't at this point make a better smoother than a stanley 4. I'll leave the heavy "premium" boat anchors to other people (i've had most of the popular ones, and then made myself infills).

The "hock" improvement is very weak compared to just using the cap iron properly (I thought it was an "improvement" when I was a beginner, but don't now - I still have some A2 and hock carbon irons, though - just not many). The majority of woodworkers somehow think that avoidance of sharpening is a good goal, and that everything is a see through shaving (which a stanley is quite capable of without issue, even if it's just sharpened with a washita stone). I don't see any practical improvement in the alloyed or harder irons unless someone is an incompetent sharpener. I see the opposite, actually. I see irons that prefer waterstones, which are also not the improvement that they're claimed to be....except for in the hands of incompetent sharpeners. 

Using a 2000 year production stanley as proof that stanley planes are difficult to use is reaching to say the least. They probably made at the very least, hundreds of thousands until just after world war II, and aside from the small adjuster wheel on the early ones, I can't find much fault with any of the decent ones. I thought I could when I was a beginner, and I bought a near full menu of lie nielsen planes.

I've tried just about every type of chisel and every type of sharpening stone, too. Not surprisingly, since I'm not just taking wood off of a planer and smoothing it with several different planes, I've settled on chisels that professionals used as being those most practical for someone who has the skill to sharpen without gadgets and stones that need constant rubbing with diamond plates (though I still have them).

There are very few people who know more about plane design than I do, I don't cater advice to beginners with any of it. If someone doesn't like that statement (about plane design), they can lump it. I've made western wooden, japanese wooden and infill planes thus far (single and double iron in both), as well as moulding planes. 

Pay close attention to what Brian Holcombe says when he talks about using his planes in the context of dimensioning. I could tell he was annoyed by the "improvement" of A2 irons, low angle jack planes, etc, and put two properly made planes in his hands. He's working his way away from all of the "improvements", too, as he gets further along, and moving to the things people used when they actually did something other than set up all of their planes as smoothers.

(charley never believes me about having all of this stuff, either, so you have some company. Ask me about making furniture, and I can attest what time I've spent learning about tools, I haven't spent on furniture. I don't know much about it and don't pretend to, and only generally make furniture on need, not want)


----------



## CStanford (27 Oct 2015)

It's hard for one to imagine that it all wasn't a settled issue after you'd bought 'near the full menu' of Lie-Nielsen planes. 

Not sure what you're searching for D_W but good luck finding it.


----------



## D_W (27 Oct 2015)

CStanford":2ku5rrj2 said:


> It's hard for one to imagine that it all wasn't a settled issue after you'd bought 'near the full menu' of Lie-Nielsen planes.
> 
> Not sure what you're searching for D_W but good luck finding it.



Ultimately, I wanted to make my tools, I guess, and ditch the power tools. When I started to use a stanley plane in heavy work against a lie nielsen plane, it was clear that the stanley plane had less friction, was more practical to resharpen quickly, and generally made rough to finish work easier. The LN planes were heavier, flatter and quicker to shed their wax, etc, and that was that. Less work to use the stanley planes for the same result.

A similar, but larger jump occurred when I went from metal planes to wooden ones for everything but smoothing. 

I could never get what I wanted in a wooden plane until I started to build them. Part of the problem there is that it's difficult to diagnose and fix an old double iron plane if you don't know how it was made, but I'm sure now I could buy *many* old planes and make a new wedge for them and have something locked up like a vault and quiet like my planes are. 

Given it's the tools for me, charlie, and wanting to make them, i guess it's the same thing that makes you nutty for furniture - you don't need to make it, and I don't need to make tools. I have the same desire to make furniture that you do for tools. I'll make it if I need to, but most of the time, i don't really have any interest in the end result, and if I don't have a customer, then why bother? I like the planes, I'll figure out what to do with them later - it's not hard to find a place for them to go, even if you ask for the cost of materials, and I do certainly like to put them in the hands of people who are using what is effectively an awful setup for hand dimensioning.


----------



## David C (27 Oct 2015)

Well, I'm 64 and have been using planes since I was about 9 years old.

The manner in which you state your prejudices is really quite offensive. (I believe in USA quite means very) ~;-)#

There never seem to be any experiments which might give us results to support your opinions.

If you really think "the Hock improvement is very weak" you definitely inhabit cloud cuckoo land.

I published, many years ago, results of an experiment where I planed up an 8 foot by 22 inch European, air dried Beech bench top.

I needed three 1970s Stanley blades to take a finishing pass. (Alan Peters used to sharpen 6 at a time so that he could keep working). A Hock blade got the job done with one sharp blade.

I repeat Hock blades were the best thing to happen to Stanley planes, in the latter half of the 20th century. The 60 1/2 block plane would be another good example.

Generally the people who don't like A2 steel are those who cannot sharpen effectively.

I nearly mentioned James Krenov, but I suspect you don't rate him either.

The English Cabinetmakers of the last century sought infill planes to surface their difficult exotic timbers. These had thick blades, and thick cap irons. Odd eh.

David Charlesworth


----------



## mouppe (27 Oct 2015)

David C, I'm completely in agreement with you. I wish the mods would step in and put an end to his presence here.


----------



## D_W (27 Oct 2015)

David C":1p9b2g72 said:


> Well, I'm 64 and have been using planes since I was about 9 years old.
> 
> The manner in which you state your prejudices is really quite offensive. (I believe in USA quite means very) ~;-)#
> 
> ...



David, what kind of experiment would you like? Preference of professionals in use (historically or otherwise) is about as good as it's going to get. Individual experiments lead to conclusive statements on things like derek has said, where he's had an issue with a stanley cap iron that nobody else has. Or, in the case of planing, a little bit of wax and then the heaviest plane always wins. Experiments don't allow someone to deal with contrary wood or what happens once they've got a significant sweat going. A planing experiment to me is dimensioning 2 board feet of wood with two different planes on separate days and assessing how much effort it took and whether or not the results are acceptable.

Earlier this year, I finish planed a white ash bench surface with a stanley 4 with one sharpening. Of course, I approached it differently than you probably did - I set the plane for a heavy shaving with the cap iron set properly (perhaps it was 4 thousandths), and then I took a couple of passes with a thinner shaving once I had nice continuous heavy shavings (as in, continuous implying that all of the tearout was removed from the ash - something ash is definitely good at - tearing out). The double iron is more important than the hard iron. I don't use 1970s stanley blades, though (I don't like them, either, they are soft AND they leave a gummy wire edge - a bad combination), I use older blades that are plain carbon and that are available inexpensively (well, they are probably oil hardening steel and not "plain carbon" steel, but that's what people refer to now as carbon steel). I have made the comment before that if someone believes their iron is too soft, it's probably because they're not working a thick enough shaving for most of their work. I believe that, but it really doesn't ring a bell if someone is using a plane for finish work and joint fitting only. Carborundum stones existed a century or more ago, and there is nothing that would keep makers from making an iron 62 hardness - the razors were already there, and the steel was relatively clean bessemer process diemaking steel. Even before that, corundum and emery powders were widely available, and are prescribed for carvers. They would've sharpened anything if sprinkled on an oilstone. why is it that the users of planes didn't demand irons of that hardness when they were actually using planes heavily?

Certainly if I'd have taken a lot of thin smoother shavings smoothing my bench, as I have said many times, the modern irons will take more of them in a row. But it is inaccurate, I believe, to assume that someone who was working at rate would've worked that way - it takes several times as long (and much more effort). That is not illuminated until you can safely take a thick jointer or smoother shaving without using a high angle.

I have used everything you describe, I shave with a straight razor, I have never had any problem sharpening effectively. I started out only with alloy steels, and I have vials of diamond powder in my bench down to a tenth of a micron - I've played with it all, and all of it works. It's not a matter of what works, it's a matter of what works best in the context of use. Tenth of a micron diamond is not very useful when you're taking jack shavings, and it's easy to contaminate. Waterstones require care above and beyond taking the lid on and off, and oilstones require only the care of a conscientious sharpener. 

I don't know the story about infill planes. They are not that common over here, and i've read on Joel Moskowitz's blog that there was social pressure to purchase them in britain. I have made three of them and have a fourth in process that got set aside strictly because I learned to use the cap iron. Recall when you learned about it (the cap iron) on sawmill creek and said that it was one of the few groundbreaking things you've seen in decades? That was me.

I don't know that much about krenov and his tools because I wouldn't like to have most of the furniture he's made and I don't like laminated planes. When he described planes that have handles as being uncomfortable to use, then I kind of lost interest in his discussions about plane design. He's only working against several centuries of professional users there (and my own experience with mild arthritis and planes without handles)

I don't use a block plane very often, so I can't say much about what's better, but in that situation where there is no second iron to keep a plane in a cut, the modern irons are probably a significant gain. Especially since, in my opinion, a lot of the later stanley block planes are pretty shoddy. I've got two, the older is nicely made (an 18), and the newer is poorly made (a 65). 

