# Myths & Mysteries



## Jacob (4 Jun 2012)

Paul Sellers at it again: http://paulsellers.com/2012/05/myths-an ... revisited/
http://paulsellers.com/2012/05/more-on- ... mysteries/
http://paulsellers.com/2012/05/more-deb ... mysteries/
and here - pointing out that pine is best for workbenches http://paulsellers.com/2012/06/perfect- ... t-benches/

I agree with (almost) everything he says!

I think more and more people are waking up to woodwork 'reality', as though they are coming out, one by one, from a mass hypnosis trance!


----------



## Gerard Scanlan (4 Jun 2012)

I (almost) agree with you Jacob  . Only joking I think you are bang on.
Paul Sellers is a trully generous man, he really wants to help people learn how to work wood with hand tools.
I have learned a lot from his writings and video's and am looking forward to his workbench build tutorial.

Gerard


----------



## Racers (4 Jun 2012)

Yawn, come on Jacob its been done to death, there is more than one way to skin a cat.


Pete


----------



## Jacob (4 Jun 2012)

But if you were skinning cats for a living you would almost certainly end up ignoring 99% of the other ways.


----------



## Racers (4 Jun 2012)

I'm sure you would tell me where I was going wrong.

Pete


----------



## Corneel (4 Jun 2012)

A small detail on which I don't agree with Sellers. In Europe, beech was used a lot for workbenches. Probably for the same reason. Beech was plentifull and cheap, because it wasn't of much use for furniture making at that time, nor for anything outdoor because it fauls so quickly.


----------



## Argus (4 Jun 2012)

.

At the risk of putting my head over the parapet, there are woodworkers who can work wood and writers who can write, but seldom both together in the same personage.

And whilst I agree with much of what Paul says once I've worked out what it is, ............... he's very good at the former.


.


----------



## Jacob (5 Jun 2012)

Corneel":30tbdldu said:


> A small detail on which I don't agree with Sellers. In Europe, beech was used a lot for workbenches. Probably for the same reason. Beech was plentifull and cheap, because it wasn't of much use for furniture making at that time, nor for anything outdoor because it fauls so quickly.


Well yes, anything reasonably tough and available in big pieces will do for a bench, so cheap beech would be spot on for the top beams, but redwood has taken it's place.


----------



## snikolaev28 (5 Jun 2012)

Hello Cornel!

I should disagree with you regarding beech as material for bench making in Europe.
I'm living in Ukraine and we have a lot of beech, but the price is enough high.
For example 1 cubic meter of pine (transport humidity - 16-18%) - 1300-1400 UAH and 1 cubic meter of beech 5000 UAH (175 USD for pine and 625 USD for beech).
Feel the difference!

And moreover, almost all beech has been exported to Europe. So in my big city Dnepropetrovsk (more than 1 million habitants) I've found only 4 salesman who sell hardwood, local hardwood, of course.


----------



## Corneel (5 Jun 2012)

Yes nowadays Beech is a valuable material. But say, a hundred years ago, not so much. Beech is a lively wood that fauls easilly in the wet. Not so desirable for furniture or buildings. Since the Scandinavian fashion of light colored furniture, beech became much more desirable.

I can usually buy beech at 1400 euro /m3. While pine or spruce runs about 600 euro/m3. So beech isn't extremely expensive and because it is available in large sizes without the pith of the tree, it is still a good choice for a workbench. Large sized pine or spruce often had the pith in the middle and is thus cracked and warped all over the piece.

My own bench is made from spruce. It holds up fine.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (5 Jun 2012)

I was told when at school (45yrs ago) that the reasons that beech is used is that it is stable, reasonably damage resistant (hard) and above all that there is very little spring in it, so there is no "give" when chopping huge mortices etc..
With very few people doing work of any weight (in that sense), what the bench is made of is probably of less importance now.


----------



## Benchwayze (5 Jun 2012)

Gerard Scanlan":28858aqx said:


> I (almost) agree with you Jacob  . Only joking I think you are bang on.
> Paul Sellers is a trully generous man, he really wants to help people learn how to work wood with hand tools.
> I have learned a lot from his writings and video's and am looking forward to his workbench build tutorial.
> 
> Gerard



Gerard, 

I am sure you are right in your assessment of the man.

But chopping a mortice with the stock held in the vice; and using a bevel-edged chisel to do it? 
I would have earned a clout around the ear from my woodwork teacher for either of those sins. 

I know there are many ways to do things, (I HAD to use bevel-edged chisels until I could afford mortice chisels.) But there are some things that will forever be of the 'No-No' variety.
Abusing a woodwork vice in such a way is definitely one of them. That's my opinion of course, but no one would persuade me to chop a mortice like that.

:wink:


----------



## AndyT (5 Jun 2012)

I'm with you there John on the mortising technique. It's odd, isn't it - I too have been following his blog since Jacob first drew attention to it and a lot of it makes refreshing sense. But I would much rather rest the work on a firm surface and use a deep mortice chisel, or at least a firmer with square edges, to avoid twisting. If he means it as a way of showing that you don't have to have a lot of specialist tools, you'd think he would leave out the vice.


----------



## woodbloke (5 Jun 2012)

Benchwayze":19ixtkht said:


> I am sure you are right in your assessment of the man.
> 
> But chopping a mortice with the stock held in the vice; and using a bevel-edged chisel to do it?
> 
> ...


I haven't read these particular words of wisdom and have no intention of doing so, but if this is what's being advocated in the blog, then it's even more reason not to. If a mortise is being chopped, the job should be on top of the bench and even then cramped to the most solid part, which is directly over the leg. The correct position to stand to cut the joint is then at the end of the bench so that the chisel can be gauged accurately for vertical, assuming of course that the bench surface is horizontal...which of course all our benches will be, won't they? :wink: - Rob


----------



## AndyT (5 Jun 2012)

Well, that's at least three of us in agreement that mortising in the vice is NOT the best way to go. I wonder if Mr Sellers is reading this and will want to give an alternative view of why he likes it?


----------



## jimi43 (5 Jun 2012)

Or you could use a rock wall! :mrgreen: 

Jim


----------



## Gerard Scanlan (5 Jun 2012)

Dear John,

I hear what you are saying. However Paul Sellers is showing how he does it, how he would like his students to do it, but he is not ordering anyone. Although I could understand some people might find his style has that air. Like all teachers/instructors he tries to introduce clarity and exclude noise by explaining how he does something quickly and effectively what works for him and not explaining every variation on the theme. I do not agree with/like everything Paul does/explains but so much of it makes perfect sense that I learn from what he says more that get wound up by him doing things in a way that is different from me. He hates honing guides. I think the Keil guide I have is terrific. Perhaps if I had been taught to sharpen by hand by my wood work teacher at school I could have managed to learn to sharpen without training wheels. But after years of struggling I am now producing razor sharp edges. At the end of the day it is about getting a really sharp edge very quickly so that you can get back to cutting timber. When I watch a video of a Japanese craftsman planing towards himself I do not think - what an silly person that's not how you do that- I go wow so that is another way to do that. Why should I get annoyed by a homegrown master cabinet maker when he does things his way. I find his blog really entertaining and his videos are not only brilliantly instructional I find his dry sense of humour very funny too. I reckon Paul Sellers is the Peter Kay of woodwork (presentation). That is where the comparison stops of course because Paul works a lot harder.


----------



## Benchwayze (5 Jun 2012)

This is where I got it gents. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPBkO2chZxk

I think he mentions the vice IIRC.

Gerard, 
I'm not suggesting that PS is an silly person for doing things his way. He works in ways that he has found suits him. 

But to me, it is just anathema to maltreat a vice, by using it to hold timber in which you are chopping a mortice. As Rob says, it should be clamped to the bench, and over the leg is the best place. That way the force is absorbed by the leg, and you get maximum result for minimum effort. No need to bash away as if you are digging an escape tunnel! 

Hope you see what I was getting at.


----------



## Paul Chapman (5 Jun 2012)

Benchwayze":3jj8wwid said:


> This is where I got it gents.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPBkO2chZxk



I've just watched that and reckon it's a rubbish way to cut a mortice & tenon joint.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (5 Jun 2012)

woodbloke":1ffkd40k said:


> ...... If this is the measure of the man, .....


I don't think it _is _the measure of the man. Nobody is perfect!
He'd still get good marks overall compared to most of our modern writers and woodwork circus performers - many of whom are severely over-rated IMHO.


----------



## Gerard Scanlan (5 Jun 2012)

Hello John,

I understand what you are saying. Perhaps the arument for using a vice is based on the working height as the work bench puts the work piece higher up. Paul later shows how to stop the workpiece from slipping. Using the vice did not instantly appeal to me either, I usually drill out mortises and then clean them up with a chisel. At least you can disagree with him without insulting him. Not a gift everyone on this forum/thread has mastered. 

Gerard


----------



## Phil Pascoe (5 Jun 2012)

That's the way you chop a mortice with a b&d workmate and a random selection of someone else's tools.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (5 Jun 2012)

Benchwayze":2aj0f9ln said:


> But chopping a mortice with the stock held in the vice; and using a bevel-edged chisel to do it?
> I would have earned a clout around the ear from my woodwork teacher for either of those sins.


I don't see any real problem with the demonstrated technique John-- maybe the vise could have been belted up a bit tighter at the beginning, but that's about all. It was only a dinky little mortice suitable for something like a piece of furniture. I've done the same or similar myself many a time over the decades with a bevel edged chisel, and in a vise. It's all easy enough to control and with enough practice keeping everything lined up and vertical is quite easy. 

Now, if your plan is to knock seven bells out of a big lump of green or air dried oak for a barn or wood framed building with a mortice chisel and hulking great mallet I'd agree with you-- fix it all down on top of the bench over a leg or something.

I don't whack my students around the head for doing what Paul Sellers did in his video by the way. In fact, it's possible I'll have shown them that technique or something very similar some time in the past, ha, ha. Slainte.


----------



## DTR (5 Jun 2012)

Gerard Scanlan":23wkyz3f said:


> I hear what you are saying. However Paul Sellers is showing how he does it, how he would like his students to do it, but he is not ordering anyone. *Although I could understand some people might find his style has that air*.



I started reading Paul's blog after seeing him at Cressing Temple, but stopped reading for this very reason. I certainly respect his craftmanship (and I agree with many things he says) but I find his writing very "holier than thou"


----------



## Benchwayze (5 Jun 2012)

Sgian, 

True, the joint he's cutting is no major undertaking. By hand though I'd still rather do it cramped to the bench; with a good piece of Marples Morticing steel. (His mallet is okay though-but.) Like I said, we all have our ways. I was taught, that what he is doing there amounts to abusing the vice. So, I'll just beg to differ on this one.

As for the whacks around the head, I am going back to the early nineteen-fifties of course and I appreciate no instructor could, or would, go that far these days.


----------



## Jacob (5 Jun 2012)

I'd do it flat on the bench but with no cramp.

I don't think he's _that_ "holier than thou" : some appalling examples spring to mind such as St Jim Krenov and his pseudo mystical ramblings - and a much less competent woodworker to boot (just an old hippy with a router. :roll: )
Though St Jim had the edge in design, which I think is Sellers' weakest link. But then a lot of our circus performers are weak in this way. Worse; many don't seem to make anything at all from one year to the next! Doesn't stop them pontificating on.
Sellers is just a bit blunt - he's from oop narth remember!


----------



## Sgian Dubh (5 Jun 2012)

Jacob":smkk9eqv said:


> Worse; many don't seem to make anything at all from one year to the next! Doesn't stop them pontificating on.


You've got me there Jacob. I haven't made a darned thing worth a toss for myself or paying customers in a while-- I'm too busy helping students get their stuff made to get anything interesting or entirely of my own done. Still, it doesn't stop me pontificating and generally talking cobblers from time to time on forums. And when my course closes in a couple of years and I'm out of a job maybe I'll have to start getting productive again. Slainte.


----------



## Jacob (5 Jun 2012)

That's OK Richard I wasn't thinking of you! 
Er, I'd better not say who I _was_ thinking of.


----------



## woodbrains (6 Jun 2012)

Hello,

I've a big problem with Mr. sellers. If you post yourself on Youtube, showing methods of work, you are in fact assuming the role of teacher. Therefore you should not show methods which are idiosyncratc to yourself WITHOUT some sort of disclaimer stating that this is not the best way, or classical way of doing something, but an expedient or a convenient shortcut. You should not cut a mortice in a vice! You do not chop one with bevel edge chisels. You might get away with it. But one of his disciples might not realise this and try to chop a house door frame mortice in an oak stile. He or she won't know that tickling a bit of scrap as in the video is not the same. And since his vice would be screwed rather weakly into a pine top, probably knock the thing loose from its fixings. Or is that a failsafe--the screws fixing the vice failing before the mechanism is damaged or the cast iron cracked? I can't see why you would not support the work on the benchtop, it's right there holding the vice off the floor! Better still, use a morticing stool. If you do not have mortice chisels, then don't chop them. Bevel edged chisels don't want too much of a pounding, won't track as straight as square sided chisels and won't be sharpened for optimal chopping. Drilling out the waste first and then paring the rest IS perfectly acceptable, will be speedy, accurate and give better results, so why not show the best way to make a mortice with bevel edge chisels?

I'm afraid the people here who seem to justify everything by stating that there is more than one way to do something correctly are making a poor assumption. Yes, there can be one or two alternatives to do the same operation well, but there are hundreds more which are flawed and these should never be promoted as some sort of instruction. Please, we should only promote methods which are best practice to those who want to learn and let them find their own expedients later. Starting with the slap dash will never help those who want to do good work acheive it, and it is unfair on them putting them under a disadvantage from the start.

Incidentally, Jacob, being offensive to other craftsmen does not help promote the mediocre ones you seem to find yourself aspiring to. If you want to make utterly unfounded comments about Jim Krenov, be sure that people who knew the man a little bit are not reading. If you actually want to learn something about him, rather than just hurl insults form a point of ignorance, just ask me.

Mike.


----------



## bugbear (6 Jun 2012)

Benchwayze":27eojlmx said:


> This is where I got it gents.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPBkO2chZxk



Interesting. He works towards the ends of the mortise BEVEL side first, which is traditional Japanese practise, and also advocated by J. Maynard of the renowned Shoreditch technical college.

On workpiece fixing, I reckon the little old Stanley vices would take some beating, at least for this purpose:







Herewith from a 1920's catalogue:






BugBear


----------



## Jacob (6 Jun 2012)

bugbear":39ch0bbi said:


> ...
> Interesting. He works towards the ends of the mortise BEVEL side first, .....


You'd have to with a bevel edge chisel - it'd jam in tight if you tried it face side forwards, as with a mortice chisel.


----------



## Jacob (6 Jun 2012)

woodbrains":1l2zco49 said:


> I've a big problem with Mr. sellers. If you post yourself on Youtube, showing methods of work, you are in fact assuming the role of teacher. Therefore you should not show methods which are idiosyncratc to yourself WITHOUT some sort of disclaimer stating that this is not the best way, or classical way of doing something, but an expedient or a convenient shortcut.


