# Try-plane with lead in its nose



## Dr W (22 Apr 2021)

Newb here so apologies if this is something obvious but I wanted opinions on a wooden plane I bought at the w/e which has a lead weighted nose.

The plane in question is a 22" wooden try plane that I found in a Hastings junk shop on Saturday for the princely sum of 3 quid. Would have been rude not to, so I struggled home with it in my rucksack. No obvious maker's mark showing and it was thickly encrusted in places with nasty sticky black gunk (more 'pitch' than 'patina'). Also had a wobbly handle and a loose throat repair patch - but otherwise felt generally sound and surprisingly heavy. I've been wanting one this size as a 'user' rather than a display-piece, so decided to scrape and sand off the crud and see what was underneath. 







Once I started cleaning up the nose, made two discoveries - partial maker's mark and address (Charles Nurse & Co at 182 & 184 Walworth Rd, which dates it firmly to 1887-1908) - and a perfect circle of lead, smack in the middle. Closer inspection revealed that two little shiny spots on the top were not nails as I thought but more lead. Presumably, at some point in it's history, the previous owner of this plane (M C Baker) drilled a ~3/4" hole a few inches into the nose, plus a couple of small air-escape holes in the top, and then poured molten lead in to make it heavier.










I can only assume Mr Baker wanted a heavier plane for some reason (it weighs around 6.5 pounds) - but why? Was this trick with the lead a common practice? Not something I've seen before - but then again, my experience is limited. It was certainly a well used tool and the previous owner may have been a bit 'toe-heavy' in his technique judging by the wear; the body is about 3/4" deeper at the heel than at the toe (which raises the possibility he weighted the front to restore the plane's balance?)

Anyway, it's cleaned up a treat. The Marples Hibernia iron is in remarkably good condition and nice & thick. It was previously ground to around 40 degrees, so I reground to nearer 25 then sharpened & stropped as best I can. Needs a little more fettling but cuts beautifully already. Only thing still left to do is to re-glue the throat insert and flatten the sole, then it should be good for a few more years. Not bad for 3 quid and a little elbow grease. Incidentally, the TATHs website has a copy of the 1902 Charles Nurse & Co catalogue, which shows this model on pages 77-78 as "Trying Plane No. 684" plane, which retailed for 7/- (nearly 2 days wages for a London carpenter at the time.)


----------



## Droogs (22 Apr 2021)

The fact that the iron was ground at 40 deg is a big hint that along with the extra weight this plane was modified to face off very gnarly exotic boards. Think big slabs of burr etc, the high angle and weight help tame difficult multi directional grain. Think making the below without any electrickery or a tailed apprentice:









I would have though it may have a fairly tight mouth as well but htat may have worn a bit


----------



## Adam W. (22 Apr 2021)

Ah, the tight mouth topic.

Wooden planes don't need a tight mouth as the cap iron limits breakout when it is set correctly.

Shall I go on ?

Nice plane btw, and a very nice table. Did you make it yourself?


----------



## Jacob (22 Apr 2021)

They all eventually wear more at the nose end and keep having new mouth inserts added - sometimes cut into the previous one. The mouths get battered - a tight mouth wouldn't last long - I doubt it'd ever be a consideration.


----------



## Dr W (22 Apr 2021)

Oh 'eck - before it all starts kicking off... Let me just add that with the current throat insert and the blade properly set, the mouth clearance is around 3.5 mm - so not especially tight. Though of course there's no telling what it was then the insert was first inserted 

Thanks fellas - I could certainly buy the argument about the weight and blade angle helping with 'well figured' grain.


----------



## JohnPW (22 Apr 2021)

Droogs said:


> The fact that the iron was ground at 40 deg is a big hint that along with the extra weight this plane was modified to face off very gnarly exotic boards. Think big slabs of burr etc, the high angle and weight help tame difficult multi directional grain.


That might be the case for a bevel up plane but it's a bevel down plane, the iron bevel doesn't change the effective pitch of the plane which is fixed by the bed angle. The sole at the toe being more worn will increase the pitch slightly (couple of degrees?) but I would have thought that's just natural wear, not a modification.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (22 Apr 2021)

I've never heard of a wooden plane with added weight before. A 22" try plane is quite heavy anyway; it's hard to see any advantage to more weight.

Longer infills are notoriously heavy, and some people hold them in very high regard for their capabilities in tricky timbers. I wonder if this is a misguided experiment - the notion that adding weight will make it perform more like a long infill? It won't - but possibly the experimenter didn't realise that before they started.


----------



## JohnPW (22 Apr 2021)

Maybe it's strike button? But they're usually on the top of the toe, or the back end at the heel.


----------



## JohnPW (22 Apr 2021)

Here's a plane I found on Ebay with lead inserts.


----------



## thetyreman (22 Apr 2021)

my krenov plane has a mouth that's 1/4000ths of an inch, it's great for figured woods and exotics, I think it does make a difference and beg to differ.


----------



## Adam W. (22 Apr 2021)

Fancy that.


----------



## JohnPW (22 Apr 2021)

Back to the topic of the lead, maybe it's to make the front end heavier?

Anyone is welcome to start a new thread on mouth width if they want.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (22 Apr 2021)

Like buses - don't see one for yonks, then two come along at once.

OK - what's the extra weight for?


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

thetyreman said:


> my krenov plane has a mouth that's 1/4000ths of an inch, it's great for figured woods and exotics, I think it does make a difference and beg to differ.



400th?

I made a 55 degree infill years ago with a 4 thousandth mouth. It works, but can only do one thing and needs sharpening often.

I tried the same principle on heavier shaving planes and the closed mouth isn't effective. It's a tactic for smoothers only. Even on an infill destined to take 5-6 thousandth shavings with a 100th of an inch mouth, tearout was a problem.


----------



## thetyreman (22 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> 400th?
> 
> I made a 55 degree infill years ago with a 4 thousandth mouth. It works, but can only do one thing and needs sharpening often.
> 
> I tried the same principle on heavier shaving planes and the closed mouth isn't effective. It's a tactic for smoothers only. Even on an infill destined to take 5-6 thousandth shavings with a 100th of an inch mouth, tearout was a problem.



yes 4000ths not 400, it's a smoother so only used for the final surface, the results speak for themselves, no tearout at all, it's also 55 degrees and has a hock iron.


----------



## Dr W (22 Apr 2021)

JohnPW - thanks for posting that other example. Insert looks exactly the same, even though it's a totally diff type of plane. Obviously adding weight was 'a thing' at some point in the 20th century, and not just a one off barmy idea. I just wish the guy who did my plane had added weight to the back as well as I'm finding the toe-heavy balance a bit weird!
(ps. I also thought about the striking-knob idea but wouldn't make much sense in the centre of the nose - not an obvious place to hit to adjust the blade, and even if it were then using one of the softest available metals would be a bad idea)


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

thetyreman said:


> yes 4000ths not 400, it's a smoother so only used for the final surface, the results speak for themselves, no tearout at all, it's also 55 degrees and has a hock iron.



1/4000th wouldn't pass a shaving. 

4 thousandths will pass a shaving of about 2 thousandths before friction and bending of the shaving around the mouth becomes troublesome. 

1 hundredth or slightly above as mentioned above will plane about 5-6 hundredths before there is a lot of resistance from bending the shaving around a mouth, but while 4 thousandths will eliminate most tearout at 2, the second figure at around triple the mouth and shaving size won't eliminate tearout, but setting the cap will with much less planing resistance. 