I state my conclusions plainly because without doing it because if you don't, people literally go back to "everything's equally good" kind of mentality and "I wonder what will be new in the next catalog". Been there and done that. When it turned to sweat to start from rough wood, then you really start to be a lot more critical than that. 

I have made the comment to derek several times that talking about things (steels, planes, etc) that are important to have when you go from rough to finish...that kind of talk leaves people who only smooth with their planes behind. There's a whole other world out there beyond shooting boards and smoother shavings. It's one that has rabbet planes instead of shoulder planes, chisels instead of rabbeting block planes and router planes, and on and on.

I don't speak from shaky footing on any of it. If we were talking about furniture, and it went above and beyond relatively plain items, certainly I would be.


----------



## iNewbie (27 Oct 2015)

D_W":12nbxid1 said:


> Given it's the tools for me, charlie, and wanting to make them, i guess it's the same thing that makes you nutty for furniture - you don't need to make it, and I don't need to make tools. I have the same desire to make furniture that you do for tools. I'll make it if I need to, but most of the time, i don't really have any interest in the end result, and if I don't have a customer, then why bother? I like the planes, I'll figure out what to do with them later -* it's not hard to find a place for them to go*,



Is that a double iron entendre?


----------



## D_W (27 Oct 2015)

iNewbie":7fufig2y said:


> D_W":7fufig2y said:
> 
> 
> > Given it's the tools for me, charlie, and wanting to make them, i guess it's the same thing that makes you nutty for furniture - you don't need to make it, and I don't need to make tools. I have the same desire to make furniture that you do for tools. I'll make it if I need to, but most of the time, i don't really have any interest in the end result, and if I don't have a customer, then why bother? I like the planes, I'll figure out what to do with them later -* it's not hard to find a place for them to go*,
> ...



Oh no!


----------



## D_W (27 Oct 2015)

mouppe":23ye4yiu said:


> David C, I'm completely in agreement with you. I wish the mods would step in and put an end to his presence here.



No worries, I'm not likely to respond to very many topics like this, but I push the topic some not to troll people, but to actually get people up to try a few things and see if they might learn something new. 

If you, at any point, are thinking about getting toward dimensioning wood by hand from rough, viewed through a clear lens, you'll find some value in the things I mention. If not, then probably not.

There's a lot of talk on forums about what show to go to to get the next thing, or what plane follows what machine planer, etc, but there just really isn't much discussion about discarding power tools and how that changes desirable characteristics of hand tools.


----------



## Jacob (27 Oct 2015)

D_W":14rzya37 said:


> mouppe":14rzya37 said:
> 
> 
> > David C, I'm completely in agreement with you. I wish the mods would step in and put an end to his presence here.
> ...


We were taught to do all by hand and I did a lot by hand almost entirely when I started trying to earn a living. I still do it where I have to - e.g. some long newel posts recently -impossible through the machine easiest to do two faces by hand and the other two through the thicknesser. 
Yes it does give you a different perspective which is still useful even when your planing is only finishing after machining.


----------



## D_W (27 Oct 2015)

David C - I've got an idea for an "experiment" to illustrate one of the points I make, but it may take someone in better shape than either of us. 

Locate a vintage stanley iron (one of the oil hardening era, even better if it's laminated). Choose a modern iron of choice - A2 or O1, whatever hardness you want.

Instead of testing a plane with thin shavings, take both and find a subject wood (something that you would typically plane). Sharpen both irons identically, and then take shavings until the iron you're using will no longer stay in the cut without downpressure from you (set the double iron for this, it'll probably be necessary to get continuous shavings at that thickness if the wood isn't perfect). 

Check every 50th shaving or so to make sure they are still 5 thousandths. And wax the plane, because once you get tired, it's easy to confuse a friction situation with a metal plane you're starting to lean on with dullness - a rewax will refresh what feels like a situation of "too dull" several times, before the plane iron is actually too dull. 

Total the amount of work done, and compare that with your 3 to 1 hypothesized amount above. 

I think you will find that first, the stanley plane iron will wear you out (or whoever does it) before it's dull, and 2, the gap that exists with the two irons with 1 thousandth shavings (certainly an abrasion resistant steel will easily win this contest with 1 thousandth shavings) will not be as wide with shavings that are 5 thousandths, a more typical average worked shaving for someone doing more than smoothing. 

(Note, I have done this with specified panel areas - seeing how much panel I could get done before needing to resharpen because the iron is just too much of a bear to keep in the cut. The double iron can't be discounted here, because it causes the plane to stay in the cut longer, and it causes the shaving to remain continuous and free of significant tearout - also, thus staying in the cut). 

I have found that the gap between the abrasion resistant hard irons and the older style irons that favor an oilstone and a strop narrows quite a lot when the shaving thickness is increased. I'd be interested in knowing if anyone else has found that to be true, too. But it will not be a physically easy test.

I don't favor experiments that use things like MDF to accelerate wear, because they don't very well simulate what happens in wood that's not MDF (as in, testing disparities vs. bench use make the results inaccurate if the end goal is not just to plane more MDF).


----------



## D_W (27 Oct 2015)

Jacob":1f3yus6h said:


> Yes it does give you a different perspective which is still useful even when your planing is only finishing after machining.



It literally allows you to learn to finish plane faster but without loss in results. I wouldn't have ever believed that if I read it on a forum, but not everything is proven in forum posts. 

And from time to time, even a power tool user will have a small part that needs to be changed dimensionally a little bit, and it will be exceedingly useful there.


----------



## G S Haydon (27 Oct 2015)

I have no intention of trying to mediate this, if it sounds that way I'll say sorry now!

There are differences pointed out and I can't help thinking that we're coming at this from different angles. I've had the pleasure of meeting with David C and respect him greatly. Derek, I've exchanged messages with and really enjoy his take on woodworking. In addition CC & Jacob, I really enjoy and benefit from your experience.

My thoughts are that D_W is onto something when we talk about taking rough sawn wood to finish quality by hand. Broadly for most projects I have become to appreciate that a wooden jack & try with a coffin or #4 Stanley to smooth is a wonderful, proven and quick process. Do modern versions offer a quantum leap when used in this context? The only way to decide would be to have someone working from the rough sawn to finish with two sets of planes, heavy metal planes or wooden versions. They could then decide. This is a very specific context that, hand on heart I don't think many of us do. I'm moving further in that direction, in part, thanks to the advise from D_W and from looking at what people were using at the time. 

This should not mean that people feel they have to work that way, why should they? Enjoy whatever makes you feel good. 

David often references a chap called George Wilson, you can watch him working here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K48FezB ... n1jiXZiwh6 . I'm personally love the content, due to it's colonial setting it's likely to be similar to rural settings in the UK, not totally unlike Devon, my home . When people who have worked in this way give advise I listen because it's in line with what I'm very interested in.

I think I'm rambling now but D_W is blunt but I would resist asking to lock the thread. If it inspires a couple folks to try out wooden planes and find out for themselves then that's reason enough to keep the thread open. If anyone needs help trying to get the best from their planes I think you'll find him very helpful and knowledgeable.


----------



## MIGNAL (27 Oct 2015)

A very large part of my WW'ing is making Guitars. It's now pretty common for professional makers to employ the use of a thickness sander. I can't be doing with the noise of the machine + the noise of it's dust extractor. Over the years I've probably spent months trying to find a method of thicknessing hardwood (using a hand plane) as efficiently as possible. The answer really wasn't very difficult at all. Plane across the grain with a heavily cambered blade, fairly heavy cuts. A small wooden Jack proved to be the absolute ideal. Nothing remotely comes close to being as efficient, unless you have a very small amount of wood to plane. The last little bit (the smoothing) is really just a fraction of the work. The important bit is removing material, in a relatively tear out free manner, quickly. I haven't used a metal plane for this purpose in years.


----------



## D_W (28 Oct 2015)

G S Haydon":3d39mn02 said:


> I have no intention of trying to mediate this, if it sounds that way I'll say sorry now!
> 
> There are differences pointed out and I can't help thinking that we're coming at this from different angles. I've had the pleasure of meeting with David C and respect him greatly. Derek, I've exchanged messages with and really enjoy his take on woodworking. In addition CC & Jacob, I really enjoy and benefit from your experience.
> 
> ...




Thank you graham. I talk to george offline a lot. One of the things I couldn't reconcile with several years ago was when he said irons perform better when they're just barely fileable by a good file. That's probably about 58 hardness. The only thing I haven't been able to learn from George is double iron planes, because George wasn't allowed to use them at Williamsburg, the curators didn't believe they were common enough and everyone had to use single iron planes because of it. 