Surely not. there's all manner of loony woodwork nonsense on Youtube. Caveat emptor innit! In any case what about those who _don't know_ that they don't know "the classical way" etc? You yourself recommend drilling out waste first. Many would say that this is an amateurish and slow way, unless you are doing big mortices 1"+ in oak. In any case anything which is a_n expedient or a convenient shortcut_ is surely a good thing? The classical way (if there is such a thing) would surely be the best _expedient or a convenient shortcut_.


> ....
> Incidentally, Jacob, being offensive to other craftsmen does not help promote the mediocre ones you seem to find yourself aspiring to. If you want to make utterly unfounded comments about Jim Krenov, ....


Based on what I have read, I stand by what I say. He says it himself one way or another - very defensive in interviews and continually referring to himself as an amateur etc. I do credit him with producing some pretty little objects ("tobacco cabinets" ?) but he didn't do a lot did he?


----------



## monkeybiter (6 Jun 2012)

YouTube is a useful and free depositary for all manner of video, but I think someone would be a little foolish to put too much faith in a source that lies alongside dogs on skateboards and happyslappers. YouTube has succeeded by hosting idiosyncratic behaviour for all to gawp at, you can't protect everyone that may be gullible enough to believe without question everything they are told.


----------



## woodbrains (6 Jun 2012)

Jacob":37s1w20b said:


> woodbrains":37s1w20b said:
> 
> 
> > I've a big problem with Mr. sellers. If you post yourself on Youtube, showing methods of work, you are in fact assuming the role of teacher. Therefore you should not show methods which are idiosyncratc to yourself WITHOUT some sort of disclaimer stating that this is not the best way, or classical way of doing something, but an expedient or a convenient shortcut.
> ...



Jacob, You cannot even read a post correctly. If you only have bevel edge chisels you would not chop but drill then pare. I have mortice chisels and would use these to chop. Neither ways are amateurish, both use the tools correctly and give good results. I also have a slot morticer, a hollow chisel morticer and a router; all of which can be used to make mortices. But I do them in a fit manner for the work, the tool, my safety, etc. etc. I would not, for instance, chop dovetails with registered mortice chisels. Some things just should not be done.

I have come across many vices with crumbled threads in the cast iron, I have seen joiners on site break BE chisels by chopping with them and I have seen more benches than I can count, with the fixings torn out or loose jaws with maltreatment. This cannot be defended by anything other than bloody mindedness.

And Krenov, as I have said before, meant AMATEUR in the real sense of the word. i.e. for love. He always promoted doing ones best work and could not stand shortcuts and bad practice. Deriding someone who did good work is more than a little churlish.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (6 Jun 2012)

woodbrains":jmdnbyeq said:


> ....
> Jacob, You cannot even read a post correctly.


No need to be churlish - FFS look at the thread. :roll: Sellers is chopping with a bevel edge chisel. Not good IMHO but better than drilling and paring your way!


> ......
> 
> And Krenov, as I have said before, meant AMATEUR in the real sense of the word. i.e. for love. He always promoted doing ones best work and could not stand shortcuts and bad practice. Deriding someone who did good work is more than a little churlish.
> 
> Mike.


No it isn't churlish. St Jim isn't beyond criticism. He went for shortcuts and bad practice - particularly those bridle jointed panels. Nothing wrong with being amateur but he meant it in the normal way i.e. untrained. I don't think he knew too much about conventional trad woodwork.


----------



## woodbrains (6 Jun 2012)

Jacob":u8v8ssv0 said:


> woodbrains":u8v8ssv0 said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



In fact, JK was trained by Karl Malmsten, a fine and noted maker who was also an admirer of the British Arts and Crafts movement even before it found favour in Britain. He was also a trained wooden boatbuilder, so there was probably nothing of any worth about traditional joinery that JK did not know about. Also, AMATEUR was always meant in its literal sense; there are plenty of writings referencing the same if you could be bothered reading and understanding them. I also know this to be the case from some of the conversations we had.

The bridle joint has a much greater glue area than a mortice and tenon and since both members are sawn rather than chopped have a finer and closer fitting glueable surface. With normal PVA they are at least as strong as mortices and tenons and we tested them to destruction to prove it. This is the wrong forum to talk about such things, however, but if you like I will give you a few pointers in the techniques section as it is clear that you are sadly lacking.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (6 Jun 2012)

woodbrains":19lgb6ak said:


> ...... This is the wrong forum to talk about such things,......


Why on earth not? But I don't think I'll bother. Too much churlishness and bad temper showing already. Some people just can't hold a grown up conversation. :roll:
PS I've no objection to your being churlish about Sellers and I reserve the right to be churlish about St Jim, but you yourself should try to restrain your churlish inclinations - it makes for tedious and bad tempered threads.


----------



## Gerard Scanlan (6 Jun 2012)

I am a fan of both Krenov and Sellers.  
I am equally interested in what people like and dislike about their work and methods.
A good discussion is what this forum is all about. 
It is a pity though when people start calling others names that is where the usefulness of the forum stops. :roll: 
Aren't we the odd balls? I mean we discuss woodworking on a forum with people we have usually never met and probably never will. (hammer)


----------



## monkeybiter (6 Jun 2012)

Gerard Scanlan":3fx75yi6 said:


> Aren't we the odd balls? I mean we discuss woodworking on a forum with people we have usually never met and probably never will. (hammer)


And still, unfortunately for everyone concerned, potentially talented and knowledgable contributors to the discussion cling to their egos and resort to adolescent ramblings and remarks sooner than simple factual discussion or dignified silence. It's a recurrent shame.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (6 Jun 2012)

=D> =D> =D> =D> +1 !


----------



## Jacob (7 Jun 2012)

Paul's bench secrets revealed here http://paulsellers.com/paul-sellers-blog/
Surprise surprise it's exactly the same design as mine (and several thousand other trad english benches)!
It's a very functional bench and easy to make with cheap materials (redwood). Only 13 components; 4 legs, 4 rails, 2 top beams, 2 aprons, one ply board to close the well.

Here's my version in the back of these snaps post691271.html#p691271

Double sided is good; at half time (30 years or so) you can just turn it round!


----------



## Paul Chapman (7 Jun 2012)

Jacob":2i2g5q22 said:


> Paul's bench secrets revealed here http://paulsellers.com/paul-sellers-blog/
> Surprise surprise it's exactly the same design as mine (and several thousand other trad english benches)!



I find that style of bench totally inadequate for the way I work because, apart from a Record vice fitted to the front, there are no work-holding facilities. I know you often advocate nailing pieces of wood to the bench to hold the work but that involves a lot of faffing about.

Maybe Paul Sellers and you do a lot of your work on machines and therefore don't have the same requirements as me when it comes to bench work. My bench has evolved as a result of the way I work and it's a lot different from the style of bench you and Paul Sellers advocate.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (7 Jun 2012)

Paul Chapman":200ze4ft said:


> Jacob":200ze4ft said:
> 
> 
> > Paul's bench secrets revealed here http://paulsellers.com/paul-sellers-blog/
> ...


No the aprons are brilliantly versatile for holding. You can screw, nail or clamp to them, or drill holes for pegs, dogs, holdfasts etc. A bigger hole can take a sash or G clamp. These mods can be temporary or permanent. Much better holding possibilities than the "continental" style where you have to add sliding deadman or other devices instead.
If you look in the photo of the new side (link above) you can see a block clamped to the end of the apron. You could clamp this block anywhere, or clamp a longer piece bearing on the floor for heavier weights. Don't be deceived by the lack of detail on the apron - it is very versatile, every bench needs one!
Also houses the legs and is absolutely essential for the rigidity of the whole thing as well as adding mass.


----------



## Paul Chapman (7 Jun 2012)

Despite your assurances, I still wouldn't swap my bench for your one.......

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Phil Pascoe (7 Jun 2012)

My bench doesn't have aprons, which I'm glad about, but I suppose anyone with space enough could have one side with an apron and one side without. I can see some sense in that.


----------



## Jacob (7 Jun 2012)

Paul Chapman":3q9jam0y said:


> Despite your assurances, I still wouldn't swap my bench for your one.......
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> 
> Paul


Don't worry I'm not offering! :lol:


----------



## Paul Chapman (7 Jun 2012)

Jacob":3hshk0i6 said:


> Paul Chapman":3hshk0i6 said:
> 
> 
> > Despite your assurances, I still wouldn't swap my bench for your one.......
> ...



That's good - a refusal often causes offence :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## monkeybiter (7 Jun 2012)

My bench [hidden under the junk] is built from 2x6 timbers, and was a cast off from a neighbour. Strong and heavy but not elegant. Re-surfaced with 18mm ply. It has 'aprons' for rigidity which I didn't want to remove, so I cut out two rectangles in situ and fitted a pair of full width straight through drawers. Rough and ready but it utilises the space and could be done nicely.


----------



## Paul Chapman (7 Jun 2012)

Paul Chapman":pve78c57 said:


> Despite your assurances, I still wouldn't swap my bench for your one.......
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> 
> Paul




Might have been tempted, but he's renovated it   Have a look at his latest posts about big windows in General Woodworking.

Mind you, he's fitted a second vice so he's getting there 8) Maybe when he does the next renovation in 25 years time he'll go the whole hog and fit a tail vice :-k 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (7 Jun 2012)

I've just turned it round and put a vice on the back. With this trad design you get two benches for the price of one.


----------



## Benchwayze (7 Jun 2012)

Now, 

THIS is a Woodworking Bench!

http://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/?p=105

If only I had the brute strength to make one like it! :lol:


----------



## monkeybiter (7 Jun 2012)

He doesn't appear to have clamped that piece down when chopping out the mortice :shock: , but then it's not in the vice either :roll: ; what an amateur! :twisted:


----------



## Doug B (8 Jun 2012)

What a shocker :shock: from the looks of the latest picture on Mr Sellers blog he also advocates chopping out mortices on the bench top

http://paulsellers.com/2012/06/the-rhyt ... 27+Blog%29

I`ll sleep better knowing that :-s


----------



## DTR (8 Jun 2012)

I'm quite a fan of the "traditional English" bench design. I find the aprons more of a help than a hindrance. I don't really have any problem clamping to my bench, but having said that my bench has a tail vice, dog holes and a pair of Richard T holdfasts


----------



## devonwoody (8 Jun 2012)

I use the router these days for mortises (usually the 1/4" bit) and the jig I use goes in the vice, no problems


----------



## Jacob (8 Jun 2012)

Doug B":9fto48c2 said:


> What a shocker :shock: from the looks of the latest picture on Mr Sellers blog he also advocates chopping out mortices on the bench top.....


 :lol: 
I think he's just trying to annoy everybody. How churlish! :roll:


----------



## Paul Chapman (8 Jun 2012)

Jacob":1x7t6nw0 said:


> Doug B":1x7t6nw0 said:
> 
> 
> > What a shocker :shock: from the looks of the latest picture on Mr Sellers blog he also advocates chopping out mortices on the bench top.....
> ...



If the truth be known, he's probably a closet Domino-user :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Doug B (8 Jun 2012)

Paul Chapman":3hb2auxr said:


> Jacob":3hb2auxr said:
> 
> 
> > Doug B":3hb2auxr said:
> ...



Surely he doesn`t use his domino in a closet :shock: , the H&E contraventions would be innumerable [-X let alone the ability to safely clamp the work piece in such a cramped environment :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Jacob (8 Jun 2012)

Paul Chapman":414cr75d said:


> Jacob":414cr75d said:
> 
> 
> > Doug B":414cr75d said:
> ...


Wouldn't be surprised. You've only got to look at his hair. :roll:


----------



## Jacob (8 Jun 2012)

There's a lot of discussion abt wood suitable for benches. Mine's redwood. I thought I might upgrade it with one of these http://www.vinylwarehouse.co.uk/wood-finishes-9-c.asp but can't decide which would be most suitable.
What does the panel think?


----------



## CHJ (8 Jun 2012)

Jacob":1zy25w8f said:


> There's a lot of discussion abt wood suitable for benches. Mine's redwood. I thought I might upgrade it with one of these http://www.vinylwarehouse.co.uk/wood-finishes-9-c.asp but can't decide which would be most suitable.
> What does the panel think?


I take it you'll be updating the new windows as well Jacob. :twisted:


----------



## Doug B (8 Jun 2012)

Jacob":3d51z33b said:


> What does the panel think?




Look classy in blackwood Jacob, but remember.........don`t forget your squeegee :lol: :lol:


----------



## Jacob (9 Jun 2012)

He's at it again! http://paulsellers.com/2012/06/plane-ch ... -by-facts/
No comment!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (9 Jun 2012)

+1 for no comment.


----------



## DTR (10 Jun 2012)

Jacob":2l6nijqf said:


> He's at it again! http://paulsellers.com/2012/06/plane-ch ... -by-facts/
> No comment!



At what, exactly? He's declared that chatter is actually scudding (!?), and it can be prevented, but he doesn't say how!


----------



## Jacob (10 Jun 2012)

DTR":1gxu1uk5 said:


> Jacob":1gxu1uk5 said:
> 
> 
> > He's at it again! http://paulsellers.com/2012/06/plane-ch ... -by-facts/
> ...


I think he's suggesting that it's just a matter of practice and nothing to do with buying replacement planes or components, and I agree. I get "chatter" very rarely at the start - but it always means I'm just being careless and not doing it right; plane blade loose, workpiece loose, worsened by blunt blade over-extended etc. It hardly deserves a name - it's just a mistake, like missing a nail with a hammer.


----------



## Benchwayze (10 Jun 2012)

And all this time, Paul Sellers had the answer. Only now does he come out of the 'woodwork', and enlighten us all..
Yeah okay.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (10 Jun 2012)

I asked Paul a question on his blog. There were three issues in all. The last was about BU planes, as he raised this with the following comment. I quote:



> I used a regular Stanley # 4 ½ smoothing plane with all standard parts to plane into adverse grain and this is what it produced, the bevel-up planes worsened the dilemma.



I asked, "As to a poor result when planing with a BU plane, you do need to also state what the cutting angle was. A plane is a plane, but BU planes can vary the cutting angle quite widely, and this will have a significant impact on the resulting planing performance."

His reply, 



> I cannot give BU planes much credibility beyond end or crossgrain plaining because the risk of surface damage is so much higher than with bevel down planes. In all surface grain there will be grain direction and if you are planing in the right direction all will go well. If the wrong direction, the damage will be twice as bad with a BU plane though. All of my BU planes are bedded at 12-degrees. I do not generally use block planes for anything except taking chamfers off of hard corners but even then I mostly use a my #4 or # 4 1/2 smoother.



To my mind it appears that he is referring to the use of a small block plane (with a 37 degree cutting angle), in which case he is not discussing apples versus apples. Or, if he is referring to BU bench planes, he has never set one up correctly.

