# shoulder plane



## Jacob (1 Nov 2010)

I want a long shoulder plane for final touch up on long shoulders (table-top bread-board ends). Stanley 78 will do, but one of the more high precision solid types would be better. 
Is the Record 042 the most favoured or are there better alternatives (SH or new)?


----------



## bugbear (1 Nov 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":hjy119rn said:


> I want a long shoulder plane for final touch up on long shoulders (table-top bread-board ends). Stanley 78 will do, but one of the more high precision solid types would be better.
> Is the Record 042 the most favoured or are there better alternatives (SH or new)?



Who are you, and what have you done with Jacob?

BugBear


----------



## Richard T (1 Nov 2010)

I thought you had a 78 and you liked it. Were you burgalerized?


----------



## GazPal (1 Nov 2010)

I tend to favour my Record #073 with it's 1.1/4" cutter width. Although it has a wider sole and is marginally longer than a #042 (By 1/8") you've the full range of adjustment in terms of both blade and mouth opening, plus they've a nice degree of heft (4lb) to them for serious work. They're rock solid and virtually bullet-proof, with blades more than capable of taking and holding an edge extremely well.

The #042 hasn't the throat adjustment facility you'll find with numbers 072, 073 and 074 and stands at 2.3/4lbs with a 3/4" wide cutter, but is still a brilliant plane in daily use. 

I'd also ditch the Stanley 78 and pick up a Record #778 for it's infinitely better and finer blade adjustment. :wink:


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2010)

Richard T":fe04fkya said:


> I thought you had a 78 and you liked it. Were you burgalerized?


78 is cheap, and brilliant as a general purpose rebate and shoulder plane and everybody should have one, no doubt about it!
But I recognise the possibility of there being more expensive planes which will do fewer tasks but *perhaps* with more precision. Law of diminishing returns etc.

PS and the 778 is just too pricey for the supposed advantage. 
Also has the big disadvantage of the unprotected blade and cut finger problem. Derek Cohen did a post on this with gory photos of his fingers cut to ribbons!
I'll see if I can track it down.


----------



## GazPal (1 Nov 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":3iokkrrt said:


> PS and the 778 is just too pricey for the supposed advantage.
> Also has the big disadvantage of the unprotected blade and cut finger problem. Derek Cohen did a post on this with gory photos of his fingers cut to ribbons!
> I'll see if I can track it down.



778's run at around the same price as 078's on Evil Bay at present (Between £16 and £30) so aren't too pricey if talking of second hand tooling. There's no "supposed" about the advantage of a 778's better blade adjustment in comparison to 78's. It's the same adjuster as used on Record's shoulder planes and far outweighs the often finnicky lever adjuster found on 78's. I own both Stanley and Record's example of the 78 and used them for years - with a lot of frustration thrown in over blade adjustment - until I inherited my #778 back in the 70's.  

Another fact is the twin rods eliminate the all too common spinning fence problem - found on single rodded 78's - when running wider rebates.  

Derek just needs to learn how to hold his fillister properly or pay more attention to finger placement while working. :lol: While the same exposed blade element exists for all open sided rebate and shoulder planes I've not had any problems using them in terms of safety.


----------



## Richard T (1 Nov 2010)

Yes, the single rod seems pretty dodgy - as I'm sure Gary remembers - I asked about it on here when I bought mine to check if any thing was missing. 
I would really like something more substantial for dedicated shoulder work too, seems a lot to ask of such a small bevel down iron - but I'm very impressed at what it does manage to cope with.


----------



## bugbear (1 Nov 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":257ds2qp said:


> But I recognise the possibility of there being more expensive planes which will do fewer tasks but *perhaps* with more precision. Law of diminishing returns etc.



I think it's more a matter of "specialised" than "expensive".

Of course, some things are both "specialised" _*and*_ "expensive".

Moving on...

I know it's almost the opposite of the sort of tool you like, but the Veritas shoulder planes are widely liked for their ergonomics and innovation.

The Clifton/LN shoulder planes are very much the linear inheritors of Preston, with the usual upgrades in detailed design and materials.

People who use shoulder planes a lot tend to prefer the larger models, IME.

BugBear


----------



## GazPal (1 Nov 2010)

Richard T":3m5qooxg said:


> Yes, the single rod seems pretty dodgy - as I'm sure Gary remembers - I asked about it on here when I bought mine to check if any thing was missing.
> I would really like something more substantial for dedicated shoulder work too, seems a lot to ask of such a small bevel down iron - but I'm very impressed at what it does manage to cope with.



They're great planes as long as you don't overload the blade by attempting too heavy a shaving. Sometimes a tad tricky if the adjuster is stiff/difficult to set, as you can sometimes go either side of the desired setting. 

Over tighten the single fence rod too much and it can expand the female thread to a point where they seldom tighten quite the same afterwards. I did that with my first 78. I resorted to lining the thread with PTFE and found it cured the problem.


----------



## Alf (1 Nov 2010)

Given that you tend towards the larger end of the spectrum of projects, Jacob, I'd suggest the 073 too. Or the large Veritas. I think you might appreciate the cutter extra width. Having said which, personally I find myself reaching for the Veritas Medium more often than I do my 073.

That's helpful, innit. :roll: :lol:


----------



## Racers (1 Nov 2010)

Hi,

Grinsdale mode on

Bluster bluster any thing cheap from Ebay will do.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Vintage-Rebate-Ra ... 19c08c9812
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Vintage-Rebate-Ra ... 19c097162f
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/MEDIUM-ANTIQUE-WO ... 35ad88a5c2

nice skew, grumble, grumble
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Vintage-Skew-Reba ... 230b411537

Grinsdale mode off

:wink: 

Pete


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2010)

Racers":1rn9y3wm said:


> Hi,
> 
> Grinsdale mode on
> 
> ...


Bin there dunnit. 
I've got several of the above, mainly skewed (they mostly are). They are really good for rebates but steel planes better for shoulders IMHO.


----------



## Karl (1 Nov 2010)

Playing devils advocate, I wonder whether there's any merit in taking one of the old skew planes, taking a few mm off the bottom of it and then bonding a piece of brass to the sole. That would make the sole nice and hard wearing for (end grain) shoulder work.