It took a more full use of the planes to understand why george (who is as fine of a toolmaker as anyone in the world) would say that he likes irons softer than most of the magazines and bloggers do. I could mention the other trades he's mastered, it'd take several lines.

It took using those irons with oilstones to find out that I was completely wrong about oilstones being outdated, and it took learning to use the cap iron to make all of it come together. 

Jacob puts it perfectly, too, that there are things you learn when you're forced to use planes to that level that carry through when you use machines for rough work. 

In any discussion, I can immediately spot the people who have done a significant amount of dimensioning by hand, they'll have different priorities. And, of course, that's who I have stuffed my planes to because I've not got a whole lot of interest in spending 10-15 hours to make a jack or try plane for someone who wants a long metal smoother with an adjuster. I've been there, that's where I started.


----------



## D_W (28 Oct 2015)

MIGNAL":3nswsh25 said:


> A very large part of my WW'ing is making Guitars. It's now pretty common for professional makers to employ the use of a thickness sander. I can't be doing with the noise of the machine + the noise of it's dust extractor. Over the years I've probably spent months trying to find a method of thicknessing hardwood (using a hand plane) as efficiently as possible. The answer really wasn't very difficult at all. Plane across the grain with a heavily cambered blade, fairly heavy cuts. A small wooden Jack proved to be the absolute ideal. Nothing remotely comes close to being as efficient, unless you have a very small amount of wood to plane. The last little bit (the smoothing) is really just a fraction of the work. The important bit is removing material, in a relatively tear out free manner, quickly. I haven't used a metal plane for this purpose in years.



Wonderfully said.


----------



## CStanford (29 Oct 2015)

May I summarize?

1. Bailey pattern planes and well-executed copies can actually be used to make furniture. Doing so predates Kato & Kawai, "George," and "Warren."
2. Boutique hard(er) steel replacement cutters like Hock extend the time between honings and work at least as well as the originals from the better vintage years.
3. If one uses planes a lot (not cycling through a perpetually rolling inventory of dozens of them) then at some point the need to obtain a replacement cutter is fairly likely. See no. 2. 
4. Some people replace cutters of dubious vintage right off the reel. They weren't all of the same quality through the years, may be pitted, or have had their temper drawn by a previous, ham-fisted owner. Maybe all of these.


----------



## D_W (29 Oct 2015)

CStanford":13mmlhck said:


> May I summarize?
> 
> 1. Bailey pattern planes and well-executed copies can actually be used to make furniture. Doing so predates Kato & Kawai, "George," and "Warren."
> 2. Boutique hard(er) steel replacement cutters like Hock extend the time between honings and work at least as well as the originals from the better vintage years.
> ...



Not a bad summary, Charlie. I'd like to have been a fly on the wall in an 1850 shop, at least to observe for a day or so.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (29 Oct 2015)

> I'd like to have been a fly on the wall in an 1850 shop, at least to observe for a day or so.



Out of curiosity, can we have a show of hands of those here who are _full time_ professional furniture makers and do not use power tools or power machinery?

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (29 Oct 2015)

Derek, a large swath of even the most notable furniture makers are not really employed full-time making furniture in that they either have their own school or heavy teaching schedules at others' schools. 

A lot of people would dearly love to be full-time furniture makers without having to supplement (count on spouse, etc.). The choice of tooling is practically moot in the context in which you've posed the question. Fully utilized, even a slightly above average amateur shop is capable of producing tens of thousands of dollars worth of furniture and other custom woodworking. The only thing missing are the orders in a lot of instances.

It's not until one has commissions stacked one atop the other that any of this comes into play, except other than for a general disposition to let machines do the grunt work regardless of whether business is brisk or not.

The hand tool forums have long lost their 'purity' if they ever had it at all -- most everything is a blended build, power tools and hand tools, and this has been the rule for over a hundred years now pro or amateur.


----------



## D_W (29 Oct 2015)

CStanford":1zmf4ftu said:


> Derek, a large swath of even the most notable furniture makers are not really employed full-time making furniture in that they either have their own school or heavy teaching schedules at others' schools.
> 
> A lot of people would dearly love to be full-time furniture makers without having to supplement. The choice of tooling is practically moot in the context in which you've posed the question.



Thank you, Charlie. The same response I was going to make. I don't personally know any full time furniture makers that don't supplement income some other way (repair and restoration, selling antiques, or more publicly on the forums "teaching classes", which unfortunately doesn't appear to have any barrier to entry any longer). 

The exception to the above where I grew up is mennonites and amish. They are working more hours and for less than most would tolerate.


----------



## CStanford (29 Oct 2015)

Maybe it's time to engage in a debate of the relative merits of Hammer vs. Robland? 

Derek? 

Should we adjourn to the power tool forum for a refreshing change?


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (29 Oct 2015)

CStanford":1vguzqiu said:


> Maybe it's time to engage in a debate of the relative merits of Hammer vs. Robland?
> 
> Derek?
> 
> Should we adjourn to the power tool forum for a refreshing change?



Yeah .. :lol: 

I gather that you have quite a bit of experience of machines - weren't you planning to return to building kitchen cabinets?

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## n0legs (29 Oct 2015)

My bed has drawers in it and the room is usually at about 16-18C, there's no damp I'm aware of. Would this be a good place for storing my planes?
Thanks in advance.


----------



## CStanford (29 Oct 2015)

I absolutely have experience of machines, as do you.

I wouldn't call it a 'return' to building kitchens since that implies I walked away from some sort of serious enterprise. And as mentioned, the investment in design software would be practically as substantial as the machines. People want to be able to see what their new kitchen will look like on their iPad while having lunch with their friends. 

This is the state of the art package, though other less expensive ones would probably do in a pinch for one's own designs:

http://www.microvellum.com/

The problem comes when a job is designed by somebody else and they want to email an AutoCad file for the bid. If you ask them to print it out for you you've lost the job before you even get to bid. They couldn't care less about what saw you use to cut the wood, but they will insist that you be able to communicate via major design software, which over here means AutoCad or a package that can read and write AutoCad files.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (29 Oct 2015)

CStanford":2f2sh9f5 said:


> I absolutely have experience of machines, as do you.
> 
> I wouldn't call it a 'return' to building kitchens since that implies I walked away from some sort of serious enterprise doing so.



I wouldn't be without my Hammer bandsaw (4400) and thickness-planer (A3-31). Beats buying in pre-dimensioned boards. I have a supplier that is an urban salvager - saves trees removed from building sites or falling down in storms. I've split a few trunks by hand, but it is not much fun at 65. The 4400 is a better number. 

Anyway, the fun is in the hand shaping, not the coarse dimensioning.

Are you still roofing? I would not have the height for that.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (29 Oct 2015)

I don't put on roofing material but I frame roofs for a couple of contractors that don't like doing them or can't hang on to the expertise needed. Shingling, slating, etc. is a separate trade and business.

Somehow I ended up with a facility for geometry that comes in handy for framing fairly complicated roofs.

I am certainly getting too old to be up top.


----------



## CStanford (29 Oct 2015)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> CStanford":1iaouhdd said:
> 
> 
> > I absolutely have experience of machines, as do you.
> ...



What are you currently doing for a tablesaw and jointer?


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (29 Oct 2015)

Charles, the Hammer A3-31 is a 12" under-over machine. Thicknesser (or planer, as you refer to it) and jointer combination machine. 

I do not see the point in going wider than 12" for the jointer as that is the maximum resaw capacity of the bandsaw.

My tablesaw is a much modified Taiwanese "Carbatec" (think Grizzly) contractor saw that I have had about 20+ years. I recently added a 3 hp motor. 

These machines have a small footprint. They stack up in the corner of my workshop/garage. Most of the available space is built around my workbench and handtools. 







This is more familiar, and more used ...






I dream of working with Walnut and similar "soft" and well behaved woods. West Australian hardwoods are like carving concrete. The only handplanes that take really thick shavings are my jacks (the scrub does not get much use anymore). This is actually the point I was starting to make early on - how many do you know really work wood the way they did in 1850?

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (29 Oct 2015)

There is an increase in the number of people doing it, Derek. That's my point. People are interested in that because they are doing this as a hobby. There are few people who really can instruct on it, or at least demonstrate it competently. Even watching Paul Sellers dimension a piece of rough stock is painful and suggests to viewers that it will take eons to do even very simple dimensioning by hand (and that is not the case. An amateur who wants to dimension by hand can easily build the half dozen pieces they will build with hand tools and not have any issues with the myriad of spooky stories they see people describe - like horribly out of square boards, varying thickness where thickness is important, etc). Sellers is more adept with hand tools than most, and I'm sure more than me, but it's clear watching him that he does not do much hand dimensioning. 

I haven't bought pre sized lumber since a year after I started woodworking. 

