# Support for Scrub Planes



## Saint Simon (25 May 2011)

There is a lively discussion of the pros and cons of scrub planes going on in the for-sale forum and I just had to put my halfpennies worth in and this seem the appropriate place.
I am currently, ie today, taking some rough sawn oak planks down about 8mm to thickness. 
With my shiny scrub this is proving not only very quick but is also allowing me to take the first steps towards flatness. The scrub isn't just a crude very rapid removal tool, it is also one that can be applied selectively to take out the high spots first. And the low weight of it makes it less tiring than a larger bench plane to take many rapid cuts.
I am really glad that the modern makers made these available and advertised their virtues. To a newcomer like me the scrub was a revelation and I wouldn't be without it.
Thank you, I feel better for that
Simon


----------



## AndyT (25 May 2011)

Well said. But what sort of animal is yours?

I have had a similar positive experience, and mine is one of the no-name wooden ones that Rutands used to sell. Probably made in eastern Europe, sold for about £10-15. Horn at the front, nice thick heavily cambered blade and a wide throat. 

Much cheaper than the iron option, but I can't find anyone else that sells them now.


----------



## Jacob (25 May 2011)

Saint Simon":tp9i5imx said:


> .... rough sawn oak planks down about 8mm to thickness.
> With my shiny scrub this is proving not only very quick but is also allowing me to take the first steps towards flatness. .....


Yebbut I wouldn't have a problem doing that with my jack plane (fairly well cambered in jack plane fashion). In fact that is what a jack plane is for - but it also takes you most/all of the way to a flat finished surface.
I just bought one of these http://www.fine-tools.com/schrup.htm 
Steel ones are obsolete and not very common second hand, which suggests that they were never a lot of use, in between all the other options.


----------



## Karl (25 May 2011)

I was about to point you in that direction Jacob - as you say, the Stanley ones are very rare (in this country at least). 

Which one did you buy - the proper Scrub plane, or the small Jack (which is 20 Euros cheaper)? The small scrub is a similair length, the blade is only 5mm wider (at 38mm) and I think it would just be a case of putting your own radius on it to make it a decent scrub plane.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Paul Chapman (25 May 2011)

Jacob":xf8bitx4 said:


> Steel ones are obsolete and not very common second hand, which suggests that they were never a lot of use, in between all the other options.



You do make some odd comments, Jacob. Metal scrub planes which used to be made by Stanley and Record and which are currently made by LN and Veritas work very well indeed.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (25 May 2011)

Karl":3hs5baqu said:


> I was about to point you in that direction Jacob - as you say, the Stanley ones are very rare (in this country at least).
> 
> Which one did you buy - the proper Scrub plane, or the small Jack (which is 20 Euros cheaper)? The small scrub is a similair length, the blade is only 5mm wider (at 38mm) and I think it would just be a case of putting your own radius on it to make it a decent scrub plane.
> 
> ...


The first one - the only one they call a "scrub" plane.
I don't think there is a "proper" scrub as such it's more a case of some configurations being more suitable for "scrubbing" than others, including modified worn-out old jack or smoother planes. Also suitability depends on exactly what it is you want to scrub.
A purpose made scrub is clearly something for which many generations of woodworkers have felt no great need.


----------



## Jacob (25 May 2011)

Paul Chapman":154iakm0 said:


> Jacob":154iakm0 said:
> 
> 
> > Steel ones are obsolete and not very common second hand, which suggests that they were never a lot of use, in between all the other options.
> ...


Stanley or Record versions have been obsolete for some time, 2nd hand are rare (and expensive) which suggests that they were not much in demand which in turn suggests that they weren't a lot of use. 
As compared to say wooden jack plane - about the commonest (and hence cheapest) of all old planes due to being in such high demand. 
The fact that LN or LV make them has no bearing on anything (except their fans!).


----------



## bugbear (25 May 2011)

Jacob":3aex5yh9 said:


> I don't think there is a "proper" scrub as such it's more a case of some configurations being more suitable for "scrubbing" than other...




This comment shows good judgement. 

BugBear


----------



## Paul Chapman (25 May 2011)

Jacob":wux823ft said:


> Paul Chapman":wux823ft said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":wux823ft said:
> ...



Blimey, Jacob, you do talk some absolute twaddle. Since when have decisions by Stanley and Record about what tools to make and sell had anything to do with their usefulness to woodworkers?