Just a thought.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Racers (1 Nov 2010)

Hi, Mr G Rimsdale


You could make your own.

https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/cut- ... hlight=cut


Pete


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2010)

Racers":2lvmc9nc said:


> Hi, Mr G Rimsdale
> 
> 
> You could make your own.
> ...


Hmm no can't be bothered. Nuff to do already! 
Anyway it involves metal work.


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2010)

Karl":3ccgo4lr said:


> Playing devils advocate, I wonder whether there's any merit in taking one of the old skew planes, taking a few mm off the bottom of it and then bonding a piece of brass to the sole. That would make the sole nice and hard wearing for (end grain) shoulder work.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> ...


But the two parts of the sole wouldn't stay in alignment so well IMHO.


----------



## Darkwood (1 Nov 2010)

What about a LN bench rabbet plane 10-1/4? It's longer and more accurate than any Stanley 78.

Darkwood


----------



## AndyT (1 Nov 2010)

Get yourself a 073. They only cost £45!


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2010)

Darkwood":zcfo1rph said:


> What about a LN bench rabbet plane 10-1/4? It's longer and more accurate than any Stanley 78.
> 
> Darkwood


Actually I was wondering about a Stanley 10 instead of the 073. Ebay here I come!


----------



## Paul Chapman (1 Nov 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":2p21fsuh said:


> Actually I was wondering about a Stanley 10 instead of the 073. Ebay here I come!



A bench rebate plane and a shoulder plane are quite different tools - makes me think you don't really know what you want :? 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## GazPal (1 Nov 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":27tudacm said:


> Darkwood":27tudacm said:
> 
> 
> > What about a LN bench rabbet plane 10-1/4? It's longer and more accurate than any Stanley 78.
> ...



Given the choice I'd opt for the #073 and put the #010 on the back burner, as my shoulder planes and fillisters actually see much more use than my #010's. 

As Paul says, both are quite different pieces of kit with their own quirks in terms of useage. It's your call. :wink:


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2010)

Paul Chapman":2l5fbaxx said:


> Mr G Rimsdale":2l5fbaxx said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I was wondering about a Stanley 10 instead of the 073. Ebay here I come!
> ...


Well spotted! If I knew I wouldn't be asking :roll: 
Yes they are different tools but they both (and the 78 ) can be used for the same job i.e. cleaning up shoulders. But you wouldn't want to do a 2" door rebate with a little plane - for which a 10 or 010 would be more suitable.

I've made my mind up, thanks all. I reckon I need a 073 (definitely) _and_ a 010 (perhaps)!


----------



## GazPal (1 Nov 2010)

It's good having multiple choice and then having to decide which tool takes precidence over the other. 

During my apprenticeship I used to be like a kid with his nose pressed against a sweet shop window each payday when I'd visit the local tool outlet that supplied most of the firms locally. I still visit the same tool outlet every now and then and still haven't gotten most of what I wanted way back then, but we can't have everything.

Choice depends on personal priorities and being able justify useage, with the least likely to be used falling to the bottom of the list. Probably why I never got round to buying that electrician's brace. :lol:


----------



## bugbear (2 Nov 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":3mqv76kc said:


> I've made my mind up, thanks all. I reckon I need a 073 (definitely)...



Playing devil's advocate:

If cabinet makers in the hand tool era _*needed*_ shoulder planes, why are there so damn few on the second hand market?

In the case of a breadboard end (AKA monster-wide tenon) I'd have thought marking out with a good, deep knife line (and I mean 1/8" or deeper) ought to provide the clean effect desired.

BugBear


----------



## GazPal (2 Nov 2010)

bugbear":2aeh3n3e said:


> Mr G Rimsdale":2aeh3n3e said:
> 
> 
> > I've made my mind up, thanks all. I reckon I need a 073 (definitely)...
> ...



Many kept them in the family if their skills were passed down the line and that may explain something of their comparitive scarcity, although plough, badger and skew rebate planes do have their uses.  

I haven't read many - if any - books on the topic, but didn't the term "shoulder plane" come into vogue as infill (Akin to Slater's) and iron/steel (Preston's) planes entered the equation with often smaller dimensions but greater density/heft for their mass?


----------



## Richard T (2 Nov 2010)

What ever you do, steer well clear of the RB10 :shock:


----------



## GazPal (2 Nov 2010)

Richard T":393j03dt said:


> What ever you do, steer well clear of the RB10 :shock:



Paramo, Paramo, Paramo! :lol: :shock: :lol:


----------



## bugbear (2 Nov 2010)

GazPal":3ivgchl2 said:


> bugbear":3ivgchl2 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr G Rimsdale":3ivgchl2 said:
> ...



Surely that would apply to all planes, and therefore can't explain the comparitive scarcity of shoulder planes.




> I haven't read many - if any - books on the topic, but didn't the term "shoulder plane" come into vogue as infill (Akin to Slater's) and iron/steel (Preston's) planes entered the equation with often smaller dimensions but greater density/heft for their mass?



Er. Yes. But that was "quite" a long while ago.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (2 Nov 2010)

bugbear":19earnyn said:


> .....
> If cabinet makers in the hand tool era _*needed*_ shoulder planes, why are there so damn few on the second hand market?


Good point - you are putting me off! And conversely there are many 78s about so they were obviously highly desirable


> In the case of a breadboard end (AKA monster-wide tenon) I'd have thought marking out with a good, deep knife line (and I mean 1/8" or deeper) ought to provide the clean effect desired.
> 
> BugBear


You still have to plane up to the line.


----------



## bugbear (2 Nov 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":2k5f74mf said:


> bugbear":2k5f74mf said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



Not so sure on "desirable" - but they're useful and quite low priced.



Mr G Rimsdale":2k5f74mf said:


> bugbear":2k5f74mf said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



Yes - but now the planing is just removing delineated waste - the shoulder cut itself has already been made cleanly.

Jeff Gorman shows this technique for normal tenon shoulders.

BugBear


----------



## GazPal (2 Nov 2010)

bugbear":1cg1zzue said:


> GazPal":1cg1zzue said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":1cg1zzue said:
> ...



I assume your closing sentence was sarcasm. ??? can you recall the launch of the Titanic or when it sank? Neither can I and that was quite a time ago too, but our predicessors remembered it and the same can be said of tool traditions if we listen to what old time craftsmen have or had to say on the topic.