It is his blog, so I did not pursue the matter.

However, if this is representative of the depth of his knowledge about methods other than his own, then it just seems like he is pushing his own barrow.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Benchwayze (10 Jun 2012)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> > However, if this is representative of the depth of his knowledge about methods other than his own, then it just seems like he is pushing his own barrow.
> >
> > Regards from Perth
> >
> > Derek



That sums it up nicely Derek. Thumbs-up to it.


----------



## Jacob (10 Jun 2012)

Whose barrow should he push then?
I have to say I agree completely with his note about chatter. I've always been mystified by it as it isn't something I've ever encountered except either when just doing things hopelessly wrong (instantly correctable) or as that very regular mark of a buzzing overworked rebate blade, which is just normal.
What do people mean by chatter, what does it look like (photos) when/how do they get it? Let's get to the bottom of it - a lot of people talk about it - what the f is it?

PS I also agree with him about block planes (corners) except I'd add they are good for one handed use and for rounding off - which is basically "corners" again


----------



## Jacob (10 Jun 2012)

I just googled "woodwork plane chatter" images and nothing comes up (showing it) except Paul Seller's own snaps. Chatter is just another myth?

PS there is one other snap of a badly mauled piece of wood which has obviously being incompetently planed by a complete novice. Is that what we are talking about?


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (10 Jun 2012)

Hi Jacob

There is no mystery what causes chatter (the first picture was chatter, the second was a lunging novice). My reply to PS stated this (agreed with him). 

However ..

He seems at pains to make a point about something so elementary. What is the real motive?

Then he makes a comment about BU planes, which is completely (a) out of left field, and (b) inaccurate. Again, this is all so much posturing. Well, he knows that he has an audience, and he is milking it for all he's worth. 

David Savage does the same thing. Both he and Paul Sellers attend to create an image of being The Rebel - or, The Only One With The Truth. 

It's all just marketing, and it is interesting as long as you don't let it get to you.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (10 Jun 2012)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Hi Jacob
> 
> There is no mystery what causes chatter (the first picture was chatter, the second was a lunging novice). My reply to PS stated this (agreed with him).


OK. But the first picture is what you get if you overwork a plane. You just do it more slowly or retract the blade a touch if you don't want it. In a window rebate it doesn't matter so you just belt along chattering or not.


> However ..
> 
> He seems at pains to make a point about something so elementary. What is the real motive?....


Because chatter is talked about endlessly as a problem requiring solutions such as better planes or components. It's a major theme in plane conversations , but the chatter in your sense above is completely inconsequential and of no interest as it is so easy to avoid (if you want to). So I can say correctly that I've never experienced chatter in any meaningful sense, except as a lunging novice! As a problem it's a myth. No need to chatter on about chatter then, as one more myth bites the dust!


----------



## Argus (10 Jun 2012)

Argus":2x8gdpq1 said:


> .
> 
> At the risk of putting my head over the parapet, there are woodworkers who can work wood and writers who can write, but seldom both together in the same personage.
> 
> ...




If Mr Sellers is reading this thread, he must have the skin of a rhinoceros by now.

In the series on planning problems alone his is stating the obvious, which to my reading of it is, 
“if it’s gone wrong, change something”.

What I meant to say earlier and quote here, is that whatever else he is good at, in my view writing is not one of them. 
Viewing some of his vids, I find that he writes exactly as he speaks and in his case, the spoken word does not transplant well to the page.
From a personal perspective, I find his writing style hard going. This means that I need to read what he has written two or three time to work out what he’s saying. A bit of punctuation in the right place would also help.

Whether he’s right or wrong, or a prophet without honour in his own land, we’ve all spent five pages working out the gist of it.


----------



## Benchwayze (10 Jun 2012)

Does the plane chatter when the iron needs honing? Is that what PS is trying to say?

Elsewhere, in making a bench-top, he also says that enough glue will hold a 'bowed' joint and prevent it from opening along its length. 

Who's he kidding? Himself? :roll:


----------



## Jacob (10 Jun 2012)

I think he's trying to discover what the 'chatter' is which seems to be so problematic in woodwork forums. 
It clearly isn't the first type - that's normal planing when a sharp and properly set up plane is worked hard i.e. at speed and/or with deep cut, and is easily remedied - less speed/depth. Not a problem. Doesn't even need remedying in window rebates out of sight, where the speed and depth makes for faster work.
So he thinks it must be the second type i.e. what Derek calls "the lunging of a novice".
So what does everybody else see is the chatter problem? I'm mystified myself, as it's not something I've suffered from. Send in your snaps!


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (10 Jun 2012)

Jacob, PS is not "trying to discover" anything, as you suggest. He is telling you he knows it all.

He wrote: _"Alright, I tried with all my might to get a regular thin iron in a Stanley smoothing plane to produce true surface chatter on oak and finally succeeded after a dozen or more attempts. This took great effort because I wanted to show you visually that what most people bring to me as chatter is not and never was chatter". _

He then goes on to show you what his blog is all about (I've come to rescue you from the bad guys) ...

He writes, _"Plane makers knew this at the time but said nothing because they could capitalize on the misinformation put out in magazines that kept people in ignorance"._

And there you have it. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (10 Jun 2012)

Well yes and I tend to agree with him much of the time. There is a load of baloney talked about woodwork and his alternative view is refreshing. And he does the stuff - not just obsessing about tools, making sample dovetails or prolonged sharpening courses!


----------



## woodbrains (10 Jun 2012)

Hey Jacob,

If chatter is a myth, then why did you sing the praises of Clifton cap irons when you finally took the hint that better cap irons give better results, (by reducing chatter, what else?) and fitted one? You even stated that they are so good, it makes your BU smother redundant! Contradictory or just a poor memory. Paul Sellers is still a poor source of info, you would be better embracing the wealth of knowledge here; his barrow probably still has a square wheel!

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2012)

woodbrains":1bd01hh8 said:


> Hey Jacob,
> 
> If chatter is a myth, then why did you sing the praises of Clifton cap irons when you finally took the hint that better cap irons give better results, (by reducing chatter, what else?) and fitted one? You even stated that they are so good, it makes your BU smother redundant! Contradictory or just a poor memory. Paul Sellers is still a poor source of info, you would be better embracing the wealth of knowledge here; his barrow probably still has a square wheel!
> 
> Mike.


 "chatter" didn't come into it. I don't get chatter except in Derek's terms of amateur lungeing, when I've forgotten to set things up etc. Loose workpiece being the most likely cause.
I keep asking for photos but non are forthcoming.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (11 Jun 2012)

Here you are Jacob, hot off PS' blog ..







Another pearl of wisdom offered was this comment:_ "Another thing we cannot simply dismiss is that we want to use hand methods, thick irons have longer bevels and a large amount of steel must be removed constantly"._

Someone should reply "only with your sharpening method, Paul". There are alternatives such as mico secondary bevels, etc ... whatever floats your boat. Indeed, is there any difference (in honing) between a thin Stanley blade and a thick infill blade if they are either hollow ground or given a secondary bevel?

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Corneel (11 Jun 2012)

Argus":c3j21g32 said:


> If Mr Sellers is reading this thread, he must have the skin of a rhinoceros by now.
> 
> In the series on planning problems alone his is stating the obvious, which to my reading of it is,
> “if it’s gone wrong, change something”.
> ...



I think I agree with you. I just don't understand what the heck he is writing there in these two blogs about chatter. What did he do, what experiments, what circumstances, what is his conclusion? He seems to have something against thick replacement blades, but I'm still not sure what exactly he has against them.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2012)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Here you are Jacob, hot off PS' blog ..


Yebbut that is what you get with a normal sharp plane but over worked i.e. too much force or depth of cut. Hence easily and instantly remedied as I've said. Not a problem. Is that it then, the dreaded chatter which causes so much stress and anxiety?
I'd always assumed that it was something more like Sellers' second example, and I've been wondering how people do it. It seems Sellers has been asking the same thing.


> ..... Indeed, is there any difference (in honing) between a thin Stanley blade and a thick infill blade if they are either hollow ground or given a secondary bevel?.....k


Yes there is. You don't need to hollow grind or apply secondary bevels to thinner blades.
You don't need to on thicker blades either if you get to grips with rounded bevel sharpening.


----------



## Benchwayze (11 Jun 2012)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Here you are Jacob, hot off PS' blog ..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed...

Paul Sellers is merely stating the obvious, but does he ever consider why ALL plane irons used to be thicker? He doesn't even go there. 

Paul Sellers is handwork oriented to the bone and that's fine, but if thin blades are as good, or even superior, how does he imagine our forebears managed, when only thick blades were available? Also, does he ever wonder why people who make their own wooden planes, scour flea markets for thicker irons, or buy modern, thick irons? It can't all be down to 'something they read', or were told. 

Maybe thinner blades came in with metal planes, because manufacturers considered a metal plane didn't need a thicker iron. And so on... 

Paul Sellers doesn't discuss things like this. If he did, I might be prepared to listen. However, all he does is pour scorn on machine users, "sorting out their router bits", while he pounds a very rough-cut dovetail joint within an inch of its life. He doesn't stop at machine workers either. He snipes at modern hand-tool users too; or at least those who like to use better quality tools. If you really listen to him, and read between the lines of his blog, you will see what I mean. 

So to echo Derek's words, Paul Sellers is definitely ploughing his furrow in a big, sparsely populated field. Of course, just being in a minority doesn't mean you are wrong. However, on this occasion, it's questionable. :wink:


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2012)

Benchwayze":1me6ao6s said:


> Paul Sellers is merely stating the obvious, but does he ever consider why ALL plane irons used to be thicker?......


I think because thats the only way the could make them. New technology meant consistent quality thinner blades possible, leading to the Bailey design which has remained top of the pops ever since, for very good reasons.
I know thicker blades are currently fashionable , helped by the availability of powered sharpening of course.


----------



## Racers (11 Jun 2012)

Jacob":nmb0v2b3 said:


> Benchwayze":nmb0v2b3 said:
> 
> 
> > Paul Sellers is merely stating the obvious, but does he ever consider why ALL plane irons used to be thicker?......
> ...



So laminated moulding plane irons couldn't have been made?


Pete


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2012)

Racers":w54vuj0m said:


> Jacob":w54vuj0m said:
> 
> 
> > Benchwayze":w54vuj0m said:
> ...


They are fairly thick aren't they? Thicker than a Stanley blade at any rate.
They could make anything (more or less) but at a price. Laminated and hand forged must have cost a bomb in relative terms.


----------



## woodbrains (11 Jun 2012)

Jacob":2dn81ii4 said:


> woodbrains":2dn81ii4 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Jacob,
> ...



So what advantage did the cap iron impart. Did it cut the wood smoother? We call that reduction in chatter. Did the cutting edge last longer? Reducing chatter makes the edge wear less quickly. Did the plane move across the surface more positively? Yes, you've guessed less chatter.

Or was it just some sort of magic, that improved your plane by fitting a Clifton cap iron? Do you really prefer to beleive in the mythical cap iron effect, rather than just admit that chatter is real. The masses here and elsewhere know what they are talking about and finding one like minded buffoon agreeing with you on you tube, proves absolutely nothing. There are people who still believe the world is flat; you could find those on you tube too, I suspect, but it doesn't make it true.

Photographic evidence of chatter has been shown you. Now put up or shut up; what, other than reduction in chatter, is responsible for a Clifton cap iron improving your plane. With evidence please.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2012)

woodbrains":2knedzii said:


> Jacob":2knedzii said:
> 
> 
> > woodbrains":2knedzii said:
> ...


This is childish.


----------



## woodbrains (11 Jun 2012)

Jacob,

You still haven't answered the question! What sort of magic does the cap iron bestow to prevent tear out? Explain it, go on. Because I'll tell you this, when the answer is inevitably, chatter can cause tearout and reducing chatter reduces tearout, you just get insulting to avoid the inevitable. If you were worth the effort, I would explain why chatter is a physical property inherent in everything, and denying its existance is like denying the earth goes around the sun. It is just foolish and banging on about it will never make it true.

Mike.


----------



## GazPal (12 Jun 2012)

Way too much focus on criticising others instead of relaying information concerning the various schools of thought regarding the topic at hand. Most craftsmen teach the methods they utilise and find works best for them through experience. Paul Sellers is no different from many of the craftsmen I know and in all honesty, I teach my methods and practices and nobody else's whenever someone comes to my workshop to learn and they work to my method or not at all. Zimples  

More emphasis needs to be placed upon adequate practise in tool preparation and use, plus materials manipulation rather than arguing the toss over how blade chatter can be identified and/or defined, then resolved using the latest snake oil remedy. In general, if a blade chatters/skips across a surface you need to re-assess tool set-up, edge sharpness and method. One should be capable of making the necessary adjustments on the fly and - should this approach prove impractical using the materials at hand - craft experience doesn't yet necessarily match materials choice. 

Views will always vary, but seldom justify personal attacks and insults due to such variances. #-o 

Matching the relationship between cap and cutting iron and throat depth to suit the purpose of the tool and materials being used isn't difficult, but is something one needs to practise in order to avoid potential problems. The correct answer is "It depends". No one method is written in stone until you've found something that suits your own technique and materials in use, but kudos to Paul Sellers, et al, for at least possessing the wherewithall to publicly place their necks on the block in the interest of educating others and encouraging increased involvement within the woodworking crafts.


----------



## Corneel (12 Jun 2012)

woodbrains":199rcd9t said:


> Jacob,
> 
> You still haven't answered the question! What sort of magic does the cap iron bestow to prevent tear out? Explain it, go on. Because I'll tell you this, when the answer is inevitably, chatter can cause tearout and reducing chatter reduces tearout, you just get insulting to avoid the inevitable. If you were worth the effort, I would explain why chatter is a physical property inherent in everything, and denying its existance is like denying the earth goes around the sun. It is just foolish and banging on about it will never make it true.
> 
> Mike.




Mike,

I'm afraid you are wrong about chatter causing tearout. And I can proof that in two directions.

1. Unlike Jacob I have had my fair share of chatter. Especially on the start of a cut. Now I know it is mostly a technique thing and can easily be avoided without droppin money on the problem. But a thicker blade or thicker capiron does indeed help against chatter when you are yet not proficient enough. But having seen all that chatter, I've never seen it accompanied by tearout! And when I see tearout, I don't see the typical chatter lines. Watch those pictures on Paul Sllers blog. The first one is chatter without tearout. The last one is tearout without chatter.

2. You can do a little experiment yourself. The working limit of the capiron against tearout is rather small. At 0.5 mm you won't see much improvement. At 0.2 mm you suddenly can plane everything without tearout. The change is rather dramatic and has to be seen to believe it. Now, at 0.5mm the plane iron is still very well supported by the capiron, but it seemingly doesn't help agaainst tearout. 