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## dunbarhamlin (25 May 2011)

There is of course a lot of overlap in Stanley's catalogue from their hayday, as their designs are inspired by the toolsets of many different professions, many of which needed to perform similar operations but with different emphases and different development histories. So a scrub might be considered homo erectus' equivalent of homo neanderthalensis' jack, or indeed homo habilis' adze. Having both is an unnecessary luxury (though of course "need" means different things to different folks  )


----------



## woodbloke (25 May 2011)

I use one of the horned varieties with a lignum sole from Deiter Schmidt and to date have found it quite useful. I use it for scrubbing off an old, rough sawn surface which might be in 'wind' (thereby taking off the high spots) ready for more accurate machining. It's also good for cleaning up a painted or varnished surface to reveal new timber beneath. Although it's now part of the 'collection'  I wouldn't say that I use it a great deal, but it's a useful plane when the need arises...a bit like the Veritas compass plane :-" - Rob


----------



## Jacob (25 May 2011)

Paul Chapman":ss545yhj said:


> Jacob":ss545yhj said:
> 
> 
> > Paul Chapman":ss545yhj said:
> ...


Twaddle yourself! 
In their heyday decisions by Stanley and Record (and everybody else) about what tools to make and sell - AND the number eventually sold - had everything to do with their usefulness to woodworkers. 
Does that really need explaining?


----------



## Alf (25 May 2011)

Explain, then, the existence #75 bullnose plane... 

Just kidding - well, sort of. :lol:


----------



## heimlaga (25 May 2011)

There is a very logical reason for the rarity of metal scrub planes. A factor some of you tend to forget. Up here we call it "pengar". In English it is called "money" if you are into trade terminology.

Imagine an joiner who is investing some of his hard earned cash in some modern metal planes whose soles will never wear out nor will their bodies move with changes in moisture. What does he buy first? Wooden smoothers tend to wear around the mouth and wooden jointers tend to warp so a smoother and a jointer will be among the first purchases. That explains why number 4,6 and7 are most commonly found.
What will he buy last? A scrub. Simply because he lives in a world full of discarded old wooden smoooth and jack planes which can all be altered into good scrubs in a half an hour. If he is short of old planes he can make a new one in less time than he has to work to earn the prize of a metal scrub.

I am making that conclusion based on this fact:
Once in my life I have seen a Stanley scrub plane. About once a year I come across a purpose made wooden scrub plane. Old worn out wooden smoothers with cambered blades and crudely widened mouths can be fund by the dozen every year.

Right or wrong...... fell free to debate.


----------



## bugbear (25 May 2011)

Alf":1okxffhu said:


> Explain, then, the existence #75 bullnose plane...
> 
> Just kidding - well, sort of. :lol:



#RB10 !

#SB3 !

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (25 May 2011)

heimlaga":3mvbtcnh said:


> ..
> Right or wrong...... fell free to debate.


Right. Agree. 



> Explain, then, the existence #75 bullnose plane...


Easy - they are very cheap, but nobody knows they are useless until they've bought one!
Actually they are occasionally useful, although I can't remember when I last used mine. There was a time though.


----------



## AndyT (25 May 2011)

Ok, scrub planes are not going to be common when we've had power-planed stock for the last hundred and fifty years or so. (Remember, it was Jacob's foray into green woodworking that prompted this discussion.)

But sometimes, it was worth someone's time to make one. I reckon this example is user-made. No horn, but a good deep depression from a well-callussed thumb:







It's about 11" overall, made in two parts (so the central mortice can be sawn) then just screwed together.
I think you can see here how the single-iron blade is quite strongly cambered:






And this shot shows why I think the nice tidy handle would have been salvaged or bought as a spare part - it's much tidier than the unusual gouge work to shape the rear:






It works quite well. The other nice thing was that nobody else wanted it so I got it for 99p!


----------



## bugbear (25 May 2011)

Jacob":3qzpaq1e said:


> > Explain, then, the existence #75 bullnose plane...
> 
> 
> Easy - they are very cheap, but nobody knows they are useless until they've bought one!



And thus a counter example to a correlation between numbers found and usefulness then...  

BugBear


----------



## Alf (25 May 2011)

bugbear":2leytg3c said:


> #RB10 !
> 
> #SB3 !


Good grief, I thought there was a profanity filter on this forum?! :shock: :lol: 

Well done, Jacob - you made my point exactly.


----------



## Jacob (25 May 2011)

bugbear":395oea73 said:


> Jacob":395oea73 said:
> 
> 
> > > Explain, then, the existence #75 bullnose plane...
> ...





> Well done, Jacob - you made my point exactly.