I was very fortunate to have served my time under my grandfather and was always a very keen listener.

Shoulder planes are more of a niche item than bench planes, but a quick glance at Evil-Bay will confirm they're not a scarce as you imply. Run off a shopping list for Preston, Stanley or Record shoulder planes and you'll soon fill it if your budget allows.

Not all craftsmen possessed shoulder planes and while it may have been quite a long time ago, the same can still be said of many modern craftsmen. Quite a number of tools have been passed down the line among my family, with quite a few dating from as early as the mid-late 1700's and a number of them lost along the way. Cabinetmaking and luthiery traditionally being among my family's trades - so to speak - didn't necessarily dictate the possession or need for shop bought iron clad planes, as many tools were made "in house" as apprenticeships were served or they were sourced via the blacksmith. Joint shoulders would be and still can readily be trimmed using stock skew rebate and fillister planes.

The apprentice master or shop foreman would often be the one in possession of higher quality tools than those used by others in the shop. That was unless you inherited or saved for them and saving wasn't all that easy when considering the wage of the typical journeyman or shop based joiner. I'm very fortunate in having inherited quite a few old tools and planes of reasonable quality myself, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were easily come by when new and could partly explain the reason shoulder planes are lower in number than bench planes.


----------



## jimi43 (2 Nov 2010)

bugbear":moa0es5c said:


> Mr G Rimsdale":moa0es5c said:
> 
> 
> > I want a long shoulder plane for final touch up on long shoulders (table-top bread-board ends). Stanley 78 will do, but one of the more high precision solid types would be better.
> ...



I'm STILL laughing at that one...brilliant humour...sorry Jacob! :wink:


----------



## GazPal (2 Nov 2010)

jimi43":3hp68kux said:


> bugbear":3hp68kux said:
> 
> 
> > Mr G Rimsdale":3hp68kux said:
> ...



The adze must've chipped badly.


----------



## bugbear (2 Nov 2010)

GazPal":2l9n1st5 said:


> ... but that doesn't necessarily mean they were easily come by when new and could partly explain the reason shoulder planes are lower in number than bench planes.



Just to put some rough numbers on my meaning of "scarce", my own guess is that bench planes (smoothers, jacks, jointers etc) outnumber joint cutting planes (ploughs, rebates, fillisters, combinations) by at least 5 to 1;

And that jointing cutting planes outnumber shoulder planes by at least 3 to 1.

I'm happy to call that "scarce", but (as you say) they do exist, and can be bought.

But if they were "essential", I think they'd be commoner than they are.

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (2 Nov 2010)

The scarcity of shoulder planes is easy to understand. 

The pool of second-hand hand tools has several sources. The main ones would be the legacy of - 
1 - working builders/carpenters/joiners
2 - weekend diy-ers / hobbyists
3 - working high-end joiners / cabinet makers.

There were a lot more people in groups 1 and 2 than there ever were in 3. In group 1 the first and often the only plane purchases were probably a no 5 and a no78/778 plus a block plane of some sort. (Still true I think - look in a current Toolstation catalogue - these are the only planes they sell.)

Group 2 bought the no 4 (as it was cheaper) and the many variants of cheaper block planes without screw adjusters etc.

Only in group 3 would there have been a need for a shoulder plane. Group 1 would have managed without. Most of group 2 would have managed without instead of spending quite a lot of dosh on one. And as Gazpal said, many of them would have kept hold of their tools, especially the expensive ones.

Prices now get distorted as a collector's market grows up, which values rarity above usefulness.

The trick - as I think we are all agreeing - is to find tools which are more useful than their market price would suggest!


----------



## Jacob (2 Nov 2010)

bugbear":2j20w6jv said:


> GazPal":2j20w6jv said:
> 
> 
> > ... but that doesn't necessarily mean they were easily come by when new and could partly explain the reason shoulder planes are lower in number than bench planes.
> ...


I think there must have been a lot of rebate planes in use (in joinery as distinct from furniture, almost everything has rebates) and the vast majority of these would have been wooden; 78 etc being latecomers on the hand woodwork scene.
And there are still a lot of woody rebate planes about , many of these are knackered. This could be tip of iceberg - many _more_ of them could have been scrapped worn out - it's a simple tool, once the blade is finished the body would be scrapped too?


----------



## GazPal (2 Nov 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":18aljmhr said:


> I think there must have been a lot of rebate planes in use (in joinery as distinct from furniture, almost everything has rebates) and the vast majority of these would have been wooden; 78 etc being latecomers on the hand woodwork scene.
> 
> And there are still a lot of woody rebate planes about , many of these are knackered. This could be tip of iceberg - many _more_ of them could have been scrapped worn out - it's a simple tool, once the blade is finished the body would be scrapped too?



A fathomless iceberg at that. :wink: 

A great number of woodies exist and it's a bit of a suck it and see situation in terms of nabbing a good one, but they're still out there. Especially if sourced directly from old timer's tools, since the tendancy was to nurture tools on the basis of them being a solid source of income, rather than work them to death as throw away items. Many - including myself - were originally brought into the professional game with genuine enthusiasm for the work in hand and the tools being used. It was engrained into us that our tools were our bread and butter and their condition reflected directly upon our abilities as craftsmen. 

If anything was accidentally damaged we either repaired it ourselves or had it repaired for us by another professional with the necessary skills, or it was disposed of and replaced for another. Wooden planes would often be re-shod prior to use - apart from moulding planes - or shod after being damaged and - quite often - a first purchase would be the last of it's type, because we chose our tools carefully, while storing and using them with just as much care.

Most of us already know treating tools with respect doesn't exactly equate with working in slow motion. :lol: 

The number of planes owned by a craftsman varies widely. Some could have up to e.g. eight rebate planes, while others would have one or two at most alongside their favourite moulding planes, smoothers, etc.. This is where personal preference and technique kick into play, but also possibly a reflection of a person's income or personal commitments.

Planes would often have wooden soles fitted for storage, auger bits set in their own small compartmentalised boxes, etc. A good example is Jim's recent Tyzack infill plane, with it's wooden guard shoe. Other planes might be re-shod several times throughout their working life before being passed on to an eager DIY'er.