The effect of the capiron against tearout is not in limiting chatter. It is about the caprion pushing the woodshaving back into the surface so it can be cut instead of torn apart.
Tear out happens when the wedging force of the blade is higher then the natural bond between the woodfibers and can only be mittigated when somehow the wedging force is lessened (steeper pitch, thin shaving) or when the wood is better supported (very very tight mouth, close set capiron).


----------



## Noel (12 Jun 2012)

As mentioned above, way too many personal attacks and insults. It is childish and immature. If you don't like somebody's methods and presentation by all means say so if you really have to but try, it's not too hard, to do it in a reasoned and adult fashion rather than calling people plonkers and buffoons and other insults be they direct or indirect. And 2 or 3 in particular should try to be a little less boring , pity it's not against forum rules 

On a personal note: I'm not familiar with Paul Sellers or his work but impressive CV: http://paulsellers.com/biography/


----------



## Benchwayze (12 Jun 2012)

Noel, 

Generally speaking, CV's can contain a lot of baloney. 
May I suggest you watch the video on gluing up a benchtop, listen to his advice, then think again, when you read the CV.
HTH


----------



## Jacob (12 Jun 2012)

Anyway - just to annoy people even more; I've bought the book! 
Expensive. Looks good but a bit over produced - lots of computer graphics and clever layout with too much white space. I'll report on it in due course.
I also recently bought the Hamlyn Book of Woodworking which is cheap - you can get it for £1 or so second hand. It's a similar size and quality of production, but is absolute tat and not worth £1.
I buy a lot of books on the off-chance, often following recommendations on here. Almost everything will turn up sooner or later, and cheap.


----------



## Noel (12 Jun 2012)

Benchwayze":3r5x75sb said:


> Noel,
> 
> Generally speaking, CV's can contain a lot of baloney.
> May I suggest you watch the video on gluing up a benchtop, listen to his advice, then think again, when you read the CV.
> HTH



John, maybe on thin ice with that statement, or at least the inference? So the man is essentially telling lies in your opinion? Hmmm..... 

Watched the video a few days ago, maybe not the way I'd do it on a bench but I've done long length-wise glue-ups with slightly banana shaped softwood and it's not caused any problems providing there's plenty of gluing area. I think there's always been an issue for some people on here that if something is not done exactly, to the letter, as many perceive it should be done then it can't be right.

I think the CV is impressive, but hey, that's my opinion, however misguided some think. Perhaps they display any old tat in Pennsylvania Avenue, who knows and if people want to pay large amounts of dollars for his rocking chairs, well he's got to be doing something right.

Edit- Jacob, I've the Hamlyn book somewhere, it's not a bad introduction to WW.


----------



## Benchwayze (12 Jun 2012)

Fair enough comment on the thin ice, but it's nothing new to me Noel. I'm still here, and I can swim if it breaks. 

There's only one way to do most things and that's the proper way. if I don't know the proper way I'll shut up, and find out. 

But sitting astride a flexing piece of 3 x 2, whilst planing it to a jointing surface? Then holding the pieces together with the hands, and saying. words to the effect... 'That's fine. Once it's glued it'll never move again.' :roll: 
That's like saying glue will fill up the voids in a badly cut M&T.

Come on Noel, who are we kidding here? Wood is wood. It takes up and loses moisture and it moves. Badly trued joints are the first things to go. Even an old duffer like me knows that. So surely a sage, experienced woodworker knows it too? 
I give up.


----------



## Noel (12 Jun 2012)

Benchwayze":3ugw0hks said:


> Fair enough comment on the thin ice, but it's nothing new to me Noel. I'm still here, and I can swim if it breaks.
> 
> There's only one way to do most things and that's the proper way. if I don't know the proper way I'll shut up, and find out.
> 
> ...



You may be able to swim but the weight of enormous legal fees could sink you....

Post on his blog John, make him aware of your concerns and see what he says. Discuss it with the man himself. http://paulsellers.com/paul-sellers-blog/


----------



## Benchwayze (12 Jun 2012)

Noel":13wnwpw5 said:


> Benchwayze":13wnwpw5 said:
> 
> 
> > Fair enough comment on the thin ice, but it's nothing new to me Noel. I'm still here, and I can swim if it breaks.
> ...



As it happens I have expressed concerns to him. All I get is a reaffirmation that his way is the best. No consideration of the concerns. As others have remarked, his way is THE way. I won't waste any more time worrying over it and by default, no concerns over lawyers. I am entitled to an opinion, and to express it. I would never say HIS CV is baloney, but I've seen plenty of them in my time that were, to say the least, a bit fuzzy round the edges; and I dare say, so have you.
J


----------



## GazPal (12 Jun 2012)

So much depends upon who's proper method you choose to utiise :wink:


----------



## Benchwayze (12 Jun 2012)

Gary,

That remark is so 'throwaway' it isn't worth discussing. :roll:


----------



## David C (12 Jun 2012)

I would suggest that the bench top gluing video is an almost perfect description of *how not to do it*

David Charlesworth


----------



## GazPal (12 Jun 2012)

Benchwayze":27aoq8nd said:


> Gary,
> 
> That remark is so 'throwaway' it isn't worth discussing. :roll:



Then why mention it? lol (Resisting the use of a derisive remark in counter balance to the one you chose) 

The meaning behind my former comment encompasses the simple fact there are so many methods available and just as many schools of thought, but the one prescribed by Paul Sellers simply outlines one available to those with minimal tooling - working al fresco - and illustrates a method that's perfectly capable of producing a useable workbench top. Primary emphasis is placed upon "useable" and there's no mention of any intention to produce a high-end project or showcase piece.


----------



## David C (12 Jun 2012)

Because it is bad.

David


----------



## CHJ (12 Jun 2012)

David C":lwo8wv32 said:


> Because it is bad.
> 
> David


Maybe not best practise, but if it ends up with a working platform adequate for the needs of a particular woodworker to get on and produce some output then what's the problem.

One of mine was knocked together with adequate support under the areas used for chopping out mortice's and supporting the type of wood I need to work some 20+ years ago using in the main 6" nails and 3" wood screws suitably capped or buried. Not pretty but it's functional.

I think if you look at the bits and pieces in my signature you may conclude that it does not inhibit what I do. And before there are any comments about turning not needing much careful wood preparation, *try doing this without such.*


----------



## Benchwayze (12 Jun 2012)

GazPal":13vsenju said:


> Benchwayze":13vsenju said:
> 
> 
> > Gary,
> ...


Gary,

Laugh if you wish. While you laugh at me, you're leaving someone else alone.

As to that shambolic video you seem to like, IMHO: 

If you want a bench-top that doesn't require maximum effort to flatten after gluing; (He works by hand remember) it isn't sufficient to just squint across the dry-run it and say. 'Perfect!' 

If you want a bench-top that isn't going to move sixteen ways from Sunday, as soon as you have a dry-spell, or a humid spell, it isn't sufficient to squeeze the pieces together by hand and say. 'That's great. The glue will hold it. It will never come apart.' 

I thought that video was laughable, and despite all the experience he has, he looked like a weekend-woodworker who has no workshop, struggling on the lawn, to do a decent job, in the face of few resources. He says he did that to show it could be done. Maybe, but Gary, if you think that an acceptable; nay *perfectly* capable way to make a bench-top, then you aren't the craftsman I thought you were. 

(hammer)


----------



## Paul Chapman (12 Jun 2012)

CHJ":38u3xr0k said:


> try doing this without such.



That's a stunning piece, Chas - very nice.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (12 Jun 2012)

I had a look at the video. Impressed by Sellers ruthless practical common sense. A very effective approach if you only have 3x2", in fact a more stable result than using a single piece. Couldn't fault it, what are the objections?
I'd call that best practice - for a workbench not a piece of posh furniture. And I agree with him about the design; very practical, very easy to make. The best design for a beginner, but once you have it you'd keep it for 30 years or more and never need another one. Or do a two beam version like mine and just turn it at half time!



> he looked like a weekend-woodworker who has no workshop, struggling on the lawn, to do a decent job, in the face of few resources


. Well spotted John. It is a demonstration of how to make a good bench _for a weekend-woodworker who has no workshop, struggling on the lawn, to do a decent job, in the face of few resources_ and as such, excellent. He makes the point at the beginning - this is how you'd do it with wood from the sheds, with limited resources.


----------



## Benchwayze (12 Jun 2012)

Jacob":2ptj0mr3 said:


> I had a look at the video. Impressed by Sellers ruthless practical common sense. A very effective approach if you only have 3x2", in fact a more stable result than using a single piece. Couldn't fault it, what are the objections?
> I'd call that best practice - for a workbench not a piece of posh furniture. And I agree with him about the design; very practical, very easy to make. The best design for a beginner, but once you have it you'd keep it for 30 years or more and never need another one. Or do a two beam version like mine and just turn it at half time!
> 
> 
> ...



I told you.... =;


----------



## Corneel (12 Jun 2012)

On this one I think I share the side of Sellers. Making your own bench is one of the first jobs an apprenticing woodworker has to do. And at that point, with minimal tools, equipement and skill available, this gets the job done. Not perfect, but workable for a first workbench. When the said woodworker gets sick of this thing after a while, he at least can make his posh, gleaming, hard maple, all bells and whistles bench, on a decent working surface.

People like you seem to forget how you tend to start out with just a skill saw, a workmate and a plastic handled Stanley #4.

And if you know it better, how would you build a decent bench under such circumstances?


----------



## GazPal (12 Jun 2012)

Benchwayze":2yybt4s4 said:


> GazPal":2yybt4s4 said:
> 
> 
> > Benchwayze":2yybt4s4 said:
> ...



Quick on the draw and pulling no punches I see......well to each his own, but in spite of your apparent view, I've little to offer in the face of your derision. Barring the fact I've more than enough flying time as a craftsman within this trade and have far more respect for others than you apparently possess.

Perhaps his presentation was intended to illustrate the fact that weekend woodworkers can produce their benches with limited means. Ask him and you'll discover the truth, but let's leave the childishly demeaning critique/personal attacks out of it. 

You forgot to mention RH, the need for materials to acclimatise to their surroundings, specifics concerning glue, grain orientation, etc.. Although you seem to prefer name calling. :lol: The list goes on and - in spite of the fact I agree with much of what you've said concerning his presentation - I chose not to opt for your blunt and quite abrasive approach. My view is the fact his offering will allow someone less experienced to build a useable bench that is PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF MEETING THEIR NEEDS.


----------



## Noel (12 Jun 2012)

Benchwayze":16mi03lv said:


> As it happens I have expressed concerns to him. All I get is a reaffirmation that his way is the best. No consideration of the concerns. As others have remarked, his way is THE way. I won't waste any more time worrying over it and by default, no concerns over lawyers. I am entitled to an opinion, and to express it. I would never say HIS CV is baloney, but I've seen plenty of them in my time that were, to say the least, a bit fuzzy round the edges; and I dare say, so have you.
> J



Got a link? Would be interesting read his reply.


----------



## Kalimna (12 Jun 2012)

My workbench was made on a workmate. Not much fun planing 6ft x 1 1/2ft beech on a workmate. But it gets the job done. The bench isn't pretty, it doesnt have M&T joints, and is held together by BnQ bolts. But it seems to work. Now that I have a *little* more experience, I would do things differently, and certainly I think I need to reflatten the top. However, there are few things in life (in whatever field) where only one way is certainly the only successful way. Whenever that is the case, you tend to find that everyone does it that way (for instance you wont find many people trying to flatten timber with a screwdriver) because they have to. When there is divided opinion, it generally means that it doesnt actually matter. What matters is that it works for the person doing it. There may be easier, cheaper, quicker, finer, more technical ways of doing something, but everyone has a different definition of 'better' or 'best'.

A bit of a ramble, so I apologise, but please people, remember we are adults, this is only an internet discussion forum, so maybe reel back the insults a little and grow up.

Cheers,
Adam


----------



## woodbrains (12 Jun 2012)

Corneel":1t90m4ur said:


> woodbrains":1t90m4ur said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob,
> ...



Sorry Corneel, but it can and does.

It is not the only source of the problem, obviously adverse grain is the major perp. Chatter does magnify the problem though. Think about it, we are not talking about a cap iron improving tear out, over having none fitted. We are _replacing_ one capiron for another and seeing reduced tear out. Logically, there must be something extra from the replacement cap iron, other than just the chip breaking function.

Chatter is caused from the cutting tip vibrating. The Clifton cap iron is more massive and hence absorbs more of the energy before it can truly develop into the chatter we can see. It also does not bend the blade like stock cap irons, but keeps it flat which gives a firmer bed to the blade/cap assy and then even more of the vibrational energy is dissapated into the frog and the mass of the plane in general. If the blade is less well damped, then tackling adverse grain sets up all kinds of vibrations at the cutting tip and the grain is torn more severely.

Incidentally, the cap iron effect is not 'pushing the woodshaving back into the surface' as you say, but is 'breaking the back' of the split chip before that split can telegraph deeper into the surface of the wood. Hopefully, the split can be terminated within the shavings thickness and therefore, show no roughness behind the cut.

Mike.


----------



## AndyT (12 Jun 2012)

Sorry if I missed it but nobody seems to have posted any pictures of the work that Paul Sellers has in his online portfolio. I do think that if any of these turned up in our Projects section there would be plenty of appreciative praise for his craftsmanship:


----------



## Corneel (12 Jun 2012)

Ah, this is better! Discussion with arguments instead of snide remarks!


----------



## custard (12 Jun 2012)

AndyT":3mv28add said:


> Sorry if I missed it but nobody seems to have posted any pictures of the work that Paul Sellers has in his online portfolio. I do think that if any of these turned up in our Projects section there would be plenty of appreciative praise for his craftsmanship:



+1

If he can produce work like that then I don't really care if he strops or not, uses an LN or a Record...or even if his hair's dyed or natural!


----------



## Corneel (12 Jun 2012)

Mike,

Thanks for your comments about chatter and tearout. Of course it's nearly impossible to tell what exactly happens at the edge, but lets's try to do some deductions.

First my comment about chatter without tearout. I really have seen that a lot. So when chatter would promote tearout, at least it won't be a standalone cause of tearout. You would need a tricky spot of grain reversal. Well, we know in that case a thicker capiron isn't going to cure the plane. It will tearout nonetheless. It's very easy to get tearout with a solid plane with a 45 degree bevel, while it is difficult to get tearout with a cheap Stanley with the capiron in the proper place, close to the edge. So my conclusion from this, if chatter would be a cause of tearout, it would be minimal.

I was a bit quick to say that I've never seen tearout without chatter marks. You do usually see a rippled surface in the direction of the cut. But I think that is a consequence of the tearout. Because the edge is being pushed down into the wood and springs back up. You could call that chatter, I'd say that's just normal tearout behaviour.

Would a thicker capiron help to make the plane more tearout proof? You would have to do an experiment. The same plane, same iron just sharpened, same depth of cut, same piece of wood with grain reversal. Then just change out the capiron. Will that help? I haven't done that experiment, but I think the other capiron won't really help. The tearout is being caused by the wood, not the capiron.