No not at all. 
As long as people keep buying things they _think_ are useful, _right or wrong,_ then a manufacturer will probably keep banging them out. Clearly not many people thought the Stanley/Record scrubbers were much use.....etc.


----------



## ac445ab (25 May 2011)

Ciao,  
Rare or not, I have my scrub plane on the shelf ready to use. 
I find it useful for a first leveling job on rough boards as well as for quickly reducing width of some mms planing on the edge. 
I find this plane light and handy. Moreover the heavy cambered blade helps to reduce tear out. 

Here I show mine in use (forgive me for subtitles ) 
http://woodworkingbyhand2.blogspot.com/ ... plane.html 

Regards 
Giuliano


----------



## jimi43 (25 May 2011)

Hi Giuliano

First may I compliment you on a superb video!

I enjoyed it in Italian...although I cannot speak it....it was very relaxing...or was it the classy music!

Only an Italian would do woodwork in a tailored Italian shirt! Brilliant!!!

Of course left handed people are far more artistic! :wink: 

Also...loved the selection of Japanese saws on the wall....all in all...a very informative and enjoyable video! Bravo!! =D> =D> 

Jim


----------



## Jacob (26 May 2011)

So what this thread and Giuliano's excellent video demonstrates is how useful/essential is a well cambered blade - whether or not it is in a purpose made scrub plane.

Why don't British wooden planes have the continental horn handle? Or even just a knob?

Next project - I'm going to make one of my old jacks into an uber-scrubber with a huge knob.


----------



## bugbear (26 May 2011)

Jacob":3p46mnsv said:


> So what this thread and Giuliano's excellent video demonstrates is how useful/essential is a well cambered blade - whether or not it is in a purpose made scrub plane.



For fast stock removal - absolutely, well spotted. =D> =D> 

We'll teach you about tools yet!

I wouldn't worry about converting a jack to a scrub, since you've already got a perfectly good scrub than can do the tasks you want.

Unless you just want to mess around with tools, find out which is best etc, in which case welcome to the club.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (26 May 2011)

bugbear":2rqpxewk said:


> ....
> 
> For fast stock removal - absolutely, well spotted. =D> =D>
> 
> We'll teach you about tools yet!


You've missed the point (as usual :roll: :roll: ) - fast stock removal is desirable with each and every plane - hence ditto camber (with odd exceptions).

A plane with a similarly narrow but straight edged blade would work as a scrubber - but with pronounced tramlines and tear-out especially at the edges. 
The advantages of camber are twofold; 
1 you don't get tramlines, instead the cut tapers away less visibly and with less tearout
2 less obviously, a cambered blade has adjustable WIDTH - the width of the cut varies with the projection of the blade. 
3 add a tilting mechanism and you can use DIFFERENT PARTS of the blade and take advantage of the whole of that sharpened edge.
Which is why the well cambered and properly set up Bailey pattern jack plane is about all you need most of the time for almost everything.


----------



## Richard T (26 May 2011)

I've never had a "proper" scrub plane and the the idea of the technique only dawned on me a few years ago. 

Some one gave me a big, round - soled profile plane. Hardly what you could call profile really, just a general scooper. It's about 1 - 1/8" wide and the camber of the iron (and sole) is quite a lot. 
As soon as I got it I sharpened it, started playing with it (quelle surprise) and instantly noticed that it would take clean grooves across the worst knotty elm that then could be easily smoothed with a bench plane. I'd invented scrubbing. 
The reason I've not got round to making a scrub with a flat sole is that I have got used to being able to roll this one around. As the edge is slightly more proud in the centre, I can adjust the cut just by turning the plane - little on its side, more when vertical. 
I know that a flat soled scrub would be better for accurately flattening to pencil lines and one day I must get round to making one. NOT an infill I feel ...


----------



## jimi43 (26 May 2011)

I don't know if it's just me but whilst plane threads just suffer from the occasional chatter....scrub plane threads are more susceptible to bicker.... :mrgreen: 8) 

Anyone know of an mods which put a bigger cap on it...maybe that would sort it! 8) :mrgreen: #-o 

Winter coats are so much more difficult to find in the summer, don'tcha think!! :mrgreen: 

Jim


----------



## ac445ab (26 May 2011)

jimi43":19orjj0r said:


> Only an Italian would do woodwork in a tailored Italian shirt! Brilliant!!!



Only when I'm planing. Shavings do not dirty


----------



## jimi43 (26 May 2011)

ac445ab":1t5r50j5 said:


> jimi43":1t5r50j5 said:
> 
> 
> > Only an Italian would do woodwork in a tailored Italian shirt! Brilliant!!!
> ...