Replacement blades aren't uncommon, as per the goods of Marples, Hearnshaw, Mathieson, etc., and if a woodie still retained a sound body a replacement for a badly damaged blade (If it couldn't be re-ground) could be sourced and fitted with little hassle. A little like Trigger and his twenty year old roadsweeping broom....... five new shafts and six new heads later and it was still the same broom. :lol: 

We had one old rebate plane that'd warped like a banana, but proved useful for radiussed rebates. the main drawback being it was normally only good for 50% of the workpiece  

Long gone are the days when a carpenter would be fined on the spot if seen not treating his tools with respect............ Especially his squares and levels.


----------



## Jacob (2 Nov 2010)

GazPal":3sjdkfhf said:


> ....
> Most of us already know treating tools with respect doesn't exactly equate with working in slow motion. :lol: ......


I was mystified for years by what looked like machine marks in rebates in old joinery; little regular marks like the impression of a feed roller on a thicknessing machine. 
It was only when I had a few goes with a woody rebate plane that I realised it was blade chatter from a tool being worked at full blast!


----------



## GazPal (2 Nov 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":1q9kd6fr said:


> GazPal":1q9kd6fr said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Ye olde worlde blade chatter would have been caused by his old burled walnut pipe going out and he was in a hurry to get it re-lit. 

Some of the shavings my grandad used to raise as he worked were phenomenal and yet he always made it appear so effortless. I'd be darting around like a headless chicken and trying to keep pace with him until realising technique was more important than effort.

In other words, if you're breaking a sweat doing what should be everyday aspects of your work, you may be doing something wrong.


----------



## bugbear (2 Nov 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":2wqn381j said:


> GazPal":2wqn381j said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



I don't think a skilled man would tolerate a chattering tool.

But a plane taking a (damned!) thick shaving will alternate lever-up-shaving, break shaving very quickly, with a distinctive tearing sound. The workpiece ends up as you observed it.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (2 Nov 2010)

No I've seen a whole sets of window rebates with the marks. Very regular - meaning one steady, deep, fast swoop from one end of the rebate to the other. It's out of sight (under the putty) so doesn't matter - but it's what you get if you are in a hurry. And repeatable if you want to demonstrate it to yourself.
Rebates to be seen would be done the same I guess, until the last pass done slowly and perfectly.

PS a lot of old film shows old chaps working flat out , unless they were doing it for the camera!

PPS


bugbear":6e1ikjcl said:


> ...
> But a plane taking a (damned!) thick shaving will alternate lever-up-shaving, break shaving very quickly, with a distinctive tearing sound. The workpiece ends up as you observed it.


No I'm talking about very regular sharp parallel lines (sometimes skewed as per skew bladed plane) which could only be the result of a vibrating blade.
I've got some snaps somewhere, I'll dig them out.


----------



## bugbear (2 Nov 2010)

I'll wait for your photos - I don't see any evidence in what you say that differentiates between chattering and shaving formation.

I'm not disputing the marks - merely their cause.

Indeed, I would almost expect someone using a #78 plane, with a wide mouth, and taking thick shavings to encounter the "breaking shaving"
effect, regardless of how well the blade is bedded. And (as you say) since it's a hidden surface, they wouldn't care.

BugBear


----------



## GazPal (2 Nov 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":ltji2yyu said:


> No I've seen a whole sets of window rebates with the marks. Very regular - meaning one steady, deep, fast swoop from one end of the rebate to the other. It's out of sight (under the putty) so doesn't matter - but it's what you get if you are in a hurry. And repeatable if you want to demonstrate it to yourself.
> Rebates to be seen would be done the same I guess, until the last pass done slowly and perfectly.
> 
> PS a lot of old film shows old chaps working flat out , unless they were doing it for the camera!
> ...



They'd often be scarred with tooling marks unless intended for a varnished finish.

Rebates would often be roughed out until the final finishing strokes, as many window and door frames were often produced from PSE or partially prepared stock on site e.g. during the post WWI/Government funded (Re-development) Scheme years (Mid 20's - mid 30's). Glazing rebates were often left fairly rough, whilst exposed mouldings would be planed to a reasonable paint grade standard. Pricing - the way it was and still is - was typically based on a linear yardage rate and timescales outlined on site or in shop.

The same can be said of work throughout the ages and witness marks are often an excellent hint regarding crafting methods and technique used.
If framing was produced to paint grade it tended to be less than perfect in comparison with exposed/varnished joinery.


----------



## Jacob (3 Nov 2010)

bugbear":3rq06sl0 said:


> ..... since it's a hidden surface, they wouldn't care.
> 
> BugBear


It's not so much "not caring" it's more a case of best and quickest way of getting the job done. 
We are talking here of practical woodwork , Victorian windows, and everything from ships to toothpicks, hand done but on an industrial scale. A much bigger world (and more interesting IMHO) than that of the "fine craftsman". 

Can't find a snap - I'll do some new ones next week.


----------



## GazPal (3 Nov 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":2rrcfsdp said:


> bugbear":2rrcfsdp said:
> 
> 
> > ..... since it's a hidden surface, they wouldn't care.
> ...



Agreed 150% :wink: 

Some aspects of carpentry and joinery were/are aesthetically unnecessary in everyday use and polished glazing rebates is one of those elements that could and can be skimmed past quickly and efficiently without worrying unduly over ripple marks left by planing stock at a pace.

Usual tolerances were within 1/8" and this is part (Not all, when expansion and contraction of panes and frames are also considered) of the reason behind glass being reduced from dead-sized opening measurements. Another example of tolerances concerns vertical work and allowances of up to 3/4" out of plumb per double storey height/20'.


----------



## bugbear (3 Nov 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":1v6ayuoy said:


> bugbear":1v6ayuoy said:
> 
> 
> > ..... since it's a hidden surface, they wouldn't care.
> ...



Er. Yes. For the avoidance of doubt, when I said they wouldn't care, I meant they wouldn't care about the aesthetic quality of a hidden, functional surface.

I thought that was fairly obvious.