An instructor at a local woodworking school here, the typical type of school that teaches a lot of sharpening and dovetailing type things, said that he's got about a half dozen students who want to learn to do all of their work by hand. How many do you think would stick with it? I think maybe 1 or 2 would be a good shot, but that's a single city. There isn't anything out there for those folks that really is practical except sweat equity. I suggested to the instructor that i could teach him to do it, and I could teach him to make planes of the style I make, but he's hoping I will do it. I don't really get into that sort of thing, i'd rather find the person who's already interested in it (like holcombe or chris griggs) and put the appropriate tools in their hands. 

(I almost forgot about Bob Rozaieski - I don't know the guy, though, he apparently doesn't use power tools). 

Who else will I be able to have that discussion with? The fact that David C. thinks that I'm as far off base as he apparently does on tool items makes it clear to me that he's never done any of that type of work in volume, and the concept of quality of tools seems to start at the 1970s, which is unusual. I can tell by his preferences, as many others, who is just taking almost entirely smoother shavings. 

And that's all the bulk of people will want to do. The few who really want to do everything and who are able bodied will lunge around in the dark for a while using things like heavy metal planes for all steps, bevel up jacks, etc, and they're running with a parachute attached. So be it.


----------



## CStanford (29 Oct 2015)

The lure behind the notion, at least, of doing it the 'old' way comes from seeing furniture like that shown in this well-worn link:

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/D ... bindex=18#

And then we realize that they made of lot of it to boot (granted with labor). 

Probably all explained by eleven hour days six days a week and those days spent with your head down working and not flitting around. Plain hard work.

We OUGHT to be able to match their production by using machines but even seasoned professionals don't seem to be able to do this when considering some of the price book studies floating around. In other words, even with machines today's professionals appear to still be slower.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (29 Oct 2015)

David, I have serious doubts that there are significantly more people working without machines. I do believe that there is an increase in handtool work, as I see an increase in woodwork generally. However - especially where I live - very few use handtools to the extent I do, and it is a rarity that handtools are used at all.

At my local woodwork club, I frequently give live demonstrations of building furniture and joinery. At the last one, where I was demonstrating "Coarse, Medium and Fine", the audience perked up when I told them about CBN wheels. Other than that, I could have been from Mars. 

There are two wood schools in Perth. One - aimed at beginners - has just begun to include handtools, but they have really little clue what they are doing. It is a joke. 99% is done with stationery and hand machines. The other school teaches at a high level, and about 20% involves handtools. 

You visit the Australian forum frequently, and so you know what the level of expertise is among those that use handplanes. There are other forums - one that Charles visits (unless you have been n=booted off that one as well, Charles :lol: ). There are very few who have much of a clue about using planes, and simply purchase them to be a member of the club. That's OK by me. Whatever floats your boat. Mostly, it is guys working with pine and other extremely softwoods, building very simple constructions. The interest in "extreme woodworking" is tiny.

None of this suggests to me a significant movement towards handtool-only woodworking. Most definitely, if you were a pro, you would be seeking efficiency, which lies with machines. 

Charles, the sites you link to show very high-end work, and it just is so way beyond the average woodworker. I get more discussion here about my builds than even on WoodCentral, and especially on SMC. They are read but no one comments and discusses anything. I do not consider what I build to be more than that of a decent amateur, but clearly it either is of little interest to the formites on those sites, or it is too complex to discuss. 

Now I am not talking down handtools - you should know me better than that. I am also not knocking what you have pushed by way of the double iron - I think that this is a significant contribution. What I have been saying for a long time is that the middle ground is always going to attract most, and that this is where it is likely to stay ... unless you can sweeten the pot with more honey than vinegar. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (29 Oct 2015)

Charlie, I agree. I'm talking to someone who already showed us a sweaty picture with a jack plane. The truth of hand dimensioning is somewhere in the middle. It's not as fast as machines, but it's not as slow as it's demonstrated to be by most. 

The notion that nothing can be made doing it, or that lumber has to be near perfect to start is something that is easily disproven by what is probably the best work ever done - but I'm sure it was done with some pain involved by those bearing the brunt of the heavy work. 

As hobbyists, we're lucky that we can count it as exercise and stop doing it if it hurts. 

I'm slowly dumping all of my machines, but I will likely keep the thickness planer. It's hardly worth anything to anyone else, and there's always a chance that someone will need something I don't want to build out of some wood that I don't really want to work. The rest of the work other than thicknessing doesn't really take that much longer with hand tools, and in the opinion of a growing few, the process is a bit more stimulating. 

Derek talks a lot about this (the hand dimensioning) as being arduous from the point of view of someone who is working woods that not many people are working. It makes his point of view relevant to them, but to someone like me and most people in the eastern and midwestern US, there is no particular shortage of wood that is easily worked by hand, and without much expense. The trade is more like oak for cherry or maple for cherry. 

Derek aside, when other people suggest you can't build anything if you rip with a hand saw or face joint a board with a hand plane, I always say "you can if you're actually good at it and you want to". There's an intersection there with people who describe an early 1800s plane as an antiquated design for backwards people (not sure I've heard that here, but a friend of mine who is as power tool as power tools can be is convinced that the older plane designs are useful only to induce suffering. I gave him a try plane. He's looked at it a lot, I'm sure. I'll bet it's still very sharp).


----------



## CStanford (29 Oct 2015)

At the end of the day we pushed out cap irons down a little more closely and relaxed the mouth aperture a little. People were achieving quality finishes by working with tight mouths and a relaxed cap iron setting (but by no means way back). I've gone back to the latter because the planes seem easier to push and I get good quality off a scraper when one is necessary. This latter approach 'feels' right, feels more like orthodoxy. And you can't plane everything with a No. 4 either so you'd better have another strategy, right?

Pendulums swing too far. 

And there's little if anything about cap iron settings not covered in Planecraft decades ago.


----------



## CStanford (29 Oct 2015)

David, I've hand dressed a hundred board feet (+/-) of lumber in a one day from roughsawn material to final thickness with one edge shot and one end squared but I was just destroyed and completely ineffective the next day.

I used a wooden jack. 

I was taking 4/4 rough to 13/16 which is not a lot of lumber to remove. No doubt the old guys did not make a habit of planing 5/4 lumber down to 3/4. That of course would have been stupid and wasteful.


----------



## D_W (29 Oct 2015)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> David, I have serious doubts that there are significantly more people working without machines. I do believe that there is an increase in handtool work, as I see an increase in woodwork generally. However - especially where I live - very few use handtools to the extent I do, and it is a rarity that handtools are used at all.
> 
> At my local woodwork club, I frequently give live demonstrations of building furniture and joinery. At the last one, where I was demonstrating "Coarse, Medium and Fine", the audience perked up when I told them about CBN wheels. Other than that, I could have been from Mars.
> 
> ...



Certainly, I am not out to attract numbers. Which I think is where the confusion lies. I'm looking for what Fred Rogers used to often say "simpler, deeper". maybe it was straight razor shaving that got me on this, I don't know. That was another instance where something seems incredibly difficult at first, and after a few months, it's as if it was meant to be. 

I think there's probably room for about 1% of woodworkers to work entirely by hand. that's probably about the same as the number of people who really want to learn anything about design. As you say, you can do as fine of work as you want, but most people are satisfied to watch you do it. 

When I put up videos about making double iron planes (something I'm almost certainly going to have to redo at some point), I thought that if there were five people looking for the same thing over 10 years, it was worthwhile. Where else will the information come from? I certainly am not interested in pump and dump of the subject (publicize it and then charge people to learn it and basically abandon doing it). 

I have no idea if five people will ever build the type of plane. Most will watch the videos, tire of them in five minutes and build a laminated plane. And they'll probably set their laminated plane aside and buy a different plane, that's the nature of the hobby (that is, if they stick in the hobby at all). 

I had the wrong idea about dimensioning wood by hand. Even a lot of the more recent texts written in the last 75 years aren't very good at describing the subtleties, they're more prescriptive. I'd suggest to people dimensioning furniture and cabinetry by hand that most shavings should be through shavings, I've never seen that in type until recently, and now I can't remember where I saw it. That's contrary to what everything recent says - but if you go back far enough, you find texts where that is what is instructed. And it's not a surprise to me that that is the case. 

Every once in a while, Warren will drop a hint like that, but it's here and gone in a breeze with no explanation. As sparse as the receptors are for such things, I guess that's just the way it is. I'm not going to attract anyone to do things the way I like to do them, it's like playing the lottery. I will, however, foster the interest in anyone who has it, perhaps only at this time by talking about things that will specifically appeal to the few working by hand, or placing planes in places where I think they will be appreciated. 

Certainly, I'm not going to go to the trouble of making a double iron try plane, and then give it to someone who only smooths. It'd be a waste, they'd never understand just how spectacular the type is. 