I know....but is it so classically Italian...perfect style! We Brits used to be like that too...







....but we would wear suit and tie as well!!! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :wink: 

I spent some time going through your whole site...very well written and great educational source for the beginner and craftsman alike. =D> 


Jim


----------



## AndyT (26 May 2011)

Some of us still do dress properly!

<------


----------



## ac445ab (26 May 2011)

jimi43":3lohk97s said:


> I spent some time going through your whole site...very well written and great educational source for the beginner and craftsman alike. =D>


Thanks Jim for appreciating my blog, although I know, my English is very basic.  
I like your forum and I follow your discussions with great interest. In UK you have a long tradition for hand woodworking and I have several very fine made English tools. 
I have a dream.........one of your superb infill smoothing planes, like this you show in the blog (very pleasant to read) 
http://www.ktproductions.co.uk/wordpress/?page_id=102 

.....may be for next Santa gift :ho2 

Ciao, 
Giuliano


----------



## bugbear (27 May 2011)

Jacob":2u949y7b said:


> You've missed the point (as usual :roll: :roll: ) - fast stock removal is desirable with each and every plane - hence ditto camber (with odd exceptions).



There's a common and important type of planing where stock removal isn't the "point" at all; it's called "smooth planing".

As your woodworking experience grows, you'll probably come across it.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (27 May 2011)

AndyT":2t6t0wwt said:


> .....
> But sometimes, it was worth someone's time to make one. I reckon this example is user-made. No horn, but a good deep depression from a well-callussed thumb:
> 
> 
> ...


I had a well callussed thumb marked plane in this thread here which shows how old tools (like yours) would be kept in use right to the very end.

Doesn't look "made in two parts" to me - more like a ready-made old plane which was reduced in width by cutting down the middle and rejoining? 
That'd account for the neatly finished details around the mouth, compared to the rough details elsewhere. Brilliant re-use of an old plane!
I had a look in W.L. Goodman and that odd nose design occurs in some old wooden planes but also in metal Spiers planes.

So for me it seems the scrub story is as follows;
Woodworkers past and present would modify old knackered planes for rough work called by some "scrubbing" (Salaman confirms this with "scrub" being just one of many names for "Roughing" planes).
Stanley and then Record tried to cash in on this with a purpose made scrubber, which failed here but caught on in America perhaps because there is more backwoods green woodworking going on. There are often a few on american ebay, not expensive. 
LN & LV did the same by reintroducing expensive engineered-up versions which caught on with their fans and got the idea back into circulation. This is why many people had never heard of "scrub" planes until recently, though they may well have been using a nameless old plane for the purpose.
A european plane type called a "Bismarck" in Britain, is also purpose made for for roughing out, but according to Goodman "Bismarck" is more to do with the style (the horn handle) and British makers (Salmen etc) made similar planes in a style known as "continental" which weren't necessarily for rough work.


----------



## Richard T (27 May 2011)

I think Jacob's right. De - widthed down the middle, lowered at the back. Don't know about the front though, looks like it was shortened then the extra sole length was an afterthought. Maybe. 
I have several candidates for this treatment ... another project to add to the heap.

What width is the iron Andy?


----------



## AndyT (27 May 2011)

> Doesn't look "made in two parts" to me - more like a ready-made old plane which was reduced in width by cutting down the middle and rejoining?
> That'd account for the neatly finished details around the mouth, compared to the rough details elsewhere. Brilliant re-use of an old plane!



Jacob, I've had another look and I think you're right on this one. The wedge - which would have to have been replaced - is noticeably less tidy than the mouth. So using a whole 'donor' plane would have given maximum economy of time and effort. 

I have several other well-used old wooden planes, where the dents in the wood, or the lighter spots in the old darkened surface, give clear evidence of how the old craftsman would have held them.


----------



## bugbear (27 May 2011)

Jacob":3aakrq97 said:


> So for me it seems the scrub story is as follows;
> Woodworkers past and present would modify old knackered planes for rough work called by some "scrubbing" (Salaman confirms this with "scrub" being just one of many names for "Roughing" planes).
> Stanley and then Record tried to cash in on this with a purpose made scrubber, which failed here but caught on in America perhaps because there is more backwoods green woodworking going on. There are often a few on american ebay, not expensive.
> LN & LV did the same by reintroducing expensive engineered-up versions which caught on with their fans and got the idea back into circulation. This is why many people had never heard of "scrub" planes until recently, though they may well have been using a nameless old plane for the purpose.
> A european plane type called a "Bismarck" in Britain, is also purpose made for for roughing out, but according to Goodman "Bismarck" is more to do with the style (the horn handle) and British makers (Salmen etc) made similar planes in a style known as "continental" which weren't necessarily for rough work.