Back to the texture you saw - try taking a thick shaving (roughly 1mm) with your wooden rebate plane. You can go as slow as you like. I think you'll get a nice "broken" shaving, and an interesting texture on the workpiece. That's certainly what I get if I use my scrub with the grain (*), and I assure you the blade in my scrub is thick, stable, well bedded, and does not chatter.

BugBear

(*) you normally use a scrub either diagonally or across the grain so that the grain pattern allows the shaving to break up easily, reducing effort.


----------



## Jacob (3 Nov 2010)

bugbear":yrf60ck4 said:


> .....
> Back to the texture you saw - try taking a thick shaving (roughly 1mm) with your wooden rebate plane. You can go as slow as you like. I think you'll get a nice "broken" shaving, and an interesting texture on the workpiece.......


Different thing. Try a thin to average sized shaving but planing _as fast as you can_, and you will (probably) get the chatter and the neat little marks


----------



## GazPal (3 Nov 2010)

For the sake of clarity, during a statement, you should never assume something is quite as obvious as you think it may be. :wink: 

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

A scrub plane tends to give a more aggressive cut whilst severing cross grain laterally or diagonally. It's the very nature of the beast and they're not at their best when planing with or against the grain, but rebate planes can and do produce a rippling effect if worked at speed. Not so much to do with blade chatter, but more to in connection with variance in one's stance and grasp of the plane when taking shavings at speed and without finishing passes.

The same/similar effect can be achieved if quickly ploughing a groove to depth at speed (With the grain) without making the finishing few full depth strokes of the plane. The bottom of a trench/rebate can take on a regular undulating appearance if planed in this manner.


----------



## bugbear (3 Nov 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":2wg2joax said:


> bugbear":2wg2joax said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



My point is - a thick shaving leaves the marks that you're suggesting are caused by chatter; I'm suggesting they're caused by thick shavings and wide mouths. If you're conceding that this can happen, but is a "different thing", my point is made.



> Try a thin to average sized shaving but planing _as fast as you can_, and you will (probably) get the chatter and the neat little marks



I don't - my blade beds properly! Actually, the Japanese plane extra fast for finishing, to get a better surface using their (famous!) smoothing planes.

Does your (well bedded, I suspect) BU smoother make the marks you describe?

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (3 Nov 2010)

GazPal":o5exybbe said:


> A scrub plane tends to give a more aggressive cut whilst severing cross grain laterally or diagonally. It's the very nature of the beast and they're not at their best when planing with or against the grain



Er. Yes. I was describing what happens _*if you do*_ use it with the grain. I did mention how scrub planes were *usually* used in my post.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (3 Nov 2010)

Err, and I was talking only about rebates done with an old wooden rebate plane.



> Does your (well bedded, I suspect) BU smoother make the marks you describe?


No. Nor do any of my bigger planes.


----------



## bugbear (3 Nov 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":2hniob3w said:


> Err, and I was talking only about rebates done with an old wooden rebate plane.



So we're down to: when a wooden rebate plane leaves a pattern in the cut, is it blade chatter or shaving fracture. There seems to be agreement on the other points.

This may be hard to prove, one way or the other, unless someone has access to a plane where stability of the blade is beyond question.

BugBear


----------



## GazPal (3 Nov 2010)

bugbear":2wnqldqs said:


> GazPal":2wnqldqs said:
> 
> 
> > A scrub plane tends to give a more aggressive cut whilst severing cross grain laterally or diagonally. It's the very nature of the beast and they're not at their best when planing with or against the grain
> ...



*My reading and comprehension abilities are fine thank you.* 

The simple point I made regarded the fact that scrub planes aren't well suited to planing with or against the grain. Nothing more or less.

Why use a scrub plane for rebating when better suited planes are available?

The topic is rebates and not surfacing.

You need to get those E & R keys sorted. They're typing at the beginning of each opening line and giving the (Er numbnuts) impression you're a bit of a supersilious bugbear. I'd hate for people to think that of you.


----------



## bugbear (3 Nov 2010)

GazPal":1gc7mg60 said:


> bugbear":1gc7mg60 said:
> 
> 
> > GazPal":1gc7mg60 said:
> ...



Well, Jacob was initially asking about shoulders, but the topic has changed, as I'm sure you've noticed. It often happens in long threads.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (3 Nov 2010)

bugbear":p9q9nigo said:


> Mr G Rimsdale":p9q9nigo said:
> 
> 
> > Err, and I was talking only about rebates done with an old wooden rebate plane.
> ...


Errr, it could be both simultaneously!


> This may be hard to prove, one way or the other, unless someone has access to a plane where stability of the blade is beyond question.
> 
> BugBear


It's probably the whole plane springing a bit, however tight the blade.


----------



## bugbear (3 Nov 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":syokehav said:


> bugbear":syokehav said:
> 
> 
> > Mr G Rimsdale":syokehav said:
> ...



Unless the two effects had the same frequency, which seems unlikely, you'd then get a very complex pattern, from beat frequencies. If the pattern is simple, it most likely has a single cause.



Mr G Rimsdale":syokehav said:


> bugbear":syokehav said:
> 
> 
> > This may be hard to prove, one way or the other, unless someone has access to a plane where stability of the blade is beyond question.
> ...



OK, we're moving away from blade chatter as the cause. Are you suggesting that the body is bending in some way, so that the two sections of the sole get out of line?

BugBear


----------



## GazPal (3 Nov 2010)

bugbear":1bhzdzub said:


> GazPal":1bhzdzub said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":1bhzdzub said:
> ...



You manipulated the conversation in your own scientific and non craftsmanlike direction.


----------



## bugbear (3 Nov 2010)

GazPal":1k40j4zz said:


> You manipulated the conversation in your own scientific and non craftsmanlike direction.



I don't think those terms are contradictory, or that science is a bad thing.

Each person brings their own knowledge and viewpoint to a conversation.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (3 Nov 2010)

bugbear":3hw7mhhf said:


> Mr G Rimsdale":3hw7mhhf said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":3hw7mhhf said:
> ...


Errrrrr
hmmmm
:shock:


----------



## GazPal (3 Nov 2010)

bugbear":kvahfnoj said:


> GazPal":kvahfnoj said:
> 
> 
> > You manipulated the conversation in your own scientific and non craftsmanlike direction.
> ...



Perhaps not contradictory, but scientific appraisal has it's place.