I think krenov did most of his woodworking with machine tools, and the planes are a draw for folks because they create two something for nothing notions:
1) that you can make a plane that's better than a stanley (which isn't the case - a stanley 4 is a far better plane, but one has to learn to use the cap iron)
2) that you can change some aspects that weren't in widely used planes professionally and be more enlightened, and potentially close to free


The trouble with that type of plane (tight mouth, high pitch) is that it works pretty much on a surface that's almost finished already. A stanley 4 works about 5 times as fast meaning it can get the surface to that point and then finish it, and a stanley 4 can do it with a setting that will take a shaving from about 5 thousandths to almost nothing with no considerable tearout for any (shavings below about 2 thousandth tend to have no beam strength and below 1, almost nothing - even the worst woods - have a tendency to tear out. The cap lets you blast off the wood, back off and get that thin shaving without doing anything else). 

That said, if you have machines that get right next to use of a krenov plane, then it's almost as good as a stanley in that context. It took me 80 hours to make my infill. I made it knowing that it would only take thin smoother shavings, but it's just not very productive in actual use. Even if that's after a tearout free machine planer - it takes a lot of strokes to remove the planer chatter and crushed fibers whereas something like a stanley will take one or two passes with a heavier shaving and one with a thinner one (the latter usually done later). 

practical shaving thickness (in terms of sharpness and clearance) starts around 3 ten thousandths of an inch. That's an impractical thickness to use, but by that, I mean if you use a small-abrasive sharpening routine and a hard iron, you can get a shaving around that thickness with regularity. Just not for long before you have to resharpen again. Increasing the pitch of the iron accelerates how often the sharpening needs to occur.


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

In regard to the OP's plane, I don't think there was an ulterior motive other than that the user wanted more weight. If this were an 8 pound plane made to 10, I'd guess differently, but 6.5 pounds after addition of lead is still on the lower side for what I've seen of try planes. Low weight is great for softwoods. Move to medium hardwoods and a 5 1/2 or 6 pound try plane will batter your elbows a lot more than one a bit heavier, and on the other end, a 10 pound plane will feel too heavy. 6 1/2-8 pounds seems to be the sweet spot. 

if anyone is thinking of adding weight to a plane, it's easier to block the mouth, scrape the finish off of the ends (so that air and oil can move through the plane) and pour the mortise full of linseed oil. A dry plane will absorb an entire mortise full quickly and it'll flow through and to the ends overnight (this is beech - never did it with anything else). 

the blocking can be a very tightly stuffed rag or something like a soft putty that doesn't dry and stick to the plane. I've added a pound to several planes doing this and am fairly sure by weight of some planes, gotten old planes that were heavily oiled this way. The nice thing is the weight tends to be further back vs. inserting a weight at one end or another.


----------



## Droogs (22 Apr 2021)

I didn't say it would be any good. It was a suggestion based on all the claptrap about needing super high angles and thin mouths and lots of weight to work gnarly woods in the various woodworking media at the turn of the century. To me basically to help sell all the new designer planes with foot thick irons etc because a Bailey design couldn't plane exotics even though the evidence sitting in museums said otherwise.


----------



## Jacob (22 Apr 2021)

thetyreman said:


> my krenov plane has a mouth that's 1/4000ths of an inch, it's great for figured woods and exotics, I think it does make a difference and beg to differ.


 Did you mean 1/4 of an inch?


----------



## raffo (22 Apr 2021)

thetyreman said:


> my krenov plane has a mouth that's 1/4000ths of an inch, it's great for figured woods and exotics, I think it does make a difference and beg to differ.



That's 0.00635 mm, that doesn't sound right.


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

Droogs said:


> I didn't say it would be any good. It was a suggestion based on all the claptrap about needing super high angles and thin mouths and lots of weight to work gnarly woods in the various woodworking media at the turn of the century. To me basically to help sell all the new designer planes with foot thick irons etc because a Bailey design couldn't plane exotics even though the evidence sitting in museums said otherwise.



In fairness to those folks, I don't think most of them knew how a chipbreaker worked, anyway. If they're sizing veneers on a drum sander and wooden parts on power tools only, and then sanding to finish, it doesn't make much difference. 

The era that the cap iron became popular makes sense - old growth wood was not universally found at some point in the 1700s and early 1800s, and a double iron makes a person wielding a plane far faster at completing work (even if tearout mitigation is neutral). It also makes a plane work better with minor seasonal movement. 

I understand LN and LV's viewpoint (though only the former has mentioned it in demonstrations) to be that the cap iron works but it's difficult to learn. I have definitely seen a lot of unused LN planes, so it's fair to say if you're not going to use planes, it's difficult to learn how to use the cap iron. If you're using planes once every 3 weeks, it's probably still difficult - some concentration of effort has to occur where you need the efficiency and force yourself to learn it and do it several times over a week or so, and then it sticks forever. 

Paperweighted my infill pretty quickly, and I'd thought at the time I'd just made the ideal plane for smoothing because it's really hard to get any tearout creation. On the internet, it sounds like pure laziness to say that taking bunches of 2 thousandths shavings is too slow, and on one test panel, it's not noticed. If you prepare 10 board feet in a shop session with planes, though, and you start feeling effort and time, it's instantly apparent. My infill was beaten by a $12 Millers Falls 9


----------



## Adam W. (22 Apr 2021)

Surely those fancy infill planes were for finishing not preparing sawn timber ?


----------



## Jacob (22 Apr 2021)

Droogs said:


> I didn't say it would be any good. It was a suggestion based on all the claptrap about needing super high angles and thin mouths and lots of weight to work gnarly woods in the various woodworking media at the turn of the century. To me basically to help sell all the new designer planes with foot thick irons etc because a Bailey design couldn't plane exotics even though the evidence sitting in museums said otherwise.


I agree about the retro planes just being a gimmick, largely copying long abandoned dud ideas like Norris adjusters, thick blades, brass knobs all over.
But have to say that fine adjustment of cap iron is effective with difficult grain for the simple reason that the closer the cap iron, the steeper the planing angle, the more it becomes a scraper rather than a planer. 
But it's much easier to use (and sharpen) a scraper such as the cheap Stanley 80, so why waste your cash? 
It works both ways - a fine set plane won't work on easy wood you have to set the cap back a bit to get good thick shavings.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (22 Apr 2021)

Adam W. said:


> Surely those fancy infill planes were for finishing not preparing sawn timber ?


That's how I understand it. There are infill smoothers, less common are infill panel planes (which are smoothers for panels), and even less common infill jointers - uncommon because they cost the earth when new and you need to be built like a prop forward to get them to the work. There are infill shoulder planes, chariot planes, mitre planes and thumb planes - but NO infill jack or try planes (unless someone built one by mistake).

Anyone preparing timber with an infill (unless it's very dense, hard, exotic timber, in which case you probably won't be preparing a lot of it) has missed the point.