Maybe out of all of this, what I'm most annoyed about are the exchanges with David C. I started with all of his DVDs, that's the kind of thing you do when you're working in a vacuum. I literally took notes from his sharpening video and had a sharp iron the first time I ever used a tool. In certain things, I've moved *past* them, which I doubt he would agree with. The fact that he instantly discounts anything I mention is a bit annoying, I guess because I have such high regard for him for springing me, as a beginner, past things that hang so many people up. I also know that he learned to use a cap iron to reduce tearout, because he literally put it in print on SMC, so I'm curious as to why he'd think that's good advice but nothing else is relevant - by delivery, probably, and partially as a matter of a "case has been closed on this for 30 years" philosophy. I think there's more out there for people who want to do "extreme woodworking" as you describe it, and as jacob perfectly put it, there is value in what you learn, even if you stop doing the extreme part.


----------



## D_W (29 Oct 2015)

CStanford":21qgnttd said:


> David, I've hand dressed a hundred board feet (+/-) of lumber in a one day from roughsawn material to final thickness with one edge shot and one end squared but I was just destroyed and completely ineffective the next day.
> 
> I used a wooden jack.
> 
> I was taking 4/4 rough to 13/16 which is not a lot of lumber to remove. No doubt the old guys did not make a habit of planing 5/4 lumber down to 3/4. That of course would have been stupid and wasteful.



That's a significant amount of wood, and most hobbyists wouldn't do that much dimensioning in two days with machines. I'm impressed, I've probably never done half of that in a day. 

But I make more things now than I did when I was using power tools, and I certainly have less waste and fewer mistakes. 

As a pro, you can build those things into a budget, but you astutely pointed out such things are hypothetical in the first place, because you actually have to find a pro who can keep a customer base so that they don't end up putting beginner's class advertisements on craigslist, or take a job teaching basic woodworking at a local trade school.


----------



## D_W (29 Oct 2015)

CStanford":38vtybtt said:


> I was taking 4/4 rough to 13/16 which is not a lot of lumber to remove. No doubt the old guys did not make a habit of planing 5/4 lumber down to 3/4. That of course would have been stupid and wasteful.



I'm sure this is going to go over the head of most, but there is something more attractive about minor variations in dimensioning when it's skillfully done. 

I'm mired in the early mornings reading through hasluck's book on carving, and as things used to do, half of the book is on design and taste rather than just what tools to buy and what gadgets to put them in to sharpen them. Those types of variations, and discussion of life are just the kind of thing i'm looking for, and it seems very few people are. You'd enjoy what he says about carving and sanding. 

Derek uses the term extreme woodworking, it makes it sound like someone is doing wheelies or getting dehydrated and wearing a camelbak. I'd just call it, simpler, deeper - a practice where a hobbyist is 100% involved in working the wood as opposed to setting up machines, etc (certainly there is some tool setup, etc, but it's less).


----------



## mouppe (29 Oct 2015)

Windsor chairmaking is still largely a hand tool preserve. You might see a bandsaw for roughing out the chair, but that's about it. 

Most of my work is done with hand tools, but I am lucky in that time is not an issue for me. The building where I have my workshop also does not permit machine noise, so I have to work in a way that suits the building bylaws. I do have a thickness planer in my garage at home, and a Festool tracksaw and jigsaw which I use for rough cutting timber. But even power tool users will probably have to use hand tools at times, for example if their panels are too wide for their jointers, flattening a workbench, etc. So it's always important to have the hand tool skills whether you use them frequently or rarely.


----------



## CStanford (29 Oct 2015)

D_W:

I have Hasluck.

13/16 might sound like some certain level of accuracy but really it's not. You have to gauge a line somewhere. Again, pendulums swing too far. People over-exaggerate the supposed degree of 'variations' in period work -- yes, on relatively coarse forms. No, on the real stuff. I don't think anybody, ever, skillfully and purposefully introduced 'variations' in stock prep as some sort of design feature (leaving carving tool marks is quite another matter and worthy of discussion on its own). To the extent they are present on straight woodworking they just happened as a result of a myriad of factors like economics, skill, relative importance of the commission, etc.

Watch the YouTube series The Extraordinary Thomas Chippendale (in four parts). The level of accuracy, fit, and finish is breathtaking. Makes almost all the rest look like total pikers. I'm afraid the best the U.S. had to offer at that time did not come close.


----------



## D_W (29 Oct 2015)

Charley, what you're talking about is what I mean. I don't mean leaving something looking sloppy on a show surface, I mean close examination of a piece showing that perhaps some of the parts vary a little in aspects that do not affect how things look. 

I am not a fan of crackle finishes and shabby chic type things, or inaccurate for the purpose of art. 

It is only a matter of how they are present when you work to a marked line instead of extracting calipers , or perhaps when the top or bottom of a piece is left an eighth thicker than the sides because it is practical. 

It's not the kind of thing that's communicated well on forums, I suppose - who knows? That's why we get discussions of people arguing about 4 thousandths in a mortise and tenon, and about how accurate hand tools are or aren't. We expect to have no gaps on joints regardless of what's used, but who would know what the hand tool is doing in thousandths? It's not important. what's important is the skill of the maker to get pieces together as a matter of fitting. If a rail on one side is 2 hundredths wider than it is on the other, then it doesn't matter- our eyes see gaps in joints, but we eliminate them not by making sure every piece is within a thousandth all the way along. (which is how one of my power tool friends works - his planer has a dial indicator on the table, he's not ever been able to master finish planing, so he's got whatever you call those rotary carbide heads - everything and there are calipers all over the shop. Every plane includes autocad with all measurements converted to thousandths of an inch). Everything is square, curves are extremely rare and only cut based on similar measurement standards and with a router template of some sort. It makes my head hurt.

The variations issue is the same as the carving tool marks discussion. if they are there and not intentionally put as kitsch, they are lovely. If they are exaggerated, then the work looks fake and contrived. The carving marks discussion would be a great one to have. In hasluck's opinion, a carved piece that is sanded is one that has been ruined unless it is part of cheap furniture.


----------



## CStanford (29 Oct 2015)

Using aperture to control tearout by Jeff Gorman. Hard to argue with the results on maple:

http://www.amgron.clara.net/shavingaperture53.html

File it under 'more than one way to skin a cat.' We have adjustable frogs, why not use them?

"Some authors write that the cap-iron breaks the shaving and therefore reduces its effective length as a lever. *However, a thin 'beam' will bend before it can do much levering...*"

True statement.


----------



## D_W (29 Oct 2015)

CStanford":2xj4fyx3 said:


> Using aperture to control tearout by Jeff Gorman. Hard to argue with the results on maple:
> 
> http://www.amgron.clara.net/shavingaperture53.html
> 
> ...



Definitely true. You have to get to that point first, though. I actually tried the mouth aperture first. In production. It's OK as long as you're only smoothing. 

If you're doing more than that, it takes longer than just using the cap iron and taking advantage of the best bedding situation (which is the frog flush with the casting at the back). 

If the tiny mouth was important, the old infills would all have mouths of a few thousandths. So would the wooden double iron planes (they more like a 16th, which has benefits in chip escapement and to some extent shows the skill of the maker rather than just leaving the mouth wide open).

So the short answer is, the cap iron is faster and ultimately less work, even in a situation like he shows. Planing a large chip through a narrow mouth provides a feel like driving a car with the emergency brake partially on. Setting the cap iron right does not substantially increase pressure (it's uncommon to have to go that far that the cap iron is really smashing a thick shaving back into the surface). It's clear that the guy doesn't do much more than smoothing if he thinks the cap iron has no effect, it's an easy trap to fall into. 

(I thought when i was completing the second infill with a 1 hundredth mouth, I really had the world by the tail. Then I used it, and found it still allowed a fair amount of tearout, which is more harsh on the user than a smooth cut without tearout. And it leaves more work at the smoothing step. At the same time, if the smoothing step can be done first with a shaving of 3 or 4 thousandth, backing off depth then and making a pass or two of very thin shavings is easy. If you start with appreciable tearout and have to make a whole bunch of very thin shavings, it's more work).


----------



## D_W (29 Oct 2015)

That guy would have to stop to sharpen more often, too (several times more often). I just read his complete thoughts on the chipbreaker. He's in the weeds, but it's just smoothing,right? You can be. If it takes 2 times as long his way, and twice the effort, it's still a small part of a given project. 

He suggests that the cap iron doesn't have any effect at 3 thousandths, which is definitely not the case - you don't need a broken chip to see if the cap iron has had an effect, rather a straight one (but it has some effect even before that).