Science is good and always shall be, but diagnosing the chatter pattern a plane iron makes on a timber surface - to a point where beat frequencies are suggested - is IMHO going a tad overboard unless you're aiming for a Nobel Prize for research into the subject, or working for Stanley's plane design department. 

The justifiable use of science is virtually redundant when - in this case - the cause is already known to be relative to crafting technique. That is unless the intention is to test a number of theories to death before returning to factors surrounding craft technique.

Plane body deformation during each pass varies depending upon the physical forces exerted by it's user. This in turn can lead to an undulating planed surface which can be corrected by exerting less pressure on the plane and/or by slowing it's speed during each pass.


----------



## studders (3 Nov 2010)

GazPal":ngosbmnp said:


> or working for Stanley's plane design department.



You mean they have one? :shock: 

I thought they just threw bits together and called them 'Premium'.


----------



## Jacob (3 Nov 2010)

bugbear":11baud7n said:


> .....
> Unless the two effects had the same frequency, which seems unlikely, you'd then get a very complex pattern, from beat frequencies. If the pattern is simple, it most likely has a single cause.....


Yebbut - the chattering blade could be causing the shaving fracture! TA DA same frequency!
In fact I think it is, the more I look at it. If shaving fracture is what it is.
:shock:


----------



## GazPal (3 Nov 2010)

studders":2y0ldcd0 said:


> GazPal":2y0ldcd0 said:
> 
> 
> > or working for Stanley's plane design department.
> ...



They cart them out and dust them off every now and again. It's understandable really, because they're former employees of old man Bailey.


----------



## bugbear (3 Nov 2010)

GazPal":1fopuj0m said:


> Plane body deformation during each pass varies depending upon the physical forces exerted by it's user. This in turn can lead to an undulating planed surface which can be corrected by exerting less pressure on the plane and/or by slowing it's speed during each pass.



That sounds like an interesting hypothesis, but how do the constant forces you describe (pressure and speed) result in the high speed repetitive outcome we're trying to explain?

The mechanism of chatter has been extensively described elsewhere, and I've hopefully given an adequate description of the breaking-shaving cycle.

BugBear


----------



## GazPal (3 Nov 2010)

bugbear":1pyzmh2t said:


> GazPal":1pyzmh2t said:
> 
> 
> > Plane body deformation during each pass varies depending upon the physical forces exerted by it's user. This in turn can lead to an undulating planed surface which can be corrected by exerting less pressure on the plane and/or by slowing it's speed during each pass.
> ...



Causes tend to be technique, stance, and reach of the user and distinctly different to chatter encountered with poorly set up tools. Two examples where this would and can often occur are;

1. Apprentice learning and not quite at the point where he's mastered good technique.

2. Experienced journeyman working at pace and not employing good technique.

The quality of tooling found on framework varies depending upon the finish being applied e.g. paint or varnish. A painted frame doesn't need as high a quality finish to it's rebates, etc., because it's concealed, whereas varnished frames need a more refined finish due to the transparency of their finish.

If hand planing to a paint grade finish your stance and technique would tend to differ marginally as you approach the final finish surface while plane set and attack can be more aggressive. The end result is a paint grade frame with imperfections that tend to be masked by the finish in use. 

If planing rebates for glazing, the finish does not need to be as crisp or accurately cut as exposed surfaces. Timber can be hogged out and at speed to the specified dimensions without too much care taken. 

Such work is where you'll find stance can affect results as your shoulders pivot and arms extend whilst you feet are firmly rooted to the spot. Not ideal planing technique and as such it allows variance in downward pressure throughout the sweep of the plane and the raspberry ripple effect.


----------



## bugbear (4 Nov 2010)

In a spirit of scientific endeavour, I headed to my workshop.

How to diagnose body flex and blade chatter as potential causes of the pattern? Since both effects are caused by cutting forces, the answer was simple. _Reduce_ the cutting forces. So I selected a piece of soft pine, a bare 1/4" thick, and held it edge on in my face vise. I don't think taking a 1/4" wide shaving from soft wood will generate enough force to flex a large plane.

I then selected my largest wooden skew rebate, a 1 1/2" wide Mathieson, and set it for a fine shaving of around 5 thou. As expected, there was a classic "hiss" as a I made a stroke, and the shaving was continuous, and the worked surface smooth. I then made the stroke as fast as I could for the same result.

The blade setting was then incrementally increased until... the hiss changed to a buzz. As expected, the shaving and workpiece now showed a fine pattern, spaced at just under a millimeter. Increased downforce did not prevent the phenomona, and it was unaffected by the fast strokes.

The shaving was around 20 thou, or 1/50". Since my (Mathieson) rebate has a mouth of around this size, I hypothesised that the lift-fracture cycle of the shaving was controlled by the mouth size.

To experiment with a wider mouth, I moved to my WS78 rebate. Reverting to a thin shaving, I got the same results as with the wooden plane. 

Thickening the shaving again resulted in the fracture pattern, which, for a similar 20 thou shaving showed the same spacing as the wooden plane, despite the WS78 having a significantly wider mouth. So it appears that the "break point" of the shaving is controlled by the thickness of the shaving, and the toughness of the wood, since the shaving is breaking before it hits the limit of the mouth.

To confirm this last idea, I went for my scrub plane, which is a wooden jack with a substantial, very well bedded cambered single iron. Set for a fine shaving, a smooth surface still resulted regardless of stroke speed or downward pressure.

Setting for a really thick shaving of 40 thou, I didn't get a "buzz" but a sound nearer to that of a handsaw. The shaving showed a pattern at around 4mm spacing, which is again a good deal less than the mouth of the plane. At this stage the shaving was so thick it wasn't merely fracturing, it was actually breaking! Again, speed and pressure didn't seem to be a factor.

My conclusion is therefore that the pattern is caused by taking a shaving over a thickness threshold, and that the relationship between the pattern's spacing and the type of wood and shaving thickness is complex.

Of course, more research is needed.

BugBear


----------



## GazPal (4 Nov 2010)

The above is perfectly fine for testing the effect of plane settings and cutting speed on blade chatter, as blade depth and plane set-up are always directly related, BUT the pattern originally described was not blade chatter related. I would agree if it were otherwise. 