Yeah - more or less right (ignoring your anti LN/LV fetish), apart from the green woodworking and reference to Record.

BugBear


----------



## heimlaga (28 May 2011)

AndyT":1usebwxa said:


> .....
> But sometimes, it was worth someone's time to make one. I reckon this example is user-made. No horn, but a good deep depression from a well-callussed thumb:
> 
> 
> ...



I doubt that depression is caused by the thumb. I often find old razee jointers with a depression like that on top where the owner used a hammer to retract the blade. That is why I use a rubber mallet instead.


----------



## Jacob (30 May 2011)

Have been having a go with the ECE scrubber on the chain sawed surface of a leylandii bole sawn down the middle - rough stuff. It does the job better then anything else I've got, leaving a furrowed but level surface to be taken down further with a jack or smoother. 33mm wide blade with only about 20mm functional width sticking out, is as much as you'd need. Any wider would be redundant i.e. too hard to push. Heavier (metal body) would be hard work too - there is a lot of rapid to-ing and fro-ing. 
It's just at the limit of _pushing_ tool, a rougher surface would need axe, adze or gouge to be swung or hammered with force.
Longer could be better perhaps, but definitely not wider or heavier.
Ideal for this particular bit of rough work.
Surprising that such a little light-weight plane is so useful for rough work.

Have been reading Schwarz's article here. I think he's missed a trick by not trying a wooden one. This is one plane where the light weight of a woody is a big advantage. 
He describes using the scrub to reduce board widths. I've been doing something similar for years - site work, usually fitting/scribing boards to an irregular wall - but roughing down to the scribe line with a hatchet (Spear & Jackson carpenter's axe) and then finer finishing with a block plane in one hand, at about 45º to the edge. A well cambered block plane would be good - a purpose made one-handed scrubber could replace the two tools I've been using.


----------



## Jacob (18 Oct 2011)

Jacob":24tjn0gu said:


> heimlaga":24tjn0gu said:
> 
> 
> > ..
> ...


Re-reading this thread and have remembered where a 75 comes in useful - you can get it into rebates in frames such as small window frames to make corrections (or remove glue/putty) where no other plane will go.


----------



## bugbear (18 Oct 2011)

Jacob":3g0litb0 said:


> Jacob":3g0litb0 said:
> 
> 
> > heimlaga":3g0litb0 said:
> ...



#90A and #90J are the same size.

Still - I too have found a use for a #75. I found a SW era one, still in its box, at my local auction.

I sold it on eBay at some substantial profit and bought something decent.   

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (18 Oct 2011)

Ok, if we are going to talk about the 75, I remember seeing somewhere a way of making a comfortable handle for the thing, so that the back end of the blade doesn't puncture your palm quite so often. Anyone else remember it properly? I don't mind admitting that I have a no 75 which was brand new in box (as it was bought new for me as a present) but feel it could do with some cunning modifications...


----------



## Jacob (18 Oct 2011)

AndyT":t6hwipxz said:


> Ok, if we are going to talk about the 75, I remember seeing somewhere a way of making a comfortable handle for the thing, so that the back end of the blade doesn't puncture your palm quite so often. Anyone else remember it properly? I don't mind admitting that I have a no 75 which was brand new in box (as it was bought new for me as a present) but feel it could do with some cunning modifications...


I think you wouldn't ever use one for long enough to warrant the trouble of making a handle. Just the occasional odd little job, for an odd little plane.


----------



## mu (19 Oct 2011)

When my wife saw my 75 said "What a beautiful plane shaped keychain!"


----------



## jimi43 (19 Oct 2011)

AndyT":3vekfz7n said:


> Ok, if we are going to talk about the 75, I remember seeing somewhere a way of making a comfortable handle for the thing, so that the back end of the blade doesn't puncture your palm quite so often. Anyone else remember it properly? I don't mind admitting that I have a no 75 which was brand new in box (as it was bought new for me as a present) but feel it could do with some cunning modifications...



There's an infamous phrase about polishing something smelly I think here! :mrgreen: 

Jimi


----------



## GazPal (21 Oct 2011)

bugbear":1c6hukil said:


> #90A and #90J are the same size.
> 
> Still - I too have found a use for a #75. I found a SW era one, still in its box, at my local auction.
> 
> ...