I could settle this in person pretty quickly, Charlie, just in terms of speed, but short of that, I can't argue against everyone who has no clue how to use a cap iron. It's the same as being told that stropping doesn't improve an edge and being sent to brent beach's site. I pulled a piece of maple out for the same local instructor who would like me to construct a class to use double iron planes, and planed it with a stanley with a cap iron and with a fat shaving, and then a thin one. He was shocked, it doesn't translate without seeing it in person. I can't imagine that it wasn't done when time was money.


----------



## CStanford (29 Oct 2015)

He may be in the weeds in your opinion but the wood apparently didn't get the memo.


----------



## D_W (29 Oct 2015)

CStanford":2xvafsdc said:


> He may be in the weeds in your opinion but the wood apparently didn't get the memo.



There's nothing particularly difficult about the piece of wood he showed (it's maple - that problem becomes much harder if it's softer wood or quartered wood with damaged earlywood from improper drying). It's damaged from a power planer, but that's about it.

He restricted himself to a mouth of 3 thousandths, so he can't take shavings thicker than a fraction of that. If he backs off to a plane with a mouth of a hundredth to help, he'll create tearout that he has to take several fine shavings again to remove. 

If he took a couple of 5 thousandth shavings with a double iron, the worst he'd have is a few fuzzy areas that need a finer shaving, because the pressure of the chip was lined up directly into the growth of the wood. 

Like I said, if you don't care about time, that's fine. I've been there and done that before. I doubt he could do the same work in double the time that I'd do it, and it doesn't address what he'd do to avoid that much damage to the board in the first place.


----------



## CStanford (29 Oct 2015)

You can lead a horse to water...


----------



## D_W (29 Oct 2015)

CStanford":2o8uoyi4 said:


> You can lead a horse to water...



I get the sense that you think there's something about that website that would improve or make easier/faster, etc whatever I'm doing? That's incorrect, I've already been down that road, but you can believe it if you want.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (29 Oct 2015)

n0legs":1kc9r6h9 said:


> My bed has drawers in it and the room is usually at about 16-18C, there's no damp I'm aware of. Would this be a good place for storing my planes?
> Thanks in advance.



Yes. Warm and dry - perfect. Seeking prior approval from Domestic Authority (if appropriate) would be advisable to prevent unscheduled relocation of planes to somewhere colder and wetter, though.


----------



## D_W (29 Oct 2015)

Cheshirechappie":2sbwxq2x said:


> n0legs":2sbwxq2x said:
> 
> 
> > My bed has drawers in it and the room is usually at about 16-18C, there's no damp I'm aware of. Would this be a good place for storing my planes?
> ...



Oh my, I missed that. Unscheduled relocation to cold and wet indeed.


----------



## woodbrains (29 Oct 2015)

Hello,

There are definitely more than one way to skin this particular cat. I have made and seen others make, (we made an exercise of doing it) planes that could plane directly against the grain without tear out utilising no cap iron effect and all narrowness of aperture. It is plain daft not recognising the fact. One of the best planes I ever encountered was a Steve Knight smoother, copy so a non adjuster Norris. No other plane in the workshop could match it for tear free finish, and it did so entirely with narrow mouth, as the user did not raise the importance of cap iron effect. In fact the aperture was so small, the cap iron probably could not be set close enough to gain much in the way of cap iron effect. Smoothers are for smoothing, we never need them to take more than 2 thou anyhow.

Mike.


----------



## D_W (29 Oct 2015)

there seems to be a lack of diligence here if anyone sees my saying that it is not as fast or as quick as using a cap iron to mean that it doesn't work to make a narrow mouth. 

The first fine plane I ever made has a mouth of 4 thousandths of an inch. It's pretty good planing almost anything. It's just a slower process than using the cap iron correctly, because what you can get through it is limited. 

If you proceed upward to 1/100th of an inch, though, you are no longer able to plane against the grain without tearout. The aperture has to be tiny, and it limits your ability to do anything other than take many small shavings. The two infills I've made that are full size (I have made smaller) are 4 one thousandths and 1/100th at the mouth, respectively. it's very easy to see the difference between the two. 

If you have good wood, then all of it's moot - you just plane with any plane with the grain.

The fact that you can get away without learning to use the cap iron properly is probably why so few people are able to do it properly, but it's to your detriment if you do much more than taking tiny thin shavings all the time, because the close aperture isn't as good as that, and it thus takes longer to get to the same point.

What's missed in this discussion is that it would've been cheaper and easier with a wooden plane to just slip something into the sole (an insert, etc) if that was a better answer when people actually used planes for more than smoothing. Almost nobody did that, the double iron showed up in droves with a mouth aperture much larger than what is needed to control tearout. 

Why does anyone think that might have occurred? To buy a more expensive plane, almost universally instead of sticking with a single iron and closing the mouth? It occurred due to economics, the thing that drove people to eventually abandon hand tools. Probably even labor costs - a relatively new user who learns the double iron can become more productive than someone who is working with mouth aperture, probably in a couple of weeks. A person who is feeding wood into a planing machine can do that more cheaply than either of the two former.

When the economic decision is a much more expensive plane, it should suggest something to us now, but it seems like it's over the head of everyone except for a select few who expect to get a little bit more out of a plane than the ability to sandwich a 2 thousandth shaving through.

As you say, you can't have a four thousandth mouth and a cap iron set sub 100th of an inch. It's incompatible. What won out in practical use was the double iron. Decisively. 

Now we're crediting surface ground or hand scraped planes, incessant filing of the mouth of a stanley plane to try to make it so that we could even have clean support at the front of the mouth and all of these other "improvements" that only have the effect of forcing us to work more slowly than we would work if we just learn to use the double iron. 

They all work. They don't all work equally well when you examine them more closely.


----------



## CStanford (29 Oct 2015)

D_W":1uhi3k33 said:


> CStanford":1uhi3k33 said:
> 
> 
> > You can lead a horse to water...
> ...



Like I said David, I see tearout and I see tearout gone. And then I read narrative from an experienced woodworking telling me how he accomplished it. It's information worth digesting. I'm not sure what in your mind constitutes 'going down a road' but I have a feeling it differs vastly from most people's definition.


----------



## D_W (29 Oct 2015)

Charlie, I guess you're skipping words. That's fine. Been down that road means I've done exactly that already. If it was better, I'd still be doing it. It's not, definitively, so I'm not.

"someone experienced" doesn't amount to much if the statements are incorrect already in the article (implication that you see cap iron work at 30 thousandths but not 3). It's sort of like saying "David C is certain that the hock iron is one of the greatest improvements in the last half century. George Wilson tells me that an iron works best when it can just barely be filed". 

Two very different things. You're forced to actually try the various options and decide for yourself. Or just pick one, but you can't very well make a definitive statement about which is better if you don't actually try both in earnest. 

I believed the small mouth aperture was better for about two years. What sent me looking for more was the fact that it was pretty crappy at the try plane stage of things. That translated, as Jacob described, to things that improved the speed - and for the unfortunate shelving of my expensive-to-make smoother - the results, too. The results were fine with the aperture when smoothing, the speed was not that great. 

There may be two or three people who actually learn to use the cap iron properly and see some light. For the rest of the folks, over and out.


----------



## CStanford (29 Oct 2015)

Maybe it would be helpful if you could put your comments about 'speed' into some sort of context. None of this makes any sense to me given the relatively mild wood we work. Unless you are just butchering the wood with jack and jointer you shouldn't need more than a few passes with a smoother. You should be more or less at the gauged line with long plane and then remove just a bare little bit with the smoother and then you're done. A lot of time the surface from the jointer plane should be just fine and maybe all the smoother is doing is barely nipping a little hair.

Sump'n ain't gee-hawing out here in TV land....


----------



## Jacob (29 Oct 2015)

I just sharpened two blades - a Hock (made in France) and Clifton. 
The Hock took a very long time to do and I had to resort to a coarser stone to get to a burr (then back to finer). I'd say this renders it unusable for a free hand sharpener working hard* who doesn't resort to a bench grinder every time. 
I don't know what the Clifton blade is made from but it sharpened a lot easier.

*nb confession - I wasn't working hard - just fiddling about in the workshop.


----------



## D_W (29 Oct 2015)

CStanford":1ly23yx2 said:


> Maybe it would be helpful if you could put your comments about 'speed' into some sort of context. None of this makes any sense to me given the relatively mild wood we work. Unless you are just butchering the wood with jack and jointer you shouldn't need more than a few passes with a smoother. You should be more or less at the gauged line with long plane and then remove just a bare little bit with the smoother and then you're done. A lot of time the surface from the jointer plane should be just fine and maybe all the smoother is doing is barely nipping a little hair.
> 
> Sump'n ain't gee-hawing out here in TV land....



That's accurate. 

The try plane does relatively more, and is where the greatest speed benefit is. If you're working wood like the picture you showed with rhe planer damage, it won't be 2 or 3 thin passes.