From personal experience and having taught apprentices over the years;

Try test driving this theory on a six foot length of 3" x 2" pine and plane a 1" wide by 3/4" deep glazing rebate at speed (No slow motion allowed) using a fenced wooden rebate plane and by adopting a fixed stance so you're planing at full stretch and having to constantly adjust downward pressure on the plane throughout the stroke. This method removes stock extremely quickly and is the means by which a great deal of on-site joinery was produced until the post war years. The effect (Planing variation) MGR described becomes aparent, but would then be removed via a few slow finishing strokes of the plane if the end result was too course or intended to be in full view afterward. 

The above will reveal how technique and stance can and does affect end results when using a well set-up plane.


----------



## bugbear (4 Nov 2010)

GazPal":1h03ucip said:


> The above is perfectly fine for testing the effect of plane settings and cutting speed on blade chatter,



I went to some considerable lengths to establish that the effect I was seeing _isn't_ caused by blade chatter, by reducing the cutting forces as I said.

I understand that you're saying the "mystery effect" is caused by bad technique w.r.t pressure, but can you expand on what you think the mechanism is?

BugBear


----------



## GazPal (4 Nov 2010)

bugbear":57evy4uh said:


> GazPal":57evy4uh said:
> 
> 
> > The above is perfectly fine for testing the effect of plane settings and cutting speed on blade chatter,
> ...



I know and didn't imply you hadn't, but unless you're Mr G Rimsdale (MGR) and/or considering his original observations per planed surfaces within glazing rebates, we run the risk of assessing potentially totally different topics. The chatter pattern you described differs to the one by MGR and his description is the basis for my suggestions and observations.

I will however point out the fact that a rebate plane reacts quite differently when side friction is encountered, in conjunction with base and cutter friction, when cutting a rebate/fillister. Hence my suggestion to plane wider and longer (Heavier) stock.

If you adopt my suggested approach (Less scientific I know) it's more than capable of proving the originally described effect can be caused by variations in technique.

I'd never measured a plane shaving, nor researched planes or planing during almost 40yrs work as a cabinetmaker, but do know a bit about the wooden and metal wonders and how to get the best I can from them.


----------



## bugbear (4 Nov 2010)

GazPal":2kus01oj said:


> bugbear":2kus01oj said:
> 
> 
> > GazPal":2kus01oj said:
> ...



Thanks for that. That's _VERY_ important. Looks like planes, blades and wood can interact in varied and complex ways 



> I will however point out the fact that a rebate plane reacts quite differently when side friction is encountered, in conjunction with base and cutter friction, when cutting a rebate/fillister. Hence my suggestion to plane wider and longer (Heavier) stock.
> 
> If you adopt my suggested approach (Less scientific I know) it's more than capable of proving the originally described effect can be caused by variations in technique.



What you suggest is perfectly scientific. The first stage of investigating an effect involves being being able to reliably reproduce the effect. Without that, the rest falls.



> I'd never measured a plane shaving, nor researched planes or planing during almost 40yrs work as a cabinetmaker, but do know a bit about the wooden and metal wonders and how to get the best I can from them.



If you're demming to an apprentice, or chatting with a friend in a workshop, yeah, absolutely, measuring a shaving is pointless. You can just hand it to them!

But in a written medium like this forum, "5 thou" , "20 thou", "40 thou" is a lot less ambiguous than "thin", "thicker", "really quite thick".

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (4 Nov 2010)

BTW Jacob (if you're still out there) if you search for "shoulder" on this link page, you may find some helpful information:

http://www.cianperez.com/Wood/WoodDocs/ ... How_To.htm

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (5 Nov 2010)

bugbear":bvgmuor6 said:


> ..
> I understand that you're saying the "mystery effect" is caused by bad technique w.r.t pressure, ...


Not "bad technique" just _fast_ tecnique

I'm in Brighton unusually for me (dahn sarf somewhere)


----------



## GazPal (5 Nov 2010)

bugbear":3fpxopq3 said:


> If you're demming to an apprentice, or chatting with a friend in a workshop, yeah, absolutely, measuring a shaving is pointless. You can just hand it to them!
> 
> But in a written medium like this forum, "5 thou" , "20 thou", "40 thou" is a lot less ambiguous than "thin", "thicker", "really quite thick".
> 
> BugBear



In a written medium the terminlogy used is often best worded for all to understand and not to the exclusion of anyone.

Providing dimensions in thousandths of an inch is as clear as mud to everyday DIY'ers and many woodworkers for that matter, as thousandths of an inch tend to be measures used within the field of engineering. 

Many work in or are used to metric and most don't possess Vernier calipers. Paper thickness would possibly be more practical point of reference, whilst most understand and can visualise what "transparent", "tissue thin" and "gossimer" shavings look like.

In the real world, dimensions for workpieces are provided and worked to without reference to wood shaving thickness.

Insomuch as planing technique is concerned, minute and regular undulations within the fielding of a glazing rebate aren't necessarily due to the use of bad technique/form. They're most often present simply because they don't need to be removed via a few slower passes of the plane and primarily due to time constraints and the fact dimensions and finish fall within specification. Not poor workmanship.


----------



## bugbear (5 Nov 2010)

GazPal":vl1nyeh3 said:


> In a written medium the terminlogy used is often best worded
> 
> Providing dimensions in thousandths of an inch is as clear as mud to everyday DIY'ers and many woodworkers for that matter, as thousandths of an inch tend to be measures used within the field of engineering.
> 
> Many work in or are used to metric and most don't possess Vernier calipers. Paper thickness would possibly be more practical point of reference, whilst most understand and can visualise what "transparent", "tissue thin" and "gossimer" shavings look like.



I'm not convinced of that. In a closed group of people, conversing regularly, linguistic conventions converge onto agreed meanings, making communication clear and easy. 

But, having used written medium extensively over the last few years, I have had many experiences where one man's sharp/thin/strong is another man's blunt/thick/weak. This arises particularly if the people conversing have different backgrounds.

For example the "thin shaving" of a carpenter, joiner and cabinet maker might well be quite different.

5 thou is _unambiguous,_ and anyone interested can easily convert it into a form that suits them, if they wish.