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> I agree about the retro planes just being a gimmick, largely copying long abandoned dud ideas like Norris adjusters, thick blades, brass knobs all over.
> But have to say that fine adjustment of cap iron is effective with difficult grain for the simple reason that the closer the cap iron, the steeper the planing angle, the more it becomes a scraper rather than a planer.
> But it's much easier to use (and sharpen) a scraper such as the cheap Stanley 80, so why waste your cash?
> It works both ways - a fine set plane won't work on easy wood you have to set the cap back a bit to get good thick shavings.



it doesn't become a scraper - it always cuts at a 45 degree angle (or 47 ish in a norris). The closer the cap iron is, the harder it holds the chip down and at some point, it's pushing back so hard that it can push the chip back into the wood below the cut line. That's not great, or at least i perceive it as not great.

A stanley 80 is limited productivity compared to a stanley 4 unless someone doesn't know how to use the 4 (I have an 80 and have used it quite a bit - it works, but the surface isn't as good, it can be murder on edges - especially of veneers, and the edge is short lived compared to a smoothing plane before accounting for the fact that takes less at once).


----------



## Adam W. (22 Apr 2021)

Cheshirechappie said:


> That's how I understand it. There are infill smoothers, less common are infill panel planes (which are smoothers for panels), and even less common infill jointers - uncommon because they cost the earth when new and you need to be built like a prop forward to get them to the work. There are infill shoulder planes, chariot planes, mitre planes and thumb planes - but NO infill jack or try planes (unless someone built one by mistake).
> 
> Anyone preparing timber with an infill (unless it's very dense, hard, exotic timber, in which case you probably won't be preparing a lot of it) has missed the point.



Imagine having to push one around all day long. Not only would it be hard work, but you'd have to look at the pig ugly thing as well.


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

Adam W. said:


> Surely those fancy infill planes were for finishing not preparing sawn timber ?



If you give them a go, you'll end up with two things:
* a double iron panel plane
* a double iron smoother that's not 6 pounds (e.g., a norris 2 or spiers or something of the sort). 

The former, well, I've never really read about it, but it excels working in the 2-8 thousandth range on medium hardwood, and is easy on elbows in really hard wood. a closed mouth in that range isn't effective and it's not just a tearout problem, but also effort and accuracy. Tearout lowers volume removed in each pass probably to 1/2 or 1/3rd, even when it's small, and it causes an iron to enter and exit a cut over and over (shortens life a lot). 

Wooden planes dominate all in rough lumber, including easy domination of stanley/record type planes. 

Infill panels in my guesstimation work well on smaller work especially if the wood is harder, and better if all planing can be down grain or using the cap iron with a heavy shaving (trying to improve the balance of work done moving the plane vs. removing wood). 

I'd guess the infill jointers would be punishing due to nose heaviness, and their cost would've obviously scared away the majority, but the nose heaviness would've caused long term injury to wrists and forearms. 

Even a wooden jointer in the 28" range is nose heavy and punishing to use, and I gather from what I've heard that they were used only to true long edges. I made one as my first long plane and hate to say it, but I haven't used it in at least 3 or 4 years - the nose heaviness is really offputting in real work. Panel planes (infills) already have a serious nose heavy problem - jointers would probably be intolerable.


----------



## Adam W. (22 Apr 2021)

An explainer on what the cap iron does and why it needs to be mated to the cutting iron.

The closer the cap iron is to the cutting edge, the steeper the shaving exits the mouth of the plane . This is because the cap iron bulges at the front which forces the shaving upwards.

Being forced up at a steep angle causes the fibers in the shaving to bend and break which stops the shaving being strong enough to cause it to breakout on the timber surface on any grain, the wilder the grain, the closer it needs to get. Both these irons are clamped firmly to the frog by the lever cap.

The frog angle on the plane in question is always the same regardless of where the cap iron is in relation to the cutting edge. The angle of the cutting iron to the work surface always remains the same because it is clamped to the frog by the lever cap. This will only change if you change the frog for one with a different angle.

You can change the bevel on the cutting iron but this won't affect the angle at which the cutting iron is held on the frog and is presented to the work.

When the cap iron is positioned close to the cutting edge it is important that there is no gap at the interface between the back of the cutting iron and edge of the cap iron, otherwise the plane will choke, as shavings will be forced between the two. The reluctance to pay attention to the importance of mating these two surfaces is why people mainly set the cap iron away from the cutting edge by an sixteenth of an inch or more.

To stop the shaving being forced between the cutting iron and cap iron and choking when it is close to the cutting edge, they have to be carefully lapped and George Ellis in Modern Practical Joinery talks about this at length and even raises a burr on the cap iron to make sure the gap is closed along its full width.

Sorry it's a bit long and brisk.


----------



## ivan (23 Apr 2021)

The trouble is, today's Bailey planes do not conform to the design Bailey submitted to the US patent office. The original had the lever cap pressing the blade via the cap iron, onto the frog at 3 points, not todays 2. I've not seen a cap iron like Bailey's original even in the 1950's, they are all bent far too much; this was the reason behind the stayset 2 piece cap iron, or the Millers Falls 2 piece lever cap.

The 2 piece cap iron is not a precision item and can't easily be set close enough to the cutting edge when this is needed for your smoother. A thin blade and a flat cap iron works well with the Millers falls lever cap (3 point pressure).

Of course, historically Stanleys may have been closer to the original patent, or maybe the apprentice was just given the scraper...


----------



## Adam W. (23 Apr 2021)

The principals work with wooden planes. When the cap iron or "chip breaker" as my uncle used to call it is set correctly, wooden planes produce a straight shaving which comes out like a long ribbon of wood.


----------



## ivan (23 Apr 2021)

I missed Adam's bit above. I confess to using a slightly thicker blade (for eg. 2x thicker = 4x stiffer in the plane) and a completely flat cap iron, sharpened to an appropriate angle, and finished with a gently rolled hook (as per scraper) at the final angle. A gentle dressing ensures the hook is flat and of definite, but minimal height. The cap iron is easily cambered in the same way as the blade itself. Clamped down by an old Millers Falls 2 piece lever cap the blade is perfectly stable and no shavings lodge where they shouldn't. Both mouth and cap iron can be set as close as you like with no problem. Set for troublesome stuff, the actual cutting geometry round the blade edge is rather like a scraper with the addition of a close mouth.


----------



## Jameshow (23 Apr 2021)

You'll have me looking for another plane on eBay before long! 

Cheers James


----------



## D_W (23 Apr 2021)

ivan said:


> The trouble is, today's Bailey planes do not conform to the design Bailey submitted to the US patent office. The original had the lever cap pressing the blade via the cap iron, onto the frog at 3 points, not todays 2. I've not seen a cap iron like Bailey's original even in the 1950's, they are all bent far too much; this was the reason behind the stayset 2 piece cap iron, or the Millers Falls 2 piece lever cap.
> 
> The 2 piece cap iron is not a precision item and can't easily be set close enough to the cutting edge when this is needed for your smoother. A thin blade and a flat cap iron works well with the Millers falls lever cap (3 point pressure).
> 
> Of course, historically Stanleys may have been closer to the original patent, or maybe the apprentice was just given the scraper...



The stayset actually has a harder time keeping shavings from getting under it. I wish that wasn't true. Bailey's design has the hump contacting front and back, but planes that don't generally also do better keeping shavings from getting under them. Fitness between the iron and cap iron eliminates the issue almost all of the time (unless the cap iron hump is too gradual).

The trouble with the cap iron bedding front and back is that you can't dictate where the bias in pressure will be. If it's toward the back of the hump, you're creating a problem.

I wanted to like the millers falls design better, too, but it doesn't work better (I've not seen a functional difference) and there are some issues with the plane that make it seem a bit cheaper - the lower quality adjuster, paint instead of japanning and from time to time, irons that have grain size problems. 