I have made a video last week to show the effects of the capiron. The plane is a woodie. Very thick iron and very thick capiron. Chatter is no problem with this setup. Still the wood tears out horribly ( no wonder when planing against the grain) and is instantly cured when moving the capiron close to the edge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3Nq1sbOhMM&feature=plcp

What you see is a plenty thick shaving, very straight and very strong, but no tear out. I have problems with believing the old theory of the capiron breaking the chip. We know from the work from prof. Kato that a small microbevel, about 80 degrees steep on the front of the capiron really improved its effectiveness of the capiron. With such a bevel the shaving is running into a wall. Kato meassured the force on the capiron and could really see an considerable increase when the capiron did its work. Now, it's not really possible for me to make a hard conclusion about what happens exactly, but my theory kind of nicely explains what could happen.

Any way, just learning to use the capiron is a lot cheaper then buying a Clifton one and more effective against tearout.


----------



## Jacob (12 Jun 2012)

Tear out and chatter have always been separate issues for me. Quite unrelated. Except perhaps with knots - chatter on the with-the-grain side where the knot wood is particularly hard, and tear-out on the against-the-grain side, for obvious reasons.

But if anyone thinks one causes the other how would you know which was cause and which the effect?


----------



## Corneel (12 Jun 2012)

You can prove that tearout can appear without chatter. See my chatter free wooden plane causing massive tearout.
The other way is a bit harder to prove. But we do see chatter sometimes. And when I see these typical chatterlines, it's usually without accompanying tearout. Look at that first picture in Sellers blog.
But it could be of course that tearout is worsened when chatter is an issue with a plane.


----------



## Benchwayze (12 Jun 2012)

Corneel":1dpmfsk3 said:


> You can prove that tearout can appear without chatter. See my chatter free wooden plane causing massive tearout.
> The other way is a bit harder to prove. But we do see chatter sometimes. And when I see these typical chatterlines, it's usually without accompanying tearout. Look at that first picture in Sellers blog.
> But it could be of course that tearout is worsened when chatter is an issue with a plane.



Obviously you do a lot of planing against the grain Corneel? :lol:


----------



## Modernist (12 Jun 2012)

The argument is going round in circles.

Chatter (other than simply deliberate ignorance of basic settings) is caused by vibration of the blade assembly caused by thin blades, bad bedding on the frog, poor cap iron fit etc. It can be easily cured by a thick bevel up blade on a well machined base.They do not, of course require a cap iron, thus illustrating it is irrelevant in this context.

Close cap iron settings work by pushing the shaving down into the work thus preventing lifting and tearing of the grain although they make the plane harder to push.

A better result is obtained by using a thick blade bevel up setup in conjunction with a fine mouth which has the same effect in preventing the grain lifting in front of the edge but with out the disadvantages of being harder to push or clogging a reduced mouth.

Problem solved why delve further?


----------



## woodbrains (12 Jun 2012)

Corneel":19pkbwah said:


> Mike,
> 
> Thanks for your comments about chatter and tearout. Of course it's nearly impossible to tell what exactly happens at the edge, but lets's try to do some deductions.
> 
> ...



Look, I never said it was the only cause of tearout, and of course I know about cap iron position in reducing it. But the statemet Jacob made is that the Clifton Cap iron reduced tearout over his standard one. All things being equal, same plane same cap iron effect, same user on, I assume the same wood. Also, you are not a chatter denyer and you have said you have seen it occur where tearout on adverse grain occurs. Surely a reduction in chatter would improve it too? Kill two birds with one stone. It is not as if I'm forgetting how to set the cap-iron for best performance just because I use one which tames chatter too.

Also, the Kato video just re-inforced the standard description of how the cap iron effect works. The idea of breaking the chip before the split can develop was pretty much proved there, I think. A closer set cap iron breaks the chip sooner after the cut, reducing tearout. A less acute leading edge to the cap iron breaks the chip more radically and prevents the split from telegraphing ahead of the shaving too. I think this is pretty much what we already know. As I said during those posts, I was already setting very close chip-breakers years ago, based on my own logic of, 'break the chip sooner to minimise tearout' and getting better results.

I think you said yourself, that there are many aspects to planing that all cumulatively add up and we get little improvements at each stage they all add up to a great, overall improvement. A thicker iron adds a little, getting that sharper adds a little more, a better fitting frog, flat sole, less flexing in the cap iron, etc etc. all reinforce the improvement the previous one made. it is a system that can be improved at each stage.

What is bugging me, is that Jacob observed the improvement but will not give a reason why this happened. He just says it just does. Now wasn't it him that started the thread about myths and mysteries?

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (12 Jun 2012)

No don't worry, in real life I'll check first for the the most appropriate direction.

But I was on discovery lately and have been experimenting a lot with all kinds of wood. The reemergence of the Kato video really opened my eyes to the possibilities of the capiron.


----------



## woodbrains (12 Jun 2012)

Modernist":2ajcymh7 said:


> The argument is going round in circles.
> 
> Chatter (other than simply deliberate ignorance of basic settings) is caused by vibration of the blade assembly caused by thin blades, bad bedding on the frog, poor cap iron fit etc. It can be easily cured by a thick bevel up blade on a well machined base.They do not, of course require a cap iron, thus illustrating it is irrelevant in this context.
> 
> ...



Hi,

I would agree with you to a point. You might have started your list by saying 'is caused by vibration at the blade tip, amplified by the blade assy caused by thin blades made worse by poorly fitting frogs etc ..... This is a system and each relies on the element before it to work properly. If everything exaggerates the effect from the previous one then chaos is the result. Attend to each element and harmony!  

The energy at the blade tip needs to be damped by the whole plane being as solid as can be reasonably made, given that some parts must also move for adjustment.

A fine mouth causes pressure to be placed over the shaving just ahead of the cut to prevent grain lifting, I agree, but the cap iron effect is not the same, it limits the 'shock wave', if you like spreading in front of the shaving and going deeper than the thickness of the shaving, which would show as tearout.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (12 Jun 2012)

woodbrains":ub9lqfl4 said:


> ....
> What is bugging me, is that Jacob observed the improvement but will not give a reason why this happened. ...
> 
> Mike.


 I don't know the reason do I. Not sure that you do either. :roll:


----------



## Corneel (12 Jun 2012)

I started a new thread about the capiron pushing or breaking.

So lets talk about chatter and the capiron overhere.

Assume the rest of the plane is in good nick. 

We all know it is perfectly possible to get good chatter free operation from a Bailey plane without chatter. It's a matter of good technique. How would for example the woodworkers before WW2 planed their wood when thick blades and capirons weren't available? My Stanley #7 from the twenties is a good solid plane with the original blade and capiron with no hint of chatter tendencies.

For a beginner it's a bit different though. A thicker blade could shorten his learning curve a bit.

Now about tearout and chatter. And thus using a thicker capiron against tearout.

I'd say that is a waste of money, because it only helps a tiny little bit. While setting the capiron at the proper depth is really helpfull in completely removing tearout (except maybe some impossibel Australian hardwoods, that's a skilllevel higher). I have never heard anyone saying his plane is now tearout proof because he's bought a clifton capiron. While using the proper technique is, well maybe not 100%, but at least 99% effective in our local kinds of wood.


----------



## Corneel (13 Jun 2012)

It looks like we can draw some conclusions now.

1. Chattering doesn't cause tearout. 
2. Tearout comes from the wood not being strong enough to withstand the wedging action of the blade. 
3. If chatter plays a role in tearout formation, then the effect is minimal. 
4. Buying a stronger capiron is the least effective method in the fight against tearout. 

What other myths are there to be debuncked? Tight mouths against tearout in a Bailey plane? Bevel up planes being better then woodies? The magic of infills?


----------



## bugbear (13 Jun 2012)

Corneel":3nrmot02 said:


> It looks like we can draw some conclusions now.



I'd draw a simpler conclusion.

Planing involves a large number of effects in concert. Changing almost anything changes the planing. Improving almost any single aspect helps. If the planing is already "succeeding" improvements will have no observable effect.

My conclusion? The detailed physics of planing is complex.

BugBear


----------



## Corneel (13 Jun 2012)

Yes of course. But your conclusion won't bring you any closer to understanding what is really happening at the cutting edge.


----------



## bugbear (13 Jun 2012)

Corneel":lqz6swlh said:


> Yes of course. But your conclusion won't bring you any closer to understanding what is really happening at the cutting edge.



I was trying to point that almost *any* simple statement about planing will only be part of the story.

BugBear


----------



## Kalimna (13 Jun 2012)

Corneel - the only thing that will actually bring closer understanding is direct evidence, not talking on a forum. Direct evidence in this instance would mean microscopic high speed video/photography of the propagation of the cut surface as it is being cut, with and without all the variables so far discussed. Until that is possible, we are merely talking about fairies and pinheads. 
Empirically, if you try something and it works, keep doing it. If it doesnt, then stop. This doesnt bring understanding of the process, but it does allow gradual improvement in technique for an individual person. To take an example (and this is just an example, not meant to fire off the discussion along a tangent), I use a honing jig to sharpen edges. I find it works well for me. I know other folk recommend freehand honing, and it works for them. I have tried it, and I didnt like it, so I reverted to the jig.

Adam


----------



## Corneel (13 Jun 2012)

Well, the Kato video is a nice start isn't it?
And apart from high speed video, there are more ways to get to understand things. Like observating what happens with the wood surface. Change one thing and observe again.

My conclusions so far ar pretty solidly backed up. There is one item remaining mysterious. What is the role of chatter DURING a tearout event.


----------



## Modernist (13 Jun 2012)

The above has already and recently been done. There was a link to a thread on WoodNet with the high speed photography which clearly showed the damming effect of the cap iron pushing the shaving into the wood surface prevent it lifting and causing tearout. When the dam was made steeper the effect was increased but so was the effort to push. 

I don't think they interpreted the results in quite the same way as I do but I stick to my opinion that the best solution is a fine mouthed, sharp, high angle, bevel up plane and that this is an almost universal solution up to the point of having to scrape, at which point surface finish deteriorates requiring subsequent sanding.


----------



## Corneel (13 Jun 2012)

Do you have a link to that thread? 

When bevel up planes work for you, that's fine.
For me I see two disadvantages:
- I don't have bevel up planes.
- A 45 degree bevel down plane leaves a nicer surface then a steep pitched single iron plane.


----------



## Jacob (13 Jun 2012)

Modernist":3pd72k97 said:


> .....up to the point of having to scrape, at which point surface finish deteriorates requiring subsequent sanding.


Not according to the man (Mr Sellers) A sharp card scraper is for fine finishing. This is the trad view as well: Card scraper (or stanley 80) best as they bend to form a camber. A rigid bladed scraper plane is a different thing altogether
The word "scraper" is misleading, as properly sharpened gives a fine cutting edge. Mr Sellers describes in detail how to sharpen scrapers, with various options; 2 cutting edges on one 90º edge, bevelled edges etc.


----------



## Modernist (13 Jun 2012)

Corneel":2id35jyo said:


> Do you have a link to that thread?
> 
> When bevel up planes work for you, that's fine.
> For me I see two disadvantages:
> ...



http://giantcypress.net/post/2315954813 ... created-by

I simply do not agree with your last point. In my direct experience with Veritas BU Jack and smoothers they leave a better finish on difficult timbers, when honed to say 45 deg, than a LN BD and certainly far superior to any thin blade plane.


----------



## Modernist (13 Jun 2012)

Jacob":3smtqtcn said:


> Modernist":3smtqtcn said:
> 
> 
> > .....up to the point of having to scrape, at which point surface finish deteriorates requiring subsequent sanding.
> ...



Well, yes, it is for fine finishing but, IMHO does not give the burnished shine obtainable from a well set plane, nor do abrasives.


----------



## woodbloke (13 Jun 2012)

Modernist":30nejkz7 said:


> Corneel":30nejkz7 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have a link to that thread?
> ...


+1... I don't use any BD planes for that reason, apart from the odd few that lurk under the bench and are there for decoration only - Rob


----------



## Corneel (13 Jun 2012)

Well, I can't really give my own experience because I don't have bevel up planes.
The Japanese have the low cutting angle thing pretty good worked out. They prefer the lowest possible cutting angle, even go a lot lower then 45 degrees. It seems to give the surface a righness, glow and depth that isn't doable with high pitch planes.

I do know that I get a beautifull razor sharp surface with cheap planes now I know how to use the capiron.


----------



## bugbear (13 Jun 2012)

Jacob":1i4xyxtt said:


> Card scraper (or stanley 80) best as they bend to form a camber. A rigid bladed scraper plane is a different thing altogether



The Lee Valley scraper plane has a screw to bow the blade. I'm assuming that's what you meant when you said camber.

BugBear


----------



## Paul Chapman (13 Jun 2012)

Modernist":a4ujsbvp said:


> Well, yes, it is for fine finishing but, IMHO does not give the burnished shine obtainable from a well set plane



Since I started using scraper planes, I've never gone along with the notion that you can't get as good a finish with them as you can with an ordinary plane. Maybe some people have problems honing and setting up scraper planes :-k I frequently use scraper planes these days and, in my experience, they give just as good a finish as any bench plane.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Modernist (13 Jun 2012)

Paul Chapman":ujp7v4pf said:


> Modernist":ujp7v4pf said:
> 
> 
> > Well, yes, it is for fine finishing but, IMHO does not give the burnished shine obtainable from a well set plane
> ...



I am probably one of them Paul. I sold my scraper plane mainly as I could get a good finish on any wood so far to come my way with the BU setup above. I don't have any trouble with normal sharpening but I did find the scraper plane a bit of a faff. I do have an 80 in reserve but so far it hasn't left the box.


----------



## woodbloke (13 Jun 2012)

Corneel":17x1glni said:


> The Japanese have the low cutting angle thing pretty good worked out. They prefer the lowest possible cutting angle, even go a lot lower then 45 degrees. It seems to give the surface a righness, glow and depth that isn't doable with high pitch planes.


Agreed, but a lot of the Japanese timbers are different to those used in the West. Most of the time (not all) the timber they use is beautiful, home produced, straight grained, knot free softwood as opposed to our more awkward temperate hardwoods. Stu Tierney at 'Tools from Japan' does a fairly top end range of Tsuneburo kana where the cutting angle can be specified, but most of the planes are set up to work with softer woods - Rob


----------



## Corneel (13 Jun 2012)

Well, I don't have that fault free softwood of the Japanese available overhere.

So I am very happy to get such beautifull surfaces on beech, maple, oak etc, but also jatoba and teak, with my UK made 1980's thin blade and thin chipbreaker Stanley #4. But also with my prewar Nooitgedagt wooden coffin smoother. 

Watch that video I posted earlier in the thread http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3Nq1sbOhMM. And just look at the surface I get with that humble plane.

Now calculate the costs. A bevel up smoother easily hits the 300 euro mark. For the much praised versatility you need another 30 euro for an extra blade. And that's just one plane.