BugBear


----------



## GazPal (5 Nov 2010)

It's unfair to newcomers if they're expected to dash out and invest in Vernier caliper or micrometer in order to translate fine engineering dimensions given regarding wood shavings. :lol: 

Someone may pop in to ask which plane to buy because he wants to hang a door, only to be met with a host of LV, LN, etc., recommendations and be last seen running for the hills muttering "I only wanted a plane :shock: ". :lol: Overkill springs to mind when attention to detail or thirst to educate exceeds necessity and runs the risk of discouraging newcomers.

Having trained a number of apprentice over the years, the terms "Paper thin" and "transparent" shavings may well be ambiguous, but both are common sense terms that are easily understood by anyone and visualised without seeing in person, nor the need for specialised equipment. I agree once disimilar backgrounds can become mutual to woodworking if you use the same terminology with any degree of regularity, but you certainly don't need to measure to within the nearest thou or micron. Wood is far too organic a material for such treatment and this is woodwork for goodness sake. Not rocket science or fine engineering.

Let's remind ourselves many may have limited experience or budgets, but few lack common sense or comprehension skills. Regardless of background we all share a common interest in woodworking and no information should be to the exclusion of others. 

My vote could well be paper thin, but at least everyone can visualise or understand what paper thin is.


----------



## bugbear (5 Nov 2010)

GazPal":zs179go0 said:


> It's unfair to newcomers if they're expected to dash out and invest in Vernier caliper or micrometer in order to translate fine engineering dimensions given regarding wood shavings. :lol:



I use thous (as opposed to mm) since many people on forums are either retired, American, or both.

To the best of my knowledge only commercial woodworkers have adopted the mm, and even then probably have little "gut feel" for tenths or hundredths of a mm, since (as you say) they're not measuring such dimensions.

BugBear


----------



## GazPal (5 Nov 2010)

bugbear":zr2akvvp said:


> GazPal":zr2akvvp said:
> 
> 
> > It's unfair to newcomers if they're expected to dash out and invest in Vernier caliper or micrometer in order to translate fine engineering dimensions given regarding wood shavings. :lol:
> ...



Nuts to the Americans! (In the best possible sense) I'm a retired English cabinetmaker and used to working in either metric or imperial (Depending on time period), but never mix the two. It's an either/or situation, but why on earth assume amateurs should be any different to professional woodworkers when taking measures? 

A host of woodworking teachers will be greatly disappointed to learn they should have been teaching in imperial and not metric since the switch to decimalisation. :lol: Some timber suppliers still stock in imperial (Depending on supplier), whereas the majority of professional European woodworkers work in metric because their plans are drawn and scaled in metric.

Many still remove a "hair" or "whisker" shaving, but few - if any - talk in thou.

Regardless...... Exact is the best measure to work to and if not exact your sacked! :wink: :lol:


----------



## studders (5 Nov 2010)

GazPal":2meuwqli said:


> working in either metric or imperial (Depending on time period), but never mix the two. It's an either/or situation.....



I was dragged up Imperial but 'relatively' young when we went Decimal. I use both and often mix the two when measuring depending on which makes more sense to me at the time.
So, 2.5" x 165mm it is then. :lol:

I agree re shaving thickness, I find descriptive works for me.


----------



## GazPal (5 Nov 2010)

studders":kcs818ga said:


> GazPal":kcs818ga said:
> 
> 
> > working in either metric or imperial (Depending on time period), but never mix the two. It's an either/or situation.....
> ...



Ditto to being decimalised when relatively young, although apprenticed using imperial. :? I used to mix and match the two, but finally - after a few .... ahem..."technicalities"  regarding dimensioned timber - decided to make the move to metric alone. 

It's 6" of one and 152.65mm (Ish) of the other. :wink:


----------



## Pvt_Ryan (5 Nov 2010)

GazPal":2kfe4mrq said:


> studders":2kfe4mrq said:
> 
> 
> > GazPal":2kfe4mrq said:
> ...



Pretty much the same boat, in school i was taught metric but at home everything was inches and pounds. As a result I have no real concept of metric I have to convert from metric to imperial before I can visualise the weight or distance.

Life would be so much simpler if we'd never changed..


----------



## GazPal (5 Nov 2010)

Pvt_Ryan":ippas09q said:


> Pretty much the same boat, in school i was taught metric but at home everything was inches and pounds. As a result I have no real concept of metric I have to convert from metric to imperial before I can visualise the weight or distance.
> 
> Life would be so much simpler if we'd never changed..



I agree 150% We should have stayed with imperial and old money too £/s/d.


----------



## Pvt_Ryan (5 Nov 2010)

I'll have to admit I am too young to really remember the old money. The half penny was phased out the year I was born. I only remember shillings from conversations, and the odd one I found lying about..


----------



## GazPal (5 Nov 2010)

Pvt_Ryan":3uldpt6h said:


> I'll have to admit I am too young to really remember the old money. The half penny was phased out the year I was born. I only remember shillings from conversations, and the odd one I found lying about..



I was a bit saddened when they finally took one and two shilling pieces (Typically GVI and ERII period cupro nickel ones) out of circulation when they downsized 5p and 10p pieces. Up until that point you'd almost always find them in your change.


----------



## Jacob (7 Nov 2010)

studders":1vft674r said:


> GazPal":1vft674r said:
> 
> 
> > working in either metric or imperial (Depending on time period), but never mix the two. It's an either/or situation.....
> ...


Me too. Inches for rough measurements to nearest inch. mm for precision e.g. thicknessing and setting gauges and vernier calipers. Nothing smaller than 1mm although I may consider a loose or a tight fit, which would take you into sub 1mm measures, if you measured!


----------



## studders (7 Nov 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":1thv1h0x said:


> Nothing smaller than 1mm



Me neither, cos I can't see the little blighters even when I'm wearing two pairs of glasses.


----------



## GazPal (8 Nov 2010)

studders":2pscq2r3 said:


> Mr G Rimsdale":2pscq2r3 said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing smaller than 1mm
> ...



I tend to have to break into fractions of a mm when thicknessing guitar soundboards, back plate, ribs and inlays, but otherwise work to the mm and above. Working in metric - for me - is easier than having to work to 1/64", 1/32" and all of the other fractional permutations that come with imperial measures.


----------