Some of the stanley types without proper frog support from top to bottom also have problems, too.


----------



## jcassidy (24 Apr 2021)

Adam W. said:


> The reluctance to pay attention to the importance of mating these two surfaces is why people mainly set the cap iron away from the cutting edge by an sixteenth of an inch or more.



Guilty, yer honour. At least, on the cheap Bailey-copy I found at the bottom of a toolbox I bought. I just can't get that gap to close no matter how much I lap the cap iron. I really should have another go at it.


----------



## Jacob (25 Apr 2021)

Adam W. said:


> The principals work with wooden planes. When the cap iron or "chip breaker" as my uncle used to call it is set correctly, wooden planes produce a straight shaving which comes out like a long ribbon of wood.


Yes, in your dreams. It can happen if everything is freshly set up with the chip breaker back a bit to reduce the curl, but particularly if you have the right bit of wood to work on - you need to use what Rob Cosman uses, or as per those Japanese planing demos.


----------



## Jacob (25 Apr 2021)

jcassidy said:


> Guilty, yer honour. At least, on the cheap Bailey-copy I found at the bottom of a toolbox I bought. I just can't get that gap to close no matter how much I lap the cap iron. I really should have another go at it.


You need to bend it down a touch.


----------



## Jacob (25 Apr 2021)

ivan said:


> ..... Set for troublesome stuff, the actual cutting geometry round the blade edge is rather like a scraper with the addition of a close mouth.


Exactly my point. Why go to the trouble and difficulty of _adapting your plane to work like a scraper_ instead of simply using a scraper?
Though of course you can easily make your plane work normally by setting the cap iron back again.


----------



## Jacob (25 Apr 2021)

ivan said:


> .... they are all bent far too much;


Bend it back.


> this was the reason behind the stayset 2 piece cap iron, or the Millers Falls 2 piece lever cap.


Yes I agree, but with a bit of careful fiddling a normal cap iron will do just as well.


----------



## Ttrees (25 Apr 2021)

jcassidy said:


> Guilty, yer honour. At least, on the cheap Bailey-copy I found at the bottom of a toolbox I bought. I just can't get that gap to close no matter how much I lap the cap iron. I really should have another go at it.


If you are trying to get rid a belly when paired with your iron, get a small strip or square of abrasive narrower than the width of the cap iron and hollow the middle/bump away on the underside.
Much easier to get flat if there's a slight hollow in the middle, as you now have two registration points, compared to one equaling rocking in the middle and causing more problems since abrasion favours the ends.

Tom


----------



## Adam W. (25 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Yes, in your dreams. It can happen if everything is freshly set up with the chip breaker back a bit to reduce the curl, but particularly if you have the right bit of wood to work on - you need to use what Rob Cosman uses, or as per those Japanese planing demos.



Sigh, shrugs shoulders.

So what? Just because you can't manage it, it doesn't mean that others who have more skill than you can't either.

I rest my case, please carry on if you like.


----------



## Ttrees (25 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Yes, in your dreams. It can happen if everything is freshly set up with the chip breaker back a bit to reduce the curl, but particularly if you have the right bit of wood to work on - you need to use what Rob Cosman uses, or as per those Japanese planing demos.


You should give it a try Jacob!
You might be pleasantly surprised by this occurrence.
Doesn't need to be aspen, but any timber I've worked will do the same.


----------



## D_W (25 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Yes, in your dreams. It can happen if everything is freshly set up with the chip breaker back a bit to reduce the curl, but particularly if you have the right bit of wood to work on - you need to use what Rob Cosman uses, or as per those Japanese planing demos.



Inaccurate statement, Jacob.

This is the shavings from making a painted bed for my daughter out of white pine 2x4s. Straight shavings are typical and not ideal, as in if you had more experience planing, you'd do this on purpose and with ease because it's less effort. This lower quality wood wouldn't be practically planed with single iron planes. 








That's exactly where they fell coming off of a Stanley 4.

If you didn't set the plane this way, it would tear up the wood, especially behind the knots.


----------



## Jacob (25 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> Inaccurate statement, Jacob.
> 
> This is the shavings from making a painted bed for my daughter out of white pine 2x4s. Straight shavings are typical and not ideal, as in if you had more experience planing, you'd do this on purpose and with ease because it's less effort. This lower quality wood wouldn't be practically planed with single iron planes. View attachment 109051
> View attachment 109052
> ...


As I said you get straight shavings off easy wood if you try hard enough. Easier still with a pronounced camber, fine adjustment and an obsessively carefully set up plane, as we see here!
Those are not straight shavings in the Rob Cosman or Japanese competition sense either, they are merely thin shavings which will drape straight if allowed to.
In normal woodwork white pine would be planed with a much deeper cut without bothering too much about little bits of tear out, on the assumption that it will be painted or otherwise finished. The idea is to produce a finished item as efficiently as possible, not just photogenic shavings. Knots here very small anyway - nothing like scots pine, (the basic UK timber a.k.a. "redwood") which is more difficult to plane
I presume you will be carefully polishing these to preserve the chatoyancy and planing perfection, even though this is cheapo rubbish wood! 
Typical of the modern sharpening enthusiast - close attention to the shavings! I was like that as a beginner too.


----------



## D_W (25 Apr 2021)

You have no clue what you're talking about. They came out of the plane straight. Without the cap iron, they would curl. Straight overall shape with some rippling is cap iron thinner shavings, thicker shavings are less wavy. 

These shavings are off of a Stanley 20 type with a 2.99 iron sharpened with india sone and buffer. The whole point is to square the laminations and remove the mill finish at the same time and be paint ready or close. You lack the skill and experience to identify what's going on here, and all you can do is insert smileys to try to hide it.


----------



## D_W (25 Apr 2021)

You should try to tell me about forging and heat treating chisels, too.


----------



## D_W (25 Apr 2021)

Here's where the ratty wood ended up.


My daughter had her eyes on a $3700 bed. I told her I'd make one half as nice and paint it. The $3700 bed had a cabinet and steps at the end, but only half was actually wood. I spent about $300 on wood, high hardness paint and bench bolts. I rarely get the chance to just slap something together like this with a contest of keeping materials cheap. Cheap wood and hand work from rough will challenge planing skills.


----------



## Adam W. (25 Apr 2021)

Looks great and that's a massive saving in cash.

You could probably now afford a new plane which does curly shavings instead of that straight rubbish.


----------



## Jacob (25 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> You have no clue what you're talking about. They came out of the plane straight. Without the cap iron, they would curl. Straight overall shape with some rippling is cap iron thinner shavings, thicker shavings are less wavy.


Thin shavings don't curl so much as ripple. Yours are typical.Thinner shavings waft away like gossamer. If you set the cut deeper they would start to curl. Who said anything about "without cap iron"? not me.


> ..... You lack the skill and experience to identify what's going on here,.....


I get the distinct impression I've done a lot more planing than you, but I'm not going to beat my chest about it or start grunting!


> Cheap wood and hand work from rough will challenge planing skills.


Cheapness has nothing to do with it and your wood simply looks very unchallenging, soft, straight, small knots etc. Ideal for a beginner.