----------



## Modernist (13 Jun 2012)

Try something like this then post back


----------



## Kalimna (13 Jun 2012)

Brian - that's an awfully big bit of wood cluttering your desk, let me take it off your hands for you 

Adam


----------



## Modernist (13 Jun 2012)

Kalimna":27y932ot said:


> Brian - that's an awfully big bit of wood cluttering your desk, let me take it off your hands for you
> 
> Adam



Too late it now works for it's living


----------



## Corneel (14 Jun 2012)

That sure doesn't look too shabby!

I'll see what I can do. Just to be sure what I am looking at: What kind of wood? Any finish? And what are these small holes in the top surface?


----------



## bugbear (14 Jun 2012)

Modernist":2hvsc9bz said:


> Kalimna":2hvsc9bz said:
> 
> 
> > Brian - that's an awfully big bit of wood cluttering your desk, let me take it off your hands for you
> ...



Interesting (and pretty). I used to have my (Paramo, but v. similar) saw filing vise fixed on a softwood plank, but I eventually upgrade to a stiffer piece of oak, and filing (and the noise of filing) improved. Your support looks similarly rigid.

Firmly held work is *such* a pleasure.

BugBear


----------



## bobbybirds (14 Jun 2012)

Corneel":13qz5ofh said:


> Now calculate the costs. A bevel up smoother easily hits the 300 euro mark. For the much praised versatility you need another 30 euro for an extra blade. And that's just one plane.



Actually, You don't need another blade to benefit from the versatility... For example, on my LV LA Jack I just used to use the 25 degree blade that I ordered my plane with, and when I need a steeper bevel for tricky grain work, I would just hone a very small, steeper micro-bevel. Once done the work I need to do, it is nothing to re-hone it back because the micro-bevel is so small it takes very little effort to return it back to 25 degrees. Now I also have the LV BU Smoother, which I ordered with a 38 degree blade. Because the blades are interchangeable between these two tools, I am covered based on the job. 

For convenience you could obviously just have a second blade if you do enough constant work to justify it, but it isn't necessary for most people...


----------



## Corneel (14 Jun 2012)

First the excuses.

We had a herring and beer party after work. The herring was nice, but the beer too. So when I zame home I wasn't in the mood for sharpening. I just grabbed the Stanley with Ray Iles iron and planed one end of a piece of maple.

I don't have such a spectacular piece of wood as you do.

I'm a lousy photographer, so I hope this iphone pic will do.






Of course a pissing match like this doesn't prove anything at all. I think we can safely conclude that both planes are capable of leaving a nice surface. And now I see this piece of wood, I'm reminded again why I don't like curly maple. It's rather ugly isn't it?


----------



## Modernist (14 Jun 2012)

Corneel":22sef4t9 said:


> That sure doesn't look too shabby!
> 
> I'll see what I can do. Just to be sure what I am looking at: What kind of wood? Any finish? And what are these small holes in the top surface?



It was a scraggy board end of sycamore and the holes are just what I haven't planed out yet. There was no finish.



> Actually, You don't need another blade to benefit from the versatility... For example, on my LV LA Jack I just used to use the 25 degree blade that I ordered my plane with, and when I need a steeper bevel for tricky grain work, I would just hone a very small, steeper micro-bevel. Once done the work I need to do, it is nothing to re-hone it back because the micro-bevel is so small it takes very little effort to return it back to 25 degrees. Now I also have the LV BU Smoother, which I ordered with a 38 degree blade. Because the blades are interchangeable between these two tools, I am covered based on the job.



I don't even go that far I leave the 27.5deg O1 blade in the BU Jack for all end grain work and a 45 deg A2 blade in the BU smoother for difficult grain. Obviously I could swap them if necessary but rarely do.


----------



## Modernist (14 Jun 2012)

Corneel":1lqymvfb said:


> First the excuses.
> 
> We had a herring and beer party after work. The herring was nice, but the beer too. So when I zame home I wasn't in the mood for sharpening. I just grabbed the Stanley with Ray Iles iron and planed one end of a piece of maple.
> 
> ...



Are those blotches herring stains or a natural feature  

Re curlyness it depends on how much











I didn't actually make this only designed it.


----------



## Corneel (14 Jun 2012)

Yeah the herring was very fatty!

I know this isn't a nice piece of wood with these blotches. I have it on the bench at the moment because the curls make it a nice test piece. When the plane isn't working correctly it tears immediately.


----------



## Modernist (14 Jun 2012)

I think Cocobolo can be a hard test











In this case from a LN 62


----------



## pedder (14 Jun 2012)

cocobolo? Looks more like bubunga.  

Cheers Pedder


----------



## Modernist (15 Jun 2012)

pedder":ud7sec6m said:


> cocobolo? Looks more like bubunga.
> 
> Cheers Pedder



You are right - brain fade


----------



## bugbear (15 Jun 2012)

Corneel":2jdpbmzf said:


> Of course a pissing match like this doesn't prove anything at all. I think we can safely conclude that both planes are capable of leaving a nice surface. And now I see this piece of wood, I'm reminded again why I don't like curly maple. It's rather ugly isn't it?



Maple, you say?






(website: 

http://www.guitaristjeffmiller.com/guitars12.htm

Take a look at that maple after he stains and polishes - it's "gorgeous", or possibly "gaudy"

)

BugBear


----------



## Modernist (15 Jun 2012)

I think you could say he's grasped the rudiments of guitar making- stunning.

The finished job was better on heads down no nonsense material than it was on the more subtle stuff IMHO.

Lovely use of quilted maple.


----------



## Corneel (15 Jun 2012)

Gaudy, that's the word I think. Just not my cup of thea.

This piece comes from a large batch of "esdoorn" (Dutch) or "ahorn" (German). European Maple.


----------



## Modernist (15 Jun 2012)

Corneel":36lqrxes said:


> Gaudy, that's the word I think. Just not my cup of thea.
> 
> This piece comes from a large batch of "esdoorn" (Dutch) or "ahorn" (German). European Maple.



What piece


----------



## Corneel (15 Jun 2012)

Oh, I mean the picture in my post of last night.


----------



## Corneel (15 Jun 2012)

Well I nursed my hangover and now I was able to sharpen the blade. That did make the planing a bit easier, but didn't do much for how the wood looks. It's still a gaudy, blotchy piece of maple. And I still can't capture the smoothness and the glow of the wood on camera. Hearby I officially withdraw my statement that old Bailey can make a nicer surface than new bevel ups. I think they're both fine planes. I'm going to play this weekend with a 15 degree backbevel just to see what difference a high cutting angle makes.


----------



## János (15 Jun 2012)

Hello,

Silky smooth surfaces from a hand plane... But "plane fresh" will need some kind of finish, to prevent the raising of grain in everyday use, from perspiration, rain, water spills etc. There are very few occasions, where a "plane fresh" surface would be appropriate or suitable... 

Sanding is able to produce a glass like, silky smooth finish, better than that so called "plane fresh". Even Japanese cabinetmakers used/use fine sanding: the traditional way of fine sanding and polishing of wood was to rub it with the leaves of _muku_ tree.

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## No skills (15 Jun 2012)

Couple of random thoughts from me.

I have found that I do like the 'from the plane finish' perhaps more than finely sanded wood finish, obviously every finish has its place but the more playing around I do with hand tools (planes) the more I appreciate a fresh planed surface. Anybody else find this? or am I just some sort of planed wood pervert?  

Paul Sellers said on his blog that he prefers bevel edged chisels for cutting mortices over heavier firmers etc any thoughts on that from the collective?

I've spent a little bit of time looking at Seller's blog and videos the last few days, I do kind of like the fairly no non-sense (if thats the right word?) approach he has.

FWIW


----------



## Jacob (15 Jun 2012)

No skills":1p1rl39p said:


> ....
> Paul Sellers said on his blog that he prefers bevel edged chisels for cutting mortices over heavier firmers etc any thoughts on that from the collective?
> 
> I....


I think nobody is impressed at all! 
But have a go - make your own mind up. He's gone into a lot of detail,perhaps he has been listening to the mutterings over here.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (15 Jun 2012)

No skills":ycloxi8q said:


> Couple of random thoughts from me.
> 
> I have found that I do like the 'from the plane finish' perhaps more than finely sanded wood finish, obviously every finish has its place but the more playing around I do with hand tools (planes) the more I appreciate a fresh planed surface. Anybody else find this? or am I just some sort of planed wood pervert?
> 
> ...



I've heard it said that different woods respond better to different surfacing methods. Some plane to glossy, silky finish; others need a bit of attention with a scraper or fine sandpaper. I suppose the old maxim of trying things out on offcuts holds good here.

As to Mr Sellers' morticing technique - well, if it works for him, he's perfectly entitled to use bevel-edged chisels, provided he uses his own bevel-edged chisels and not mine. Personally, I'd prefer to cut a mortice with a mortice chisel - after all, the clue is in the name. In the event of not having a mortice chisel the required size, I think I'd drill out most of the waste and pare the rest with a bench chisel, registered firmer if I had one. That's what I used to do in my less well-equipped days, and it seemed to work OK. Use a drill smaller than the mortice, though - it's surprisingly easy for the grain to pull a drill slightly out of line at the start, especially if you use a bog-standard jobber's drill, and end up with crescents outside the mortice sidewall lines.


----------



## DTR (15 Jun 2012)

Jacob":3p8ajton said:


> I think nobody is impressed at all!
> But have a go - make your own mind up.



I use PS's method, except I use the bench top instead of a vice. Recently I had to cut some 1" wide, 3" deep mortises (admittedly in softwood). With the lack of a better alternative I used a bevel edged chisel with no problems. I'm sure we discussed this recently in another thread?


----------



## GazPal (16 Jun 2012)

Let's try to remember the technique he advocates is primarily for the benefit of newcomers with limited tools and facilities, as virtually everyone has at least one or two bevel edged chisels when they're first starting out. I think his example using bevel edged chisels is genuinely an excellent example of how a newby can approach mortising and - in all honesty - bevelled chisels do work well when sharpened and used in the manner he prescribes....... Regardless of skill level. :wink: Some opt to use firmer chisels for mortising, but - depending on the timber in use - they can have a tendancy to jamb and potentially skew in the cut if struck to deep, which can/could prove a major headache if a quantity of mortise need to be chopped.

I tend to opt for mortising on the bench top instead of in the vise, but - again - this boils down to personal preference, as I find some mortise are best chopped within the confines of a vise - think narrow stock and potential problems with sides blowing out - and not necessarily whether it's the right or wrong way to do something. 

Again, it boils down to personal technique and preferences. :wink:


----------



## woodbrains (16 Jun 2012)

Cheshirechappie":2feygpse said:


> In the event of not having a mortice chisel the required size, I think I'd drill out most of the waste and pare the rest with a bench chisel, registered firmer if I had one. That's what I used to do in my less well-equipped days, and it seemed to work OK. Use a drill smaller than the mortice, though - it's surprisingly easy for the grain to pull a drill slightly out of line at the start, especially if you use a bog-standard jobber's drill, and end up with crescents outside the mortice sidewall lines.



Careful! I said exactly the same and got called amateurish!

Mike.


----------



## woodbrains (16 Jun 2012)

János":2gvigqr3 said:


> Hello,
> 
> 
> Sanding is able to produce a glass like, silky smooth finish, better than that so called "plane fresh".
> ...



Can't think of another cabinetmaker who would agree that a sandpapered finish is superior to one straight from the plane, or as quick, either. If your planes are truly sharp, the finish from these is truly peerless. Cannot see how the burnished surface left form a plane is any more vulnerable than the micro sratched surface from sandpaper either. James Krenov, for one would be turning in his grave!

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (16 Jun 2012)

woodbrains":2qkd5la9 said:


> János":2qkd5la9 said:
> 
> 
> > Hello,
> ...


It's no mystery. The smaller the abrasive the nearer you approach a glass like finish. Otherwise polished plate glass would be impossible, along with millions of other polished products.
Personally I like seeing plane marks on finished work (within reason) and often stuff is over finished IMHO. But if you really want to go smoother then abrasives/scrapers are the way.


----------



## Modernist (16 Jun 2012)

Jacob":2im2do8s said:


> Personally I like seeing plane marks on finished work (within reason) and often stuff is over finished IMHO. But if you really want to go smoother then abrasives/scrapers are the way.



Careful Jacob - you are close to agreeing with St Jim leaving signs of the "hand of the artisan"

Personally I just plane it flat and don't bother with abrasives unless I have something to hide. I much prefer the burnished finish from a well set plane. It certainly feels better.


----------



## János (16 Jun 2012)

Hello,

I too like, even love the tactile feel of freshly planed woods. But, from a purely practical point of view, this "left as planed" surface is quite inadequate for most purposes. As I have mentioned it earlier, a wooden surface left in a plane fresh state is _very sensitive to moisture_ and grain raising caused by it: even a freshly washed hand would ruin the "perfect surface". This kind of finish is not "world proof", so to speak. If and when the Japanese leave the surface "as planed" they take into consideration and accept the effects of moisture and wear: the constant washing and mopping, and the million steps of tabi wearing feet discolour, distort and wear down the initially "perfect surface", into those brownish, silvery grey surfaces with pronounced and raised grain patterns.
But in our Occidental cultures, tastes and habits, anything patinated to that state would be considered "rustic", and an object in the earlier phases of ageing, with discoloured fingerprints, grain raised in patches, or blotches of wine and coffee would cause disgust in most of the spectators, and found its destiny in the trash.
So, from a purely practical professional viewpoint, a plane fresh finish is amateurish and inadequate for almost all applications.

Yes, I leave the insides of drawers and blanket chests unfinished, either "as planed", but a tabletop needs sanding and grain raising with hot water, and some more sanding, just to prevent bad grain rising in case of a future water spill. :wink: 

Who the hell is James Krenov? "If you meet the Buddha, kill him."

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## woodbloke (16 Jun 2012)

János":2pg7cupf said:


> Hello,
> 
> I too like, even love the tactile feel of freshly planed woods. But, from a purely practical point of view, this "left as planed" surface is quite inadequate for most purposes. As I have mentioned it earlier, a wooden surface left in a plane fresh state is _very sensitive to moisture_ and grain raising caused by it: even a freshly washed hand would ruin the "perfect surface". This kind of finish is not "world proof", so to speak. If and when the Japanese leave the surface "as planed" they take into consideration and accept the effects of moisture and wear: the constant washing and mopping, and the million steps of tabi wearing feet discolour, distort and wear down the initially "perfect surface", into those brownish, silvery grey surfaces with pronounced and raised grain patterns.
> But in our Occidental cultures, tastes and habits, anything patinated to that state would be considered "rustic", and an object in the earlier phases of ageing, with discoloured fingerprints, grain raised in patches, or blotches of wine and coffee would cause disgust in most of the spectators, and found its destiny in the trash.
> ...