Still, the try plane loses the most if you forgo setting the cap in favor of a tight mouth.

Speed context is of more importance on a case than a music box, too (speaking in volume of work and not the finished item)


----------



## Jacob (29 Oct 2015)

n0legs":2ouh6paf said:


> My bed has drawers in it and the room is usually at about 16-18C, there's no damp I'm aware of. Would this be a good place for storing my planes?
> Thanks in advance.


Be OK as long as you have no incontinence problems and there is a damp proof membrane between your sleeping body and the drawer.
I once spent a hard winter in a caravan. Spring arrived - I lifted the mattress off the bed there was a damp profile of a weird old tramp on the hardboard over the drawer beneath! It'd be a miracle if it had done my planes any good - might as well keep them in a pond.


----------



## Kalimna (30 Oct 2015)

Hmmm, Jacob the Carpenter? JC? Good grief man, you're the second coming! 

Adam S


----------



## CStanford (30 Oct 2015)

D_W":2gwx5hjx said:


> CStanford":2gwx5hjx said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe it would be helpful if you could put your comments about 'speed' into some sort of context. None of this makes any sense to me given the relatively mild wood we work. Unless you are just butchering the wood with jack and jointer you shouldn't need more than a few passes with a smoother. You should be more or less at the gauged line with long plane and then remove just a bare little bit with the smoother and then you're done. A lot of time the surface from the jointer plane should be just fine and maybe all the smoother is doing is barely nipping a little hair.
> ...



You see I'm usually more worried about being able to remove defects (twist, cup, etc.) within the material I have available to go from say 4/4 rough to 13/16 or 7/8. More times than not I wish I had a little more breathing room, so the last thing I'm worried about is each plane in the series taking as big a bite as it otherwise physically might be capable of taking. I don't really get your methods of work as they appear to be so different from what I've experienced whether by hand, machine, or a combination of both. It may very well be that the ability of a smoother to take a greedy shaving and produce no tearout is evidence of a superbly tuned (or superbly manufactured) plane, but, still, at that point in the process I'm not looking to take a greedy shaving. There's no room. Insasmuch that an inch is an inch I'm doubtful that hand tool woodworkers of the past were looking to use a smoother to take comparatively rank shavings, either.

Removing an eighth of an inch of material (or so), in total, more or less distributed equally both sides is more ticklish than it is anything else, assuming the goal is a board out of wind and close to or at planned thickness. A tight(er) mouth certainly doesn't disrupt the flow or process in any way that I can tell - especially at the jointer/smoother stage if you've let the jack do its work.

I'm not sure that we can pick and choose the information we glean from the past. The old guys remouthed their planes, even ones with double-irons. I have a Marples wooden smoother with a double iron that has been remouthed (probably several times). It was used so much it has the impression of the craftsman's fore and middle finger on the right hand side of the plane, and thumb on the left side of the plane. I don't use this plane. My intention was to use it but when I saw the finger impressions I set it on a shelf.


----------



## D_W (30 Oct 2015)

Charlie, I've got a lot of used planes that haven't been remouthed. I wouldn't normally buy them (the planes) in that volume, but I figured if I bought them right and I was going to try to make my own planes, one of the dumbest things I could do is go cheap on the subject tools and end up making a plane that wasn't better than what I could buy. I've been down that road in the past, too.

Of all of the planes I bought, one was remouthed, two were opened (very sloppily, almost as if they were done with a rasp and then filed smooth), but most were left alone. One of the things larry talks about is slowly conditioning the soles to keep the mouth in order. On a double iron plane, you don't have to work the sole unless there is twist in the plane that occurs over time, so all but the most abused of double iron planes I've bought and seen have been with original mouth - some of them so lazily made that they abutments were cut all the way through to the mouth (later ones), which creates a very ugly plane. 

Anyway, I doubt that we work that differently. If I have a board that has twist, I remove the high corners first (not by planing the entire board, but just by removing the high spots). I hope that by the time I've jacked the corners away (or used the try plane if the board doesn't need a jack plane), that I've got a board that's already flat and clean and that the try plane and then smoother don't have to do much. I would be surprised if that was more than 1/8th inch on many boards. Hidden in there is the ability to use the try plane to take quite a lot at a time without tearing out. I try to work after the jack at 80% of what I could do, which is often shavings of 7 or 8 thousandths (in stuff like cherry, a couple less than that if maple/beech/ash), and not that many until a board if flat to the bench top.

The point is that all of this is easier if there is *no* or nearly no tearout. Whatever small amount the try plane might leave is literally removed in one or two heavy smoother shavings, never more, or you threaten flatness or if working to a mark, thickness. 

It just isn't quite as fast with a small aperture because you have to work a thinner shaving and you're dealing with a little bit more tearout until the final stroke. 

I don't leave the mouths on any of my planes really wide open, but when I make one - especially a jack, if I can feel resistance after I make it, I will open the mouth until I don't. It does provide some protection at the jack step, but not really routine tearout protection, more disaster avoidance.

if I had to pull a number off of the top of my head, I'd say the cap iron doesn't really reduce anything at the jack step, that's more a matter of reading the board, but over the process if the wood is anything less than perfect, it's probably a labor saver of 20-30%. You can smooth with a good surface until clearance of the iron is gone, same with the try plane - it will stay in the cut much longer (more volume of wood removed) than a similar plane type of single iron. It's true the single iron is a little faster to resharpen, but when that happens twice as often because the plane doesn't stay in the cut, it's a net loss. 

I provided a couple of planes to brian holcombe and suggested all of this stuff. I'll see what he says, he's working entirely by hand. He already made the remark to me several times that with the try plane set, he can tell that it's getting dull but still get it to begin a cut cleanly and stay in the cut and leave a surface that doesn't have nick lines in it. These kinds of subtleties are a pain to discuss on the forum, because everything becomes a straw man. I'd be able to prove what I say in person pretty easily, but to address something that derek asks, what exactly am I trying to sell? Nothing, so i'm certainly not going to put together a huckster wagon to go prove a point. Anyone ever in my area is welcome to stop by.


----------



## CStanford (30 Oct 2015)

I've become lost about what point(s) you're trying to make.


----------



## AndyT (30 Oct 2015)

CStanford":1bjjo9k7 said:


> I've become lost about what point(s) you're trying to make.



That's hardly surprising!

In my reckoning, the question of *how to store handplanes* was answered, politely, in the first two pages, back in 2011!!


----------



## D_W (30 Oct 2015)

CStanford":1b1pgoue said:


> I've become lost about what point(s) you're trying to make.



Plane design and method of use that actually gets the most work done with the least effort. 

It's not much of a discussion when the "experts" do nothing but smooth wood and are certain that they know more about plane design than people who actually used them for a living. Thus, as they say in shark tank, I'm out.


----------



## JonnyW (30 Oct 2015)

Sorry - how do you store handplanes again!?

Jonny


----------



## MIGNAL (30 Oct 2015)

Start here, it tells you everything that you need to know: 

how-to-store-handplanes-t50760.html


----------



## iNewbie (30 Oct 2015)

And not a mention of a LN or Veritas sock.


----------



## D_W (30 Oct 2015)

JonnyW":q2ajs6jm said:


> Sorry - how do you store handplanes again!?
> 
> Jonny



Use them often, and most of the things people are plagued by with tools they don't set eyes on more than once every 3 months pretty much go away.

And use oilstones.


----------



## JonnyW (30 Oct 2015)

D_W":18f3z97g said:


> JonnyW":18f3z97g said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry - how do you store handplanes again!?
> ...



Well said my man.

Although, I must admit, I thought you were also going to say 'and use sun screen'.

Jonny


----------



## D_W (30 Oct 2015)

JonnyW":eqbl06tl said:


> Although, I must admit, I thought you were also going to say 'and use sun screen'.
> 
> Jonny



Well, if you're a bodger working shirtless in a treeless forest, that might be a need, too!


----------



## CStanford (30 Oct 2015)

D_W":i3nbqyda said:


> CStanford":i3nbqyda said:
> 
> 
> > I've become lost about what point(s) you're trying to make.
> ...



As I said in an earlier post the standard six days a week, eleven hours per day work-week explains the vast majority of it. They worked their a$$es off. To be sure, a few little trucs here and there help a little but that's about it.

Put 66 hours a week in month in and month out doing anything and you'll get better at it and if it involves physical labor, get into better shape as well.