----------



## Jameshow (25 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> Here's where the ratty wood ended up.
> 
> 
> My daughter had her eyes on a $3700 bed. I told her I'd make one half as nice and paint it. The $3700 bed had a cabinet and steps at the end, but only half was actually wood. I spent about $300 on wood, high hardness paint and bench bolts. I rarely get the chance to just slap something together like this with a contest of keeping materials cheap. Cheap wood and hand work from rough will challenge planing skills.



You know too much to have a daughter that age! 

Nice bed btw. 

Cheers James

Ps my kids call me homer for some reason!!


----------



## Jacob (25 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> You should try to tell me about forging and heat treating chisels, too.


I wouldn't dream of it I know nothing about either.

Nice bed! A bit of a waste of effort all that fine planing though - you'd never know! Distinct absence of chatoyancy!
I'd have done it with a 5 1/2 , filled any tear-outs with putty and slapped paint on the same. It looks soft anyway so I doubt tear-outs would have been a problem.


----------



## D_W (25 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Thin shavings don't curl so much as ripple. Yours are typical.Thinner shavings waft away like gossamer. If you set the cut deeper they would start to curl. Who said anything about "without cap iron"? not me.I get the distinct impression I've done a lot more planing than you, but I'm not going to beat my chest about it or start grunting!
> Cheapness has nothing to do with it and your wood simply looks very unchallenging, soft, straight, small knots etc.


We've covered this. I've planed more in four years as a hobbyist than you did as a pro for ten years and the last 30, you've used mostly power tools. Your posts are spectacularly devoid of actually using planes for more than little test cuts. You have no clue what you're talking about in this case. These shavings came straight up and out of a 4 each laying next to the last. There are zero posts from you talking about using a cap iron before 2013. There was one Finnish guy and one other person on the entire board history here mentioning using a cap iron before 2013. I'm sure you've done a bunch of coarse house work. That'll do little to help most people wanting to make things for their houses with planes. Your advice for anything other than stabbing around with a half sharp iron is terrible.


----------



## D_W (25 Apr 2021)

Jameshow said:


> You know too much to have a daughter that age!
> 
> Nice bed btw.
> 
> ...



Hah! I'm curious and results oriented due to the curiosity. That allows you to accumulate knowledge about what works and what doesn't quickly. The biggest push is that I want to find out how easy hand work can be made vs just settling for the idea that everything is equal. 

I'm not very good at things I don't have a fascination with, though. I'd be terrible with mid level power tool advice and use, and little value talking about dust collection. 

And I've literally never attempted a pocket screw.


----------



## Jacob (25 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> We've covered this. I've planed more in four years as a hobbyist than you did as a pro for ten years and the last 30, you've used mostly power tools. Your posts are spectacularly devoid of actually using planes for more than little test cuts.


4 years? Surprised!
True I don't take many snaps of shavings, sawdust, empty beer cans, and I have posted one or two demo pieces out of interest.
True I haven't posted much about cap irons either, but that's not because I don't use them. Except on a scrub plane - I'll have to tell you about that another time!  
Pressing the ignore button again!


----------



## D_W (25 Apr 2021)

It would be wise for you to use the ignore function, because every time you reply to some of my pictures, you assert something completely inaccurate. The fact that you used mostly power tools is apparent because your advice is about as good as "do this, it'll be good enough, and fall back on power tools if it gets difficult".

When I wanted to go to hand tools only, there was only one person that I can recall who had accurate advice (but an inability to communicate it), and then a dozen or two of your type who made big claims but blew off needing to do accurate work as unnecessary and showed stuff like your last test piece. Construction work.


----------



## Ozi (26 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> Inaccurate statement, Jacob.
> 
> This is the shavings from making a painted bed for my daughter out of white pine 2x4s. Straight shavings are typical and not ideal, as in if you had more experience planing, you'd do this on purpose and with ease because it's less effort. This lower quality wood wouldn't be practically planed with single iron planes. View attachment 109051
> View attachment 109052
> ...


Hi, I'm not going to get into the argument of is this necessary or the best way etc. I just wish I had the skills to sharpen and set a plain that accurately. Once they have the skill each can decide what works best for them, probably different methods for different projects. Personally I'm improving with the tools I use and a lot of that is due to listening to people like yourself on here. It's good to see the odd thread actually mention wood work now and then.


----------



## D_W (26 Apr 2021)

Ozi said:


> Hi, I'm not going to get into the argument of is this necessary or the best way etc. I just wish I had the skills to sharpen and set a plain that accurately. Once they have the skill each can decide what works best for them, probably different methods for different projects. Personally I'm improving with the tools I use and a lot of that is due to listening to people like yourself on here. It's good to see the odd thread actually mention wood work now and then.



the "best way" for this because of the number of dead knots would've been a drum sander, I think - at least that's my opinion. I wanted to bull through it faster, but you can make a mess of breaking the knots and then they come out or are uneven on the surface with broken bits sticking out. I'm sure that I sized them some before this with a try plane or a giant cocobolo rough smoother that I have that's magic on this kind of work, but the knots were the hang up in this case.

As jacob said above, you could just break them out all over the place, go back and fill them (it would take about the same time) or you could spend about 10-15 minutes on each like this and then chamfer the corners and fill just whatever breaks out on the corners (some do).

It seems like unnecessarily thin shavings, but it's what the wood would allow. If it was bright and clear wood with straight grain, it would've allowed a lot more - I'll always go as fast and heavy as the wood will allow and started faster, but it made a mess of the dead knots combined with very soft grain behind them and this ended up being faster and just as pleasant.

Better wood would've been the best case, but there was a chance that this bed would get pitched. Daughter wanted a loft bed, but she's a sleep walker. She's managed it so far now for almost a year, but if she hadn't, it would've been thrown out. using cherry and a clear finish was ruled out by both the princess and the queen (that would've been my first choice). The sleep walk thing is also the reason for the cattle pen style top rail.

Comparing planing here, this wood is worse than something like curly maple -I don't plane much junk wood, so I wouldn't have known. Keeping the dead knots from breaking out into a spiky dirty mess is trouble. I posted this picture a few months ago of an 1840s or so English plane that I came across, setting the plane up and planing with the same kind of setup (thicker shaving) in curly maple.






Luckily, it's all a variation on the same theme - you go as fast as the wood will allow and the prep of the plane and then setup for use is kind of the same across the board. Whatever the wood allows, you go as fast and heavy as you can without battering elbows and shoulders, and then it's just work in rhythm.

There is a reason that most of this was done with a 4, though - pine is friction/sticky and once basic straightness was established, a bigger plane would've been more work and wasn't needed. This needs to be eyeball straight.

What I was really going for was a result where you couldn't easily tell that the posts were laminated (can't) or that the wood was really cheap (can't tell that either). The load bearing parts that are lateral are all yellow pine, which planed a whole lot more easily because all of the knots were live.

Despite jacob's uneducated comments above about what's easy planing and what's not, reality when you put nuts to the floor with hand tools is that some of the most spectacular lovely looking stuff isn't that difficult to plane cleanly, and it's the junk that makes a challenge. 

And industrially, that junk, if used, would be done through an industrial drum sander. There's a guy about 45 minutes from me that I used before I learned to plane - he's got a beach 52 sander. It's magical. It's also three phase and would never fit in a normal house - three drums, all three oscillate and the last drum is something like 80 or 120 grit paper. It'll take 1/8th inch off of a 20" wide maple panel without much complaint and leave a sanded surface that just need a little bit of finer sanding. A half hour of time on anything you can haul will more or less get a sanded surface for an entire project like this for about 40 bucks. 