An interesting post with some merit to it...even JK admits to the use of abrasive paper on occasions - Rob


----------



## Modernist (16 Jun 2012)

János":46bemm4i said:


> Hello,
> 
> Who the hell is James Krenov? "If you meet the Buddha, kill him."
> 
> ...




Too late I fear :x


----------



## Corneel (16 Jun 2012)

In finishing I am just a very humble beginner. I tend to oil and wax almost everything. Sometimes a varnish or poly.

Raising grain, isn't that only neccessary after sanding? A planed surface having no loose fibers to raise? That's the impression I got. When oiling wood, raising grain isn't much of a concern anyway.

Today I did the test with a backbevel. I have a nice old infill plane. Nothing special, but I have it lovingly restored. It's almost 50 degrees. I added a backbevel so I got a total cutting angle of 60 degrees. I must say, in the same plank, next to the Bailey surface I didn't really see much difference. I tried wallnut and maple. The difference in surface quality between planing against or with the grain is much bigger, the former being more dull. 

There was a huge difference in the ease of planing. The infill at 60 degrees was much harder to push at a similar shaving thickness. I am still awstruck how much the Bailey plane is improved by setting the capiron in the right spot. Apart from not leaving any tearout and making a nice surface, it also feels more solid and glides easier through the wood.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (16 Jun 2012)

From time to time I hear of woodworkers that claim to polish their work straight off the plane. I've been hearing it since 1972 when I started in the furniture game. The problem I have with these claims is that I've only ever actually witnessed it in two situations:

1. As a small test sample just to demonstrate it can be done. I've seen this twice, one even done by myself, and boy, what a tedious time consuming waste of effort it was-- no chance of making a profit working that way.
2. In rusticated furniture where the surface is deliberately hand planed, with various planes to leave a scalloped, undulating and torn out surface. This type of furniture, apart from deliberately being roughed up with planes, usually gets some additional treatment with lumps of concrete, chains, drills, dirt, etc and slathered over with brown dye plus some sort of polish, and the end product sold as a distressed country style.

Apart from those examples, I've never seen a piece of polished furniture made with the intention of making a profit that hasn't seen either a scraper or abrasive paper (or both) at some stage of the prepping process prior to applying the finish. Slainte.


----------



## Corneel (16 Jun 2012)

Like I said, my finish schedules are not very involved. But when you plane your surfaces anyway, why would it be so time consuming? I think sanding is time consuming.

Not sure how many professionals still handplane their work though.


----------



## woodbrains (16 Jun 2012)

Hello,

Everything is a compromise and at some point you have to weigh up whether switching to abrasive is going to be an expedient worth taking to save a bit of faffing. At some point we almost all do, but it is at what point we do it that matters. it is perfectly possible never to use planes and finish everything with abrasives. This has been proven to be extremely time consuming and gives an inferior finish to a planed surface. I suppose the abrasives used could be taken to the nth degree of fineness to improve the finish further, but that would take even more time. Law of diminishing returns here. There is no doubt that a planed finish gives a fine, burnished surface which will take oil, wax, shellac, polyurathane, cellulose laquer etc without any grain raising issues. Any fine nibs here are just dried micro-bubbles set on the surface as air raises out through pores in the wood. This would happen on a sanded surface too. Waterborne finishes and dyes will raise the grain of a planed or sanded finish.

Logically, if we hone our plane irons to 1 micron abrasive or there abouts, how could an abrasive used on wood which is much coarser, give a better result? Sanding wood with abrasives, down to a few microns, would likely be so time consuming as to be an absurdity.

You would be surprised how many do actually use hanplanes down to a finish, using abrasives for those elusive bits of tearout, but perhaps 90% remaining hand worked. Look at the furniture from the College of the Redwoods if you want to see minimal sanding on finished pieces. Whether this is economically viable for professionals is debatable, but many CR graduates become professionals. And after all, the many who contribute here do not want to have to deal with professional pressures; we want to enjoy our work in dust free and relatively quiet environments.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (16 Jun 2012)

woodbrains":34q0pn6j said:


> Hello,
> 
> Everything is a compromise and at some point you have to weigh up whether switching to abrasive is going to be an expedient worth taking to save a bit of faffing. At some point we almost all do, but it is at what point we do it that matters. it is perfectly possible never to use planes and finish everything with abrasives. This has been proven to be extremely time consuming and gives an inferior finish to a planed surface.


Quite the opposite. You give up on planing and take to abrasives precisely because it is quicker, usually because you just want to get the damn thing finished! And of course the finish is superior - so much so that heavily sanded work looks over-finished, too perfect, artificial, no longer hand made.


----------



## David C (16 Jun 2012)

Richard,

Totally agree. These wierd fetishes arise from time to time in the amateur field.

best wishes,
David


----------



## Corneel (16 Jun 2012)

Weird fetish or not, and yes I'm just an amateur. But why would I want to sand after I have made a very nice surface with a handplane?
What does sanding do to improve the surface? Remember, I'm not into staining or other complex things. Oil and wax are my favorite finishes.

(not trying to be smart this time, just asking a question).


----------



## Jacob (16 Jun 2012)

Corneel":3ldaa9lp said:


> Weird fetish or not, and yes I'm just an amateur. But why would I want to sand after I have made a very nice surface with a handplane?
> What does sanding do to improve the surface? Remember, I'm not into staining or other complex things. Oil and wax are my favorite finishes.
> 
> (not trying to be smart this time, just asking a question).


Agree. It's only if you have to. Sometimes getting a good finish with a plane is difficult. That's why it's a major theme of these forums - alternative theories without end! 
If it wasn't (sometimes/often) difficult it wouldn't be an issue and people wouldn't use scrapers, sandpaper, ROSs etc. These aren't amateur fetishes.
If anything the perfect plane finish has become an amateur fetish, the impossible dream. along with a lot of other tooly issues.

PS Sellers is into sharp planes, close cap irons etc in line with theories which abound here. He's also into scrapers as the ultimate fine finisher (they don't scrape they _cut_, etc)


----------



## Corneel (16 Jun 2012)

Well, maybe because the amateur has the time to perfect his planing technique. Then it's not realy a fetish, just the desire to get better at something. When you grab the ROS each time the planing is a bit difficult, you won't make any progress.

But I'm not allergic to sandpaper. Use it quite often in fact.


----------



## Jacob (16 Jun 2012)

I'm going to spend more time with my scraper!


----------



## David C (17 Jun 2012)

There are good reasons for sanding. If the finish is one which will need sanding between coats, any scallops or ridges left by the plane will cause variations in the thickness of film. It may in fact be cut through on high points. This leaves a very disapointing streakiness in the final result.

Flatness is needed and the simplest way to get this is with some fine sanding. I might use 240, 320, 400grit.

David


----------



## Corneel (17 Jun 2012)

Aha, that's a good reason. Thanks.


Well, luckily I like an oil finish a lot on most types of wood I work with. Saves me a bunch of work.


----------



## Jacob (17 Jun 2012)

Best of all possible worlds - plane as far as you can, belt sander followed by ROS working through the grits, finish with scrapers! Obvious innit? Perhaps not.


----------



## CStanford (17 Jun 2012)

phil.p":3gn9qp0a said:


> I was told when at school (45yrs ago) that the reasons that beech is used is that it is stable, reasonably damage resistant (hard) and above all that there is very little spring in it, so there is no "give" when chopping huge mortices etc..
> With very few people doing work of any weight (in that sense), what the bench is made of is probably of less importance now.



While not strictly traditional, it seems logical to me to make a benchtop out of a species softer than the the species of the furniture parts worked on its surface. IMO, a three inch thick (+) lamination even of the softest species ought to provide more than enough mass except under the most unusual of circumstances.


----------



## devonwoody (17 Jun 2012)

And a welcome to the uk forum, Tennessee sounds musical.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (17 Jun 2012)

woodbrains":29myto55 said:


> Everything is a compromise and at some point you have to weigh up whether switching to abrasive is going to be an expedient worth taking to save a bit of faffing.


Mike, I'm certainly not advocating that planes should be abandoned altogether during wood prep, and that the whole job should be undertaken with abrasives. I realise you don't think I believe that.

I've found that, in hand-crafted furniture anyway, a surface is most swiftly got almost or near polish ready with well set up planes, scrapers and the like. There comes a point where sanding is necessary, even when the metal edge cutting tools have done a great job, just for the sake of speed if nothing else. How much sanding depends on the job, and the type of subsequent finish. A film forming polish over oak only needs a final sand at about 180 grit-- the open pores of the wood are coarser than the grit size at about that point. A film forming polish over a fine textured wood such as sycamore or cherry need only be sanded to perhaps 220 or 240 grit. So after planing and scraping it's common to at 120, 150, and for coarse timbers 180 grit as a final grade, and with 220 or 240 grit for fine grained timbers. Any finer generally doesn't help as the striations are hidden under the layer of polish. You might sand a bit finer for wiped on finishes such as linseed oil, pure tung oil and waxes.

That sort of prepping regime fits reasonably well into the College of the Redwoods philosophy you mentioned.

However, I stick to my earlier point where I stated that I've never seen a piece of high quality commercial woodwork or similar top quality professionally made furniture item of any sort go out of the door and into the client's possession that wasn't sanded in some form prior to applying polish, no matter how well the surfaces were hand planed before finishing started.

I've seen plenty of completed woodwork delivered to the client with a finish applied straight over the scallops left behind by power planers and spindle moulders, etc, but that was for a different type of client of a different type of product. Slainte.


----------



## Corneel (17 Jun 2012)

The question remains, why? What does the sanding accomplish that the plane didn't? I understand from David's answer the reason to sand before applying a film finish. But with an oil or wax finish?

You will see or feel when watching carefully the scallops of the smooth plane of course. I wouldn't call that detracting at all.


----------



## woodbloke (17 Jun 2012)

Sgian Dubh":3ebufz8x said:


> woodbrains":3ebufz8x said:
> 
> 
> > Everything is a compromise and at some point you have to weigh up whether switching to abrasive is going to be an expedient worth taking to save a bit of faffing.
> ...


+1...spot on Richard. I'm currently making some picture frames from English Walnut and after cleaning up with a very finely set BU smoother, a quick going over with some 240g is all that's needed. Wipe the edges with a bit of worn stuff and they're ready for their first coat of oil...sorted - Rob


----------



## Sawyer (17 Jun 2012)

Planing vs sanding - it's 'horses for courses' surely? Depends on the nature of the job, costing, time allowed, species of timber, period detail (where applicable), intended finish, and many other variables.

When cleaning up machined components to remove the ripple marks, I find that usually, a well set plane is _much_ quicker than abrasives. Whether that planed surface then needs further work with scrapers or abrasives depends on the variables.

Personally, I like to see some subtle traces of genuine hand work, but whether that's appropriate depends, again, on the variables. If I need to sand, I sand, if I don't - then I don't bother.

In answer to a point above, I have delivered plenty of 'for profit' jobs unsanded for a variety of reasons. Recently an oak table which following the attentions of various planes, finishing with a 4.1/2, came out so well that it needed no further work. This was exceptional however and it is rarely that easy. Had I thought that abrasives were needed, I would not have hesitated...


----------



## Corneel (17 Jun 2012)

Yes that sounds reasonable. Sand when neccessary because you're not happy enough with the planing results. Not sand always as a matter of course.

Recently I've finished my kitchen project. I even borrowed a ROS for that one, because I couldn't get the surfaces smooth enough.


----------



## Sawyer (17 Jun 2012)

For me, sanding is an option, not a foregone conclusion. I love my planes, but would not be without my belt sander, either.


----------



## custard (18 Jun 2012)

But what about when the finish itself depends on sanding? 

If the finish needs any sanding then you can only really apply that finish over a previously sanded surface, otherwise when you sand the finish you'll cut through on the microscopic ridges that planing or scraping always leave.


----------



## János (18 Jun 2012)

Hello,

Abrasives work on exactly the same principles as hand planes, the difference is limited: a hand plane have one, wide cutting edge with a predetermined cutting geometry, the abrasives (sanding paper, sanding stones etc.) have multiple, very small cutting edges with varied cutting geometry. But the underlying physical laws and principles are much the same. The edges of the individual abrasive particles have different cutting angles, cutting widths, and cutting depths, but that is all: they work like a bunch of miniature planes in unison. Just because you do not see the curls of shavings you are so familiar with, and do not fully understand what the heck is going on, do not blame the tools.

Most of the representative, large scale works of the "krenovites" have found their homes in galleries and museums, where they will never see any proper use. Contrary to all myths, oiled and waxed furniture surfaces are the most sensitive to damage or abuse, and need very-very good preparatory work. To put oil or wax to a "plane fresh" surface of a non-decorative furniture item (eg. a dining table, chair, children's toys etc.), that is silly thing... I am a professional cabinetmaker, I hand plane my work. But I care about the days after delivery...

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## Corneel (18 Jun 2012)

Today in The Netherlands, almost all wooden floors are finished with oil. Either pure oil or an oil with some hard wax (carnuba I guess). Of course that needs some maintenance. Our floor is protected with a regular application of a special soap. ( I think that comes from a Scandinavian tradition).

Floors being one of the most heavily used wooden items in a house, I think you are too conservative about an oil finish.


----------



## woodbrains (18 Jun 2012)

custard":79zp8ku0 said:


> But what about when the finish itself depends on sanding?
> 
> If the finish needs any sanding then you can only really apply that finish over a previously sanded surface, otherwise when you sand the finish you'll cut through on the microscopic ridges that planing or scraping always leave.



I think it depends on the finish and how the plane is prepared. If the final smoothing plane strokes are made with a slightly cambered blade (and I mean slight) there should be no ridges caused by the corners of the plane, just lots of very slight hollows which overlap. Theas will have peaks and troughs, so will not be dead flat in engineering terms, but flat in 'human' terms; they still have traced of the hand skills involved. However, since we can sharpen out planes VERY sharp and take 1 thou shavings, the peaks and troughs will be very small indeed, possibly less than a thou--due to overlapped plane strokes. The film finish of polyurethane applied with a brush is much thicker than 1 thou, so I don't see and have never had a problem with cutting through the finish. I don't use a block for cutting back in this instance, just v fine paper and light pressure with my hand. Why would you want to use a block, the flatness comes from whatever tool is used on the bare wood, after that we don't want to try to improve the flatness, just smooth the finish. Something like shellac only needs steel wool to cut it back and in any case, subsequent coats will burn into the preceeding ones, so cut through, if accidentally happens, will just blend away. We use scrapers to remove tearout all the time and doesn't that cause slight depressions?

I do not see the point in getting a polish ready surface straight from the plane and then scuffing it up with sandpaper! I'm not saying that I always acheive this, or always even aim for it, I am not a sandpaper Nazi, I tend to do what works. However, if I know my planes are capable of the finish I want, it gives me a choice, not an enforced reliance on sandpaper, because my tools are not sharp enough or my skills are lacking. And one other thing I have to disagree with, how can sanding be quicker than a plane? How long would it take to remove 3 thou with 400 grit sandpaper. The time it takes for 2 strokes of a plane--I think not.