#075's/#75's are in a world of their own and do work pretty well on shallow rebates, but something that often crops up is where people inadvertently insert the blade to bevel down instead of it's intended bevel up orientation. Having the iron in bevel up can make them a bit of a bear to use, but they're not too difficult to set up and use in bevel down format. Like Jacob, I too find they come in handy for rough prep work (Stripping out previously glazed and puttied rebates, sometimes flush trimming inlay, etc.), but I'd much rather use either a #90, #077, or even a #076 for tidier rebate and end grain work.


----------



## GazPal (21 Oct 2011)

I agree the plane is of a two piece construction, but have a feeling it was originally made that way and not necessarily reduced in width. Another pointer is the nature of the divot/damage to it's upper fore end which looks all too similar to old bismark (Type) planes when the front horn has sheered off during use or by accident. Wear would be far smoother and more natural in appearance, rather than looking so splintered.


----------



## baldpate (5 Mar 2012)

Hi,

I recently picked-up a knackered little wooden razee jack plane off ebay (1.75" blade, about 12" long) with the intention of eventually converting it to a scrub plane. I've read through this thread, and others on the subject, so I think I understand generally what I have to do except for one point : the shape of the mouth.

I understand the mouth must be fairly wide to pass the large chips which a scrub is designed to take. However, in an earlier post (this one : https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/post625062.html#p625062) *bugbear *links to his archive about converting a similar plane; in the archive article he talks about reshaping the front of the mouth to be an arc which conforms with the shape of the blade arc. 

I can't quite understand why, and I'm wondering if it is absolutely necessary. Would it be sufficient to leave the mouth square but wide enough to pass the shavings taken by the centre of the curved blade? What am I missing?

Thanks

Chris


----------



## Cheshirechappie (5 Mar 2012)

baldpate":2v251ra4 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I recently picked-up a knackered little wooden razee jack plane off ebay (1.75" blade, about 12" long) with the intention of eventually converting it to a scrub plane. I've read through this thread, and others on the subject, so I think I understand generally what I have to do except for one point : the shape of the mouth.
> 
> ...



Hi Chris,

A scrub plane is for removing large amounts of wood pretty quickly, without bothering too much about finish. Just get the worst of the waste off, so that you can follow up with jack and maybe more 'precise' planes like a try or jointer. So, finish is not an issue in scrub-plane use, so mouth shape doesn't matter much as long as it's wide enough to pass large shavings without clogging. Make the mouth any shape that's easy and convenient.


----------



## Jacob (6 Mar 2012)

Just put a big camber on the blade and hey presto you have a scrub plane.


----------



## bugbear (6 Mar 2012)

baldpate":2ui3q1r6 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I recently picked-up a knackered little wooden razee jack plane off ebay (1.75" blade, about 12" long) with the intention of eventually converting it to a scrub plane. I've read through this thread, and others on the subject, so I think I understand generally what I have to do except for one point : the shape of the mouth.
> 
> ...



Yes, that would work fine. The mouth on my example was quite tight, and I simply opened it the minimum neccessary at all points.

Opening a mouth "square" so that it's wide enough at the edges means that it will be wider than it needs to be in the middle, but that's not fatal to a scrub.

BugBear


----------



## Richard T (6 Mar 2012)

I don't think you're missing much Chris - as long as you leave a wide enough mouth to cope with the heaviest shaving you are likely to take.
With a heavily cambered iron the shaving will be the thickest in the middle and I guess that the mouth was traditionally shaped to let a theoretical, thickest possible, gouged chunk of a shaving through - but with a mouth that is 1/2" wide, you'd need an awful lot of muscle, even with something like green Poplar that expands when cut to make a shaving to fit. 

I would have thought that a jack plane, with a gentler 8" ark camber and a much narrower mouth would be the one that needed the mouth to mirror the iron but I've never seen it - *disclaimer* could be that some do as I haven't seen all of them.  
Maybe it's just done for looks and tradition?


----------



## baldpate (6 Mar 2012)

From the replies, it seems I don't have to concern myself with shaping the front of the mouth (unless, as bugbear suggests, there are other reasons for doing so). 
Thanks to everybody for the further information - Chris


----------



## Tony Spear (7 Mar 2012)

Jacob":nn1ejt31 said:


> a huge knob.



If I give you the materials, can you make me one too?

Ancient joke revised in another context. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


----------