But on the plane setup and set - no part of it is difficult, it's just getting a small amount of experience to do it a couple of times right and then it just becomes routine because you know what to feel and what to look for.


----------



## Ozi (26 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> the "best way" for this because of the number of dead knots would've been a drum sander, I think - at least that's my opinion. I wanted to bull through it faster, but you can make a mess of breaking the knots and then they come out or are uneven on the surface with broken bits sticking out. I'm sure that I sized them some before this with a try plane or a giant cocobolo rough smoother that I have that's magic on this kind of work, but the knots were the hang up in this case.
> 
> As jacob said above, you could just break them out all over the place, go back and fill them (it would take about the same time) or you could spend about 10-15 minutes on each like this and then chamfer the corners and fill just whatever breaks out on the corners (some do).
> 
> ...


Thanks for the answer. I think the thing I most need to improve is my sharpening, it's obvious that the plain you were using cuts like a razor, I have watched a few items on U Tube etc. and made some progress but still a way to go. Practice and more practice I think. The drum sander sounds like quite a bit of kit!


----------



## D_W (26 Apr 2021)

Ozi said:


> Thanks for the answer. I think the thing I most need to improve is my sharpening, it's obvious that the plain you were using cuts like a razor, I have watched a few items on U Tube etc. and made some progress but still a way to go. Practice and more practice I think. The drum sander sounds like quite a bit of kit!



I counted the specs on the three motors - 7 1/2 horsepower on each of the first two drums and 5 on the third. Definitely not home shop approved!! you can imagine the size given that it's usable sanding width (even after oscillation) is 52. Would need appropriate dust collection (that was also three phase and to say it was hearing protection mandatory would be a huge understatement). A lesson in what one would do even in the 1950s when it was made vs. what we think is big home shop machinery. I know enough now to flatten and finish plane those panels in rhythm, but it still remains true that the beach can take five of those panels in about two minutes and get them to final thickness and ready for what more people would do - use a finish sander. Brute force fine work, if there is such a thing -and already "antique" by decades. The same shop had a 30" jointer, and I have no clue how wide the thicknesser was. All of it "out of date" machinery. 

As far as the sharpening goes, if there's anything i can explain to make that easier - the process to sharpen the iron used in the pine pictures is about one minute, including time to remove any damage. It's a little bit prescriptive but it has to be to give good clearance, certain completion, excellent sharpness, and then resisting damage on the knots (they're dry and some are dirty). It gets away from the "make it simple and don't learn any more", but once you go one extra step and make each component simple, then the whole process becomes extremely easy and there's a lot of margin to execute it. It's fast and cheap - and can be used on all kinds of stuff that has nothing to do with woodworking.

Fast and completed properly every single time without too much thought, deliberation or concentrating are very important, just as the right 20 minutes of preparation of a new (used) plane are, and using the cap iron right. Those three things make good hand tool work far easier and it just becomes exercise, and very pleasant. I remember wearing noise canceling headphones and doing this planing shoving the shaving off to the side at the start so that it would lay out predictably. probably 10 minutes of planing and 1 minute of sharpening, back and forth in a rhythm (the planing fairly short time interval thanks to hard knots, but just sharpening to 30 degrees or something would've made the planing interval about a minute).


----------



## Jacob (26 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> I counted the specs on the three motors - 7 1/2 horsepower on each of the first two drums and 5 on the third. Definitely not home shop approved!! you can imagine the size given that it's usable sanding width (even after oscillation) is 52. Would need appropriate dust collection (that was also three phase and to say it was hearing protection mandatory would be a huge understatement). A lesson in what one would do even in the 1950s when it was made vs. what we think is big home shop machinery. I know enough now to flatten and finish plane those panels in rhythm, but it still remains true that the beach can take five of those panels in about two minutes and get them to final thickness and ready for what more people would do - use a finish sander. Brute force fine work, if there is such a thing -and already "antique" by decades. The same shop had a 30" jointer, and I have no clue how wide the thicknesser was. All of it "out of date" machinery.
> 
> As far as the sharpening goes, if there's anything i can explain to make that easier - the process to sharpen the iron used in the pine pictures is about one minute, including time to remove any damage. It's a little bit prescriptive but it has to be to give good clearance, certain completion, excellent sharpness, and then resisting damage on the knots (they're dry and some are dirty). It gets away from the "make it simple and don't learn any more", but once you go one extra step and make each component simple, then the whole process becomes extremely easy and there's a lot of margin to execute it. It's fast and cheap - and can be used on all kinds of stuff that has nothing to do with woodworking.
> 
> Fast and completed properly every single time without too much thought, deliberation or concentrating are very important, just as the right 20 minutes of preparation of a new (used) plane are, and using the cap iron right. Those three things make good hand tool work far easier and it just becomes exercise, and very pleasant. I remember wearing noise canceling headphones and doing this planing shoving the shaving off to the side at the start so that it would lay out predictably. probably 10 minutes of planing and 1 minute of sharpening, back and forth in a rhythm (the planing fairly short time interval thanks to hard knots, but just sharpening to 30 degrees or something would've made the planing interval about a minute).


Are you going to tell Ozi how to sharpen then, or just waffle on meaninglessly? 
We are all agog!


----------



## D_W (26 Apr 2021)

I'm figuring he may have seen my videos - but if he hasn't, no big deal. I'll direct him then. If he follows your advice, he'll need a giant tub of wood filler, but he's welcome to do that if that's how he'd like to go (I doubt that's the case).


----------



## Jacob (27 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> I'm figuring he may have seen my videos - but if he hasn't, no big deal. I'll direct him then. If he follows your advice, he'll need a giant tub of wood filler, but he's welcome to do that if that's how he'd like to go (I doubt that's the case).


I'd like to see them too.
Don't get carried away - woodfiller (putty) is useful on painted work, cheap materials, unskilled simple joinery, as in your example.
PS OK I've spotted one! This is you isn't it?



3 or 4 minutes useful and half an hour of meandering waffle - sounds about right?
You've said it all by about 6 minutes in and what you are describing is just fairly normal freehand sharpening!
Well done!
There are variations of course but essentially very similar to Paul Sellers - except he goes for expensive diamond plates and the convex bevel.
Myself ditto except I go from medium Norton to fine Norton for most purposes, but one or two more steps for extra special sharpening to a fine arkansas and/or strop on leather.
Personally I would hold a long chisel like that by the end of the handle and other hand somewhere near the middle, to get more pressure (faster), to maintain the 30º in a controlled way (and lower as you dip) and to keep my fingers out of the oil.
Holding the chisel so near the pointy end looks like someone still recovering from honing jig addiction. 
PS I wouldn't put a fine chisel like that parer near a powered grindstone - it's unnecessary if you sharpen a little and often, but more importantly - for novices grinding can cause problems , not only the messy effect but also the over heating and blued edges.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (27 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Are you going to tell Ozi how to sharpen then, or just waffle on meaninglessly?  We are all agog!


I usually find these p*ssing exchanges between yourself and David somewhat amusing, and sometimes informative, but now it's all just getting tedious. Slainte.


----------



## Jacob (27 Apr 2021)

Sgian Dubh said:


> I usually find these p*ssing exchanges between yourself and David somewhat amusing, and sometimes informative, but now it's all just getting tedious. Slainte.