----------



## rkboston (1 Nov 2015)

Interesting thread. 
I am hobbyist hand tooler with a bandsaw that is used for re-sawing. Chipbreaker stuff really converted me to old stanley planes. I started with fancy planes and I am steadily moving toward woodies. I am fit and can plane all day long, but I find light weight agility of old Stanley pre-bedrock planes very satisfying. 
I just read an article by Jeff Miller in Fine Woodworking about jack planes and it seemed that he probably uses his planes mostly for smoothing and his recommendations were disappointingly for a $350 LN and $260 LV planes. When I started a couple of years ago I bought $30 Millers Falls, sharpened it and it was fine for everything I needed without any fettling or ruler tricks or what not. 
With more experience it seems to me that what most publications or major vendors recommend are at odds with my preferences or conclusions as a handtools only woodworker. I find that what D_W recommends to be more of a my cup of tea. I am an engineer though and usually like to think about what worked and what did not and do not mind taking a hard way to practice some basic skills.


----------



## G S Haydon (1 Nov 2015)

I read that one too. The article seemed geared around a plane to cover all bases. In most shops I guess that is mainly smoothing and fine adjustment with a few heavy passes now and again. I was preparing some boards this evening and actually grabbed a cheap Pinie plane that I'd not used yet. Its light weight was very much appreciated!


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (2 Nov 2015)

G S Haydon":1qkbqwa5 said:


> I read that one too. The article seemed geared around a plane to cover all bases. In most shops I guess that is mainly smoothing and fine adjustment with a few heavy passes now and again. I was preparing some boards this evening and actually grabbed a cheap Pinie plane that I'd not used yet. Its light weight was very much appreciated!



Jeff writes good articles, and in this case did do a lot of comparisons. However I found it interesting that the planes chosen were #5s - jack planes - and no where, at any time, was there a recommendation, or even a suggestion, to prepare the blades with a camber for hogging. The planes were only used with a straight blade ala smoothers. There are obviously many who do not like the idea of the #5 as a "jack of all trades" - quite literally, that is, they will use it for only one task - something that ranges between a longer smoother and a shorter jointer. However, this is not the forte of the #5, which is more typically used as a rough plane with an 8" radius blade - or is so in my workshop. Indeed, a flat sole is not needed, and this factor could have changed the results completely. As a result, the article seemed to miss the point for me.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (2 Nov 2015)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> ...... There are obviously many who do not like the idea of the #5 a a "jack of all trades" - quite literally, that is, they will use it for only one task - something that ranges between a longer smoother and a shorter jointer. However, this is not the forte of the #5, which is more typically used as a rough plane with an 8" radius blade -....


I see a 5 as a general purpose plane for smaller work. The difference between it and the 5 1/2 jack plane is quite noticeable.


----------



## swagman (2 Nov 2015)

The timber your working with will determine the best approach. As Derek has previously mentioned; a power jointer and thicknesser to prep the stock for final smoothing is a preferable option when dealing with some of the Aussie Hardwoods. 

Stewie;


----------



## D_W (2 Nov 2015)

rkboston":cawsqree said:


> I find that what D_W recommends to be more of a my cup of tea. I am an engineer though and usually like to think about what worked and what did not and do not mind taking a hard way to practice some basic skills.



Thank you for posting that thoughtful comment, too, from the standpoint of someone working most or all by hand. 

Some would argue otherwise, but getting good with the planes in more aspect than one (and chisels, too, and drawknives, etc) is something that will carry over to general work and make certain problems very easy to handle. 

I think one premium plane is good for everyone working in a vacuum. It's debatable about what it should be. If someone wants to go from there and get all premium planes, so be it. I'd bet that there would be a statistically significant difference in the opinion of the dimensioners vs. others.


----------



## D_W (2 Nov 2015)

swagman":kg3fwxhm said:


> The timber your working with will determine the best approach. As Derek has previously mentioned; a power jointer and thicknesser to prep the stock for final smoothing is a preferable option when dealing with some of the Aussie Hardwoods.
> 
> Stewie;



If I regularly worked woods in excess of 1800 hardness, I probably wouldn't consider working completely by hand, either.


----------



## David C (2 Nov 2015)

No one who works professionally, in their right mind, would do without planer thicknesser and bandsaw at the very least. (Except for museum type workshops like Collonial Williamsburg)

This fashion for reproducing the past, everything by hand seems a bit bizarre to me.

David


----------



## D_W (2 Nov 2015)

David C":xgo2o35c said:


> No one who works professionally, in their right mind, would do without planer thicknesser and bandsaw at the very least. (Except for museum type workshops like Collonial Williamsburg)
> 
> This fashion for reproducing the past, everything by hand seems a bit bizarre to me.
> 
> David



It's a hobby for many of us. It's not a matter of fashion, it is literally a matter of choosing what you want to do and then doing it. There is quite a lot to be gained by doing at least some dimensioning by hand. What you learn goes right over the head of people who don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Bm101 (2 Nov 2015)

Is there not room for everyone to do what feels right for them? I'm a windowcleaner by trade and an abseiler. Im about as good as you can hire. I say that with total honesty. Really. I'm _mustard_ at what I do. Would I consider buying one of them Karcher aoutomatic window cleaning squeegees at John Lewis? http://www.johnlewis.com/karcher-wv5-pr ... mcampid=73 8) 
And yet, when I come on here I'm looking for advice. I'm aware i know F*** A**. Thats why Im here. To learn off people who have the experience and who can show me better ways to do stuff I'd like to learn how to do to a good standard.
I wouldn't get confused about listening to someone in a pro workshop with tools that I'll never need as a hobbyist diyer. My interest (and limitations financially mean that buying bandsaws and such) are just not an option Then again I'd like to think that if someone wanted my advice I'd be glad to give it as long as it was taken with respect. So i' always listen with respect to those who earn their wage doing this. I honestly don't see the battle.
Surely it's all about different parameters.
It's too easy to get rooted in whats right or wrong. 
The one answer solution. Life don't work like that.
What suits you works for you. If it dont work for someone else then where does the problem lie?
Long live the sharing of knowledge not the hoarding of it. 

Cheers and Regards
Chris.


----------



## bugbear (2 Nov 2015)

A while ago on a gardening forum, a respected professional said he didn't see the point of stainless steel tools (he was a hard landscaper and paver), and advised accordingly.

After a friendly discussion (watch and learn, boys) he realised that a professional, using a shovel, fork or spade daily on gravel and sand is never going to have the rust issue of someone who uses their tools less frequently.

So, surprisingly, it's the part timer who needs the posh stainless steel tool.

Context is all; there is never (or extremely rarely) a universally _correct_ answer.

To me, one of the joys of a forum is finding out just how many different solutions there are.

BugBear


----------



## G S Haydon (2 Nov 2015)

bugbear":2egrs3jk said:


> To me, one of the joys of a forum is finding out just how many different solutions there are.
> 
> BugBear


----------



## G S Haydon (2 Nov 2015)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> G S Haydon":18nwfzp6 said:
> 
> 
> > I read that one too. The article seemed geared around a plane to cover all bases. In most shops I guess that is mainly smoothing and fine adjustment with a few heavy passes now and again. I was preparing some boards this evening and actually grabbed a cheap Pinie plane that I'd not used yet. Its light weight was very much appreciated!
> ...



I'm in the same boat as you here Derek. It struck me Jeff appreciates the #5 as David & Jacob appreciate a #5 1/2. A good all rounder. I think Jeff is of a smaller frame so I guess a #5 is less effort to use perhaps.


----------



## swagman (3 Nov 2015)

David C":3nbv3snq said:


> No one who works professionally, in their right mind, would do without planer thicknesser and bandsaw at the very least. (Except for museum type workshops like Collonial Williamsburg)
> 
> This fashion for reproducing the past, everything by hand seems a bit bizarre to me.
> 
> David



_This fashion for reproducing the past, everything by hand seems a bit bizarre to me._

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=adam ... JmKOZAM%3A :shock: #-o


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Nov 2015)

The old chippie I worked with years ago deemed 4s and 5s site planes and 4 1/2s and 5 1/2s workshop planes - because of the weight, which might have been an advantage in a 'shop and a disadvantage when carrying around.


----------



## David C (3 Nov 2015)

I have heard this one too. Makes sense.

David


----------



## Cheshirechappie (3 Nov 2015)

swagman":gfoayyuq said:


> David C":gfoayyuq said:
> 
> 
> > No one who works professionally, in their right mind, would do without planer thicknesser and bandsaw at the very least. (Except for museum type workshops like Collonial Williamsburg)
> ...



I rather miss Adam Cherubini's contributions to the woodwoking press. He had some really interesting insights into the tools and techniques of a couple of centuries ago, and whilst I wouldn't have done what he did, I did rather admire his willingness to completely immerse himself in the ways of that time. Sometimes, simple techniques get forgotten as technology marches on, and rediscovering them can be useful for the modern woodworker.


----------



## bridger (5 Nov 2015)

As a woodworking pro I use whatever tools will get the job done. While I have machines to do many tasks that in times past might have been done by apprentices with hand tools, I am completely open to the idea that especially for small jobs a hand tool could be faster and produce a better result than a machine. In fact, I relish the thought.


----------