Mike.


----------



## No skills (18 Jun 2012)

Interesting to know, quite the opposite to some products sold here for floor finish "diamond hard" polyurethane etc.

I had a quick go today cutting a mortice with a beveled edge chisel (not that I own any other  ), not strictly Sellers style as I couldnt remember much of the video but it worked and was reasonably quick (for me, who still has enough fingers to count the number of mortices I have ever cut). I do think that the chisel would benifit from a steeper bevel than a normal BE chisel to try and preserve the cutting edge, I'm not sure I'd like to do this on a deep mortice in a hard wood tho - I'm fairly ham fisted and I think I'd like a chisel with a bit more meat in it.

FWIW


----------



## Jacob (18 Jun 2012)

woodbrains":185ilnjn said:


> ...
> I do not see the point in getting a polish ready surface straight from the plane and then scuffing it up with sandpaper!


Obviously. Who would! :roll:


> I'm not saying that I always acheive this,


Me neither, so we resort to sanding/scraping


> ...... how can sanding be quicker than a plane?


When planing is difficult - tear out being the most common problem dealt with by sanding


> How long would it take to remove 3 thou with 400 grit sandpaper. The time it takes for 2 strokes of a plane--I think not.
> 
> Mike.


If you are getting tear out and having to fiddle with planes, trying different ones, honing, setting etc it may well be quicker to sand and or scrape. This is *why* people sand/scrape - it's not because they are ignorant or stupid.


----------



## Jacob (18 Jun 2012)

János":1jdbk1i0 said:


> ...... Contrary to all myths, oiled and waxed furniture surfaces are the most sensitive to damage or abuse, and need very-very good preparatory work. To put oil or wax to a "plane fresh" surface of a non-decorative furniture item (eg. a dining table, chair, children's toys etc.), that is silly thing......


I've been talking to greenwood pole lathe turners. The say the opposite, about oil at least: A bowl, plate, spoon etc needs to be finished from the gouge/knife etc and most definitely *not* sanded, if it is going to be used as a normal utensil. The cut surface stays in better condition for longer, the sanded surface tends to go dull as the grain lifts and the embedded dust washes out. It certainly seems to be true in our house - carefully finished and sanded bowls don't survive too well compared to "unfinished" cut surfaces.


----------



## custard (18 Jun 2012)

woodbrains":2fbuou27 said:


> custard":2fbuou27 said:
> 
> 
> > But what about when the finish itself depends on sanding?
> ...



Mike, but where one hollow meets another there'll be a ridge. Apply sanding sealer or a shellac finish to this and then, when you sand, which you'll have to, you'll cut through that ridge and expose bare wood.

As a previous poster put it, there's a lot of Krenovian idealism out there but in the real world it's pretty hard to avoid sanding at some stage. 

One great example is cherry, often touted as the perfect timber for an oiled finish on a hand planed surface. I once made an eight seater dining table like this. Within a few years it has started to look blotchy. A more experienced and wiser woodworker told me it was inevitable, cherry is notoriously patchy in terms of surface absorbancy, so it absolutely needs a coat of shellac before oiling, and if that's true then it absolutely needs sanding too.


----------



## Corneel (18 Jun 2012)

Jacob":2ssosulx said:


> woodbrains":2ssosulx said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



That brings us back to skills. It's not fumbling when you have the proper skills. Not saying that you lack any skills Jacob! But when you want to improve it makes sence to practice what you are not so comfortable with. Repeating what you can has a marginal impact on your skills.


----------



## woodbrains (18 Jun 2012)

custard":1k9wv0fk said:


> woodbrains":1k9wv0fk said:
> 
> 
> > custard":1k9wv0fk said:
> ...



Hi,

Where one hollow meets the other there will be a ridge, indeed. This is what we mean by leaving evidence of handwork. But like I said, if we take 1 thou shavings with a very sharp plane, and overlap the strokes, the difference beween the high and low points will be 1 thou or less. This is less than the film thickness of most reactive finishes. You will only cut through with heavy handedness. If the dead flat surface is what you require, then by all means sand away all evidence of the craftsman and end up with, what some regard, as a sterile, lifeless surface, Like micro-thin veneer on mdf. Don't get me wrong, there is a time and a place for this. Furniture styles and wood species can dictate. But make an Arts and Crafts table from oak and see how much it suffers from being too flat.

Yes, cherry can suffer from blotchyness and a shellac sealer can even absobancy problems out. I don't see why a wash coat of shellac mandates sandpaper though. Steel wool just to de-nib would work. If you want to sand, then do, but it is not compulsary.

Regarding Krenovian idealism; he never denied using sandpaper and even stated that some woods do not want to be planed. It is easy to repeat misquoted writings and make out that he was aiming for unreasonable goals. I think aiming for these is a good thing even if they are seldom if ever acheived. Aiming for just good enough and falling short is a terrible thing.

Incidentally, blotchy cherry is something that happens as soon as the finish is applied. Something that happens years later is mostly not likely to be due to uneven absorbancy. American cherry is very photochromic however, and grain run out can often become more pronounced as the light changes the colour of the surface; the grain tending towards endgrain can darken more strongly than grain on the flat. Oils are light reactive, too and would make the situation more complex. I oiled cherry once and did not like the result, though not for the same reasons. A shellac finish looks nicer, IMO.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (19 Jun 2012)

Corneel":3ic5ldjn said:


> ..... But when you want to improve it makes sence to practice what you are not so comfortable with. Repeating what you can has a marginal impact on your skills.


Yes and no. Practice is good, repetition is good, and often (not always) thought needs to go into it. No different from any other human skill; making fairy cakes, playing the piano, you name it.


----------



## GazPal (19 Jun 2012)

Corneel":cma5uzz7 said:


> That brings us back to skills. It's not fumbling when you have the proper skills. Not saying that you lack any skills Jacob! But when you want to improve it makes sence to practice what you are not so comfortable with. Repeating what you can has a marginal impact on your skills.


 
This is precisely why I place a great deal of emphasis upon practise and skill aquisition through repetition of each process.


----------



## Corneel (19 Jun 2012)

Jacob":33mzgd85 said:


> Yes and no. Practice is good, repetition is good, and often (not always) thought needs to go into it. No different from any other human skill; making fairy cakes, playing the piano, you name it.




What I mean:

Planing is a multi faceted activity. There are all kinds of subactivities. Like flattening a board, planing an edge square, dealing with difficult grain, etc. Each and every one of them needs practice and a lot of repetitions to become good at it. It's when we avoid doing one aspect, we get hindered at becoming a fully developed planer. 

For example I kind of suck at planing a square edge. So I made a long shooting board and when I need to glue up a panel I use that instead practicing my freehand edge planing technique. Result: I'll never become a proficient edge planer. 

From your answers in this thread, I understand that you kind of suck at planing without creating tearout in difficult grain. So instead of practicing that activity, you just grab the ROS. Result, you'll never become a proficient rowy grain planer. 
Planing for hours with the grain in easy woods won't help you much in becoming proficient at difficult wood with grain reversals all over the place.


----------



## Jacob (19 Jun 2012)

Corneel":3tcznx8z said:


> ......
> From your answers in this thread, I understand that you kind of suck at planing without creating tearout in difficult grain.


No more so than anybody else as far as I know. I don't have a prob with square edges either.


> So instead of practicing that activity, you just grab the ROS. Result, you'll never become a proficient rowy grain planer.
> Planing for hours with the grain in easy woods won't help you much in becoming proficient at difficult wood with grain reversals all over the place.


Thanks for the advice but I have actually put in many hours on this and become much more proficient as a result. This was on some large sycamore table tops and some sapele small tops, at the start. Other stuff since. Have also experimented with different planes and configurations and so on. I only grab the ROS when I just have to finish a job which isn't giving in to hand techniques.
What I intend to do next is to hand plane (following on from machine plane) as far as possible but then to put more effort into scraping and getting scrapers nice n sharp. I've been woodworking for a long time, hand and machine, but only in the last few years been looking much harder at hand processes, so it's a developmental thing still.
First big step forwards was learning how to sharpen - convex bevel freehand etc. Very liberating once you have fast and easy sharpening sorted!


----------



## Corneel (19 Jun 2012)

I didn't want to offend you.

Me, I am going to practice on planing square and straight edges. I really want to get that skill down.


----------



## custard (19 Jun 2012)

woodbrains":iau8zljb said:


> if we take 1 thou shavings with a very sharp plane, and overlap the strokes, the difference beween the high and low points will be 1 thou or less. This is less than the film thickness of most reactive finishes.
> Mike.



Two points,

1. The "ridge" (ie the peak between overlapping planing furrow that's at risk of having the finish removed with subsequent sanding) is governed more by the camber of the plane iron than the thickness of the shaving.

2. Where did you get the information on finish film thickness?


----------



## Jacob (19 Jun 2012)

Corneel":hefmig5i said:


> I didn't want to offend you.
> 
> Me, I am going to practice on planing square and straight edges. I really want to get that skill down.


Simple. Just plane off the high points. The middle if there's a bump.The ends (or one end) if there's a dip. The high edge if it's not square. High corner to high corner if there's a twist. You just have to look closely at what you are doing.
Can help if the blade is cambered. Tilt mechanism useful - BU planes are weak in that department.


----------



## Corneel (19 Jun 2012)

Yup. And now combine all of them in one motion!
Practice, I guess. I am between two project now, so I have time for practice.


----------



## Jacob (19 Jun 2012)

Corneel":2olas5l6 said:


> Yup. And now combine all of them in one motion!.....


Impossible. I'd take them in sequence if I were you. One step at a time. Though if it's really rough you could just give it a blast to get it started.


----------



## Corneel (19 Jun 2012)

Ok, that's a good tip in fact.
Another problem I have: Loosing the straightness when squaring or the other way around.


----------



## dunbarhamlin (19 Jun 2012)

Decadent and inefficient, I know, but I get around that by using a cambered try plane and an uncambered jointer as separate operations. I do use stepped or weighted cuts with the jointer if a smidge out of square when jointing.


----------



## János (20 Jun 2012)

Hello,

Sanding is capable to cut much more carefully than a hand plane. You could sand down very thin layers, but in comparison, a hand plane is unable to cut such very thin shavings, in the range of 0,05 mm and below, simply because that is the technical limit of this technology. (I have no appetite for a quarrel about hand planes' merits... I have had my fair share of knowledge about the theory of wood cutting and machining...)
There is a simple test, anybody could make: hand plane a piece of wooden board. The species is irrelevant, but on softer woods the results would be more pronounced. Cut the board in half. Put one piece aside. Sand the other with P180 sandpaper carefully, but thoroughly. After sanding, wipe it with a cloth, dampened with hot water, then let it dry. (This would take a few hours or a day depending on weather). Then sand it with P240 sandpaper. After sanding, wipe it with a cloth, dampened with hot water, then let it dry. Then sand it with P320 sandpaper carefully, and thoroughly. Dampen it with hot water, then let it dry. Sand it with P400 sandpaper.
Apply a coat of beeswax or walnut oil to both boards and let them dry. Now put a wet glass of water (hot or cold, hot would be more effective) on the boards for a few minutes. Then remove the glasses, let the boards dry, and examine the surfaces.

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## dunbarhamlin (20 Jun 2012)

At least be realistic with your numbers - 1 thousandth of an inch is commonplace with half a thou closer to the normal limit


----------



## woodbrains (20 Jun 2012)

custard":3bw8947j said:


> woodbrains":3bw8947j said:
> 
> 
> > if we take 1 thou shavings with a very sharp plane, and overlap the strokes, the difference beween the high and low points will be 1 thou or less. This is less than the film thickness of most reactive finishes.
> ...



Hello,

If the camber is across the full width of the blade, taking the full depth at the centre and tapering away to nothing somewhere just before the extreme edge and if the thickest part is set to 1 thou then the ridges cannot be higher than that. If you take a thou shaving with a radical camber, then the shaving will just be narrower, so the shaving thickness has everything to do with the ridge height. The plane stokes overlap so will mostly be less. The camber should only be slight on a smoother and possibly more on jacks etc. if you want that effect on these.

Film thickness, I cannot find a ref for it amongst my books, but I know I have come across it several times I'm sure you could find it on the web. A rule of thumb is, you only rub out a finish when the thickness is about 6 thou. Three coats of poly will be this thick or a touch more. Therefore minimum 2 thou per coat.

It wouldn't be a major problem cutting through the first coat by accident anyway, should you do so when removing nibs. Subsequent coats will cover any witness marks and will not need any where near the amount of sanding between coats, so should not be cut through again. If any one is too heavy handed and cuts trough on subsequent coats, it is not the fault of the initial prep, whether planed or sanded or whatever. Don't forget, it is easy to scrape out tearout deeper than a couple of thou and even easier to sand hollows with ROS or belt sanders, but no one worries about finishing in these instances. It seems harsh to pick on a finely tunes plane for causing problems with rub through.

I don't want to make an issue of all this, there is nothing wrong with sandpaper, but neither is there with polishing straight over finely planed surfaces. I'm not a fan of film forming finishes really, but they are a necessary evil in some instances. Too much sanding and too thick a finish all move away from the natural look of the wood which we all want, but we have to weigh up the pros and cons. I don't change my prep technique whether I wax or shellac or use a reactive finish and have never encountered any problems. If straight off the plane is good enough to take finish then I finish with whatever is appropriate.

Mike.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (20 Jun 2012)

woodbrains":36el9uh2 said:


> custard":36el9uh2 said:
> 
> 
> > 2. Where did you get the information on finish film thickness?
> ...


Take a wood finish such as pre-catalysed lacquer as guidance for other film finishes. Manufacturers of these lacquers all recommend a wet film thickness of approximately 100 μm (microns); 100 μm is about the same thickness as a typical head hair. If you work in mils (1/1000'ths of an inch) all the polish manufacturers recommend a wet film of 4-5 mils. The other part of the equation is number of coats to apply, and with pre-cat this must be limited to three maximum at those wet film thicknesses. (This maximum wet film thickness is to prevent cracking or Chinese writing developing in the fully cured finish.)

The sums are easy after that. Take a typical pre-cat lacquer made up of solvents and 28% solids, although the solids percentage can vary according to the manufacturer and the grade or quality of the polish, but 28% is typical. Apply three wet coats of 100 μm each equalling 300 μm. 72% of the wet film will evaporate because it's solvent. This leaves behind a cured film of about 84 μm, approximately 3.3 mils (3.3 thou). To help visitors do conversions there are 25.4 μm per one mil (1 thou). 

Apply the same sort of calculations to shellac or various types of varnish to estimate an approximate dry film thickness. Of course you also have to allow for how much you rub down between coats to get a general idea of dry film finish thickness. On the whole though, unless you are working with something like clear pour on epoxy finishes which can be very thick, most film forming finishes are likely to be somewhere between about 75 μm and perhaps 150 μm, or between about 3 mils and 6 mils. Slainte.


----------