Don't read them then, you are under no obligation.
These things come round continuously the conversation will never stop as new people enter and others leave the room.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (27 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Don't read them then, you are under no obligation.
> These things come round continuously the conversation will never stop as new people enter and others leave the room.


Of course I'm under no obligation to read, but if I don't check the threads out from time to time, I'd miss the amusing and informative bits. It doesn't eliminate the tedious business of having to sift through the cr*pola to find the useful nuggets. Slainte.


----------



## D_W (27 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> I'd like to see them too.
> Don't get carried away - woodfiller (putty) is useful on painted work, cheap materials, unskilled simple joinery, as in your example.
> PS OK I've spotted one! This is you isn't it?
> 
> ...




That method is fine, but it was done by request for someone who sent me an email and said "please do a video of sharpening a tool with two oilstones instead of just a washita".

The second stone is expensive, the principles are still the same, but my method is completed more successfully than yours, and 30 degrees would be demolished by the pine that I showed planing above.

It only matters if you want to do it well.

Grinding isn't difficult - it's only described as difficult by people like you who have a strong sense of failure and don't figure it out. I mentioned before and it remains true, most people who send me planes or give me planes to look at with issues and who have tried your so called rounded bevel method grind a lack of clearance by hand over time and the issues with plane performance are clearance based.

Only raffo on here has given me a plane with a rounded bevel where he actually worked all the way to the edge -the others were clearance combined with an unfinished edge.

you do this less well than I do, and while I meander, I can explain and prove why something doesn't work well and something else does. You can run a shaper making window parts and post on a hand tool forum.

I posted this set of chisels yesterday in the build thread in the upper forum. They are ground after the chisels are hardened. None of them got hot enough that I couldn't hold them and they don't get dipped while grinding the bevels. They are as manufactured, only struck so far to set the handles. Eventually, the bevels will get neater - not for show, but to do the business at the end as well as possible.





You are all talk - I've never seen any proof from you of anything other than sanded stair parts and some used test wood - and a plane sole that was unevenly finished. There's little I'd take a suggestion from you on because I don't think you have the nerve endings to know what's good and what's not.


----------



## D_W (27 Apr 2021)

Sgian Dubh said:


> ....sift through the cr*pola to find the useful nuggets. Slainte.



I hope I'm not being accused of having posted a useful nugget somewhere!!


----------



## D_W (27 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> .. like that by the end of the handle and other hand somewhere near the middle, to get more pressure (faster), to maintain the 30º in a controlled way (and lower as you dip) and to keep my fingers out of the oil.



I'm sure your chisels show the result of grasping up away from the end with one hand - in uneven bevels. I'm sure you have no idea why one of my hands is steering and applying pressure near the bevel end at the same time. I like the attempt at a slight about a construction lumber simple bed that I made - for being simple after I described why it's simple. I've met real makers, real doers - and talk to one on a regular basis. you're a cog in the wheel of the lower tier at best - a barn builder, and you call yourself a professional. 

I'm just an amateur, and comfortable with it. I'm not looking for people who know too much to learn from people better than them or who work to low standards as you show - I learn from people like George Wilson who set standards and meet them. George would have no clue who you are - but there are a couple of people he's met who bother me about posting things like making chisels who say "ask George who I am". I have no idea what they expect, and I don't prime him about the situation, but he identifies them and says "he's a terrible craftsman". I'll pretend he knows you.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (27 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> I hope I'm not being accused of having posted a useful nugget somewhere!!


Both you and Jacob post useful 'nuggets'. Sorry to accuse you both of usefulness. Slainte.


----------



## D_W (27 Apr 2021)

Sgian Dubh said:


> Both you and Jacob post useful 'nuggets'. Sorry to accuse you both of usefulness. Slainte.



Seems a high bar to have to hurdle - such an obligation it is!! Of course, I don't trouble you much because you're full of....

..wait for it...

legitimacy and credible proof. It pours out of your work history. When you tell me yay or nay on hand tools, it's colored by need. When you mention issues with silica and lines on mahogany (which I've inadvertently solved), it's credibility - you can tell me exactly why it doesn't matter to you - because your customers don't care in most cases and want an even surface, so those bits are sanded out. That's reality, I appreciate it.


----------



## Jacob (27 Apr 2021)

Sgian Dubh said:


> Both you and Jacob post useful 'nuggets'. Sorry to accuse you both of usefulness. Slainte.


Well thanks for that Richard!
Can't say I entirely agree about you know who  ! 
He's gone into trying to be even more offensive so I've put him on ignore for the final time.
Perhaps someone will let me know if he ever says anything interesting, which looks increasingly unlikely. He's said his all, at great length!


----------



## Sgian Dubh (27 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Perhaps someone will let me know if he ever says anything interesting, which looks increasingly unlikely. He's said his all, at great length!


Both of you say interesting things. But I do wish you'd both stop butting heads. Each of you come from very different experience and backgrounds. My background and experience is different again, and whilst I can be strongly fixed in my point of view or position, I've usually found that analysing the perspective and experience of someone else worthwhile because it might be useful to me. 

By the way, you too are pretty resolute in saying your all at great length. I've never seen any reason to put someone on ignore in this forum. If I'm aware that a poster here is an incorrigible plonker, I can always just zoom through any contribution he/she makes. Publicly declaring you're ignoring someone does seem to me to a bit petty and huffy. What's the point, I don't get it. Slainte.


----------



## Jacob (27 Apr 2021)

Sgian Dubh said:


> Both of you say interesting things. But I do wish you'd both stop butting heads. Each of you come from very different experience and backgrounds. My background and experience is different again, and whilst I can be strongly fixed in my point of view or position, I've usually found that analysing the perspective and experience of someone else worthwhile because it might be useful to me.
> 
> By the way, you too are pretty resolute in saying your all at great length. I've never seen any reason to put someone on ignore in this forum. If I'm aware that a poster here is an incorrigible plonker, I can always just zoom through any contribution he/she makes. Publicly declaring you're ignoring someone does seem to me to a bit petty and huffy. What's the point, I don't get it. Slainte.


I get cascades of abuse and I assume nobody is particularly interested in reading my return comments. I've conceded victory on the insult front!


----------



## D_W (27 Apr 2021)

Sgian Dubh said:


> I've never seen any reason to put someone on ignore in this forum. If I'm aware that a poster here is an incorrigible plonker..



It's an excellent way to keep from having the red bell show that you've got new posts to read only to find out that they're all from one person following you around, but to me, it's never needed more than temporarily for that. Silent application is advisable if the point is to avoid conflict.


----------



## Inspector (28 Apr 2021)

Question when you put someone on Ignore you don't see any of their posts. Do they still see yours? Apologies for straying even further from the topic.

Pete


----------



## D_W (28 Apr 2021)

Inspector said:


> Question when you put someone on Ignore you don't see any of their posts. Do they still see yours? Apologies for straying even further from the topic.
> 
> Pete


Yes, they still see yours, but you don't see theirs or get notification that they're quoting you.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (28 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> It's an excellent way to keep from having the red bell show that you've got new posts to read ...


Red bells? Interesting, because I've never seen such a thing when visiting this forum. I suspect that's because of my user settings in which I specified that I didn't want notifications of responses to messages I've posted. I can't see the need to be notified about such things because I know where I've posted, and therefore generally know which threads to keep a bit of an eye on to see how things develop. I suspect it helps that I'm not an especially prolific poster (I can go days, even weeks making no contribution) so I don't have that many threads to monitor.

Still, any contributor that I think turns out to be copper bottomed b*llend isn't, to me, worth putting on ignore - if necessary, I just scroll quickly past any post they make. Slainte.


----------



## Adam W. (28 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> Snip/
> you're a cog in the wheel of the lower tier at best - a barn builder, and you call yourself a professional.
> /snip.



That's just unfair to builders of barns everywhere.


----------



## D_W (28 Apr 2021)

Adam W. said:


> That's just unfair to builders of barns everywhere.



I respect a good barn builder who says they're one, that's for sure! Why? Other than for no reason not to, my parents sold their farm only this last year (though it had gone to rent decades ago). I spent my share of time as a kid putting hay bales in a barn that was well over 3 digit temperatures. Funny (unrelated), I saw a this-old-house time lapse last night where they were making a hip roof barn and it was made entirely of glue lam and plywood. I didn't even know you could do that and call it a barn (they're all timberframe where I'm from - some of them are shot from the civil war cavalry battles being close by - one with a droop in the center from being shot in the beam under the roof by a cannon - it's been like that since 1863 and still standing - just droops a little in the middle).


----------



## D_W (28 Apr 2021)

Sgian Dubh said:


> (I can go days, even weeks making no contribution)



Moderators, please change richard's subtitle from established member to "Post Camel" or "Forum Camel"!


----------



## Droogs (28 Apr 2021)

You could be describing me there @D_W , I'm still standing but definately droop in the middle


----------



## D_W (28 Apr 2021)

Droogs said:


> You could be describing me there @D_W , I'm still standing but definately droop in the middle



Hah...I was thinking more like the hump. Richard gets enough goodness out of the forum and stores it in the hump for a couple of weeks before coming back for water...i mean, posts. 

In my younger days, I worked at a consulting firm and just loved it and worked all the time. After an internship, they asked why I'd be a good candidate. The firm had long work hours and a whole series of professional exams to go through (about 5000 hours worth of study time needed over half a decade or so) and they asked me why I would be a good candidate. 

Being young and literal, I said "because I can go for periods of time without needing to stop and have fun and be relatively fine with that". 

I got hired. Unfortunately, they also named me (while I was away at my last year of college) the "fun camel". As I got older, my hump couldn't store as much, apparently, and I left the place after 8 years. I still get the reference once in a while.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (28 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> Moderators, please change richard's subtitle from established member to "Post Camel" or "Forum Camel"!


Neither moniker would in any way give me the hump (sic). Anyway, the evidence of my lackadaisical or intermittent approach to posting is in my Message count. I see that over roughly seventeen years I've managed to spout my ill-informed and ill-considered waffle in less than 2,400 messages, an average of <140 per year, or about an average of ~2.7 messages per week. I'm fairly sure I've noticed some newly registered forum participants post that number of messages or maybe more in just a few weeks or months, then it's as if they burn out and disparoo forever. So, intermittent, slowish and steady seems to have kept me reasonably engaged for all that time, and I'm aware of quite a number of contributors that have come and gone, and some that come back again. Slainte.

PS. I was about to post this, and I happened to look up and spotted your posting numbers. I'd say you're, well ... er, prolific, and over a relatively short time too, i.e., 6,000+ messages in less than five years! That's going it a bit I'd say, ha ha.


----------



## D_W (28 Apr 2021)

what's the SIC for, hump?

I do post a fair amount - this is kind of my hobby, especially when I can't get in the shop and saw, plane or grind things.

On most forums I've been on, prolific posters try to curate everyone to agree (YMMV, all of these methods work the same!, etc). Not into that.


----------



## Droogs (28 Apr 2021)

to show you he is quoting you verbatim, ie using it with the exact same meaning and in the same way you did. In this instance enforcing the idea that he is talking to you tongue in cheek

it is how you point out you are being a bit cheeky in that way most Americans don't seem to get


----------



## D_W (28 Apr 2021)

sic is usually used here when something is being repeated verbatim but with spelling or serious usage errors (to let readers know that the errors were left in and not missed in edit). Generally dropped in after the misspelled word, and much of the time used to make the quoted person look bad by drawing attention to their errors.

I thought for a second "jeez, I get it that there are plenty of words spelled differently over there, but hump?"


----------



## Sgian Dubh (29 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> what's the SIC for, hump?


Yes, to show I intended to use the word or phrasing, but not there to indicate a previous misuse quoted verbatim. It was used in this case because 'give me the hump' is a quite common alternative means of expressing upset caused. It crossed my mind when typing that you, being American, may not be familiar with this quite common British usage, meaning you might need to think a bit to get the joke with its reference back to camels that you'd introduced - perhaps you'd have got the wee joke easier if I'd typed (pun intended) instead of (sic). 

It was prompted by the fact that when I lived in the US I found that many Britishisms were unintelligible to Americans, but it didn't stop me using them because I quite enjoyed sometimes leaving my hosts completely mystified for a minute or two, ha ha. Slainte.


----------



## Adam W. (29 Apr 2021)

"Said in context" innit.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (29 Apr 2021)

My humble apologies for interrupting the general conversation, but I'd like to ask a question, if I may.

Dr W posted pictures of a fairly standard wooden try plane with a gob of lead stuffed up it's nose. A few posts later, John PW posted pictures of an unusual looking shortish wooden plane with a very high angle double iron, a ludicrously tight escapement and stuffed with gobs of lead front and back. My personal suspicion is that the latter plane wouldn't function very well, if at all; but, nonetheless, somebody went to some trouble making it, including the added lead.

Erm - I'm curious, and don't know why - what's the added lead there for? More weight, presumably - but why?


----------



## Jacob (29 Apr 2021)

Cheshirechappie said:


> My humble apologies for interrupting the general conversation, but I'd like to ask a question, if I may.
> 
> Dr W posted pictures of a fairly standard wooden try plane with a gob of lead stuffed up it's nose. A few posts later, John PW posted pictures of an unusual looking shortish wooden plane with a very high angle double iron, a ludicrously tight escapement and stuffed with gobs of lead front and back. My personal suspicion is that the latter plane wouldn't function very well, if at all; but, nonetheless, somebody went to some trouble making it, including the added lead.
> 
> Erm - I'm curious, and don't know why - what's the added lead there for? More weight, presumably - but why?


I think John PW's plane was either a tooly's experiment gone wrong, or deliberately converted into a picturesque door stop. One clue is the added door knob screwed on which surely be ripped off in no time under normal use.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (29 Apr 2021)

Why the added lead, though?


----------



## Adam W. (29 Apr 2021)

Looks like a home made scraper plane to me.


----------



## Jacob (29 Apr 2021)

Cheshirechappie said:


> Why the added lead, though?


Heavier doorstop?


----------



## scooby (29 Apr 2021)

Sgian Dubh said:


> Neither moniker would in any way give me the hump (sic). Anyway, the evidence of my lackadaisical or intermittent approach to posting is in my Message count. I see that over roughly seventeen years I've managed to spout my ill-informed and ill-considered waffle in less than 2,400 messages, an average of <140 per year, or about an average of ~2.7 messages per week. I'm fairly sure I've noticed some newly registered forum participants post that number of messages or maybe more in just a few weeks or months, then it's as if they burn out and disparoo forever. So, intermittent, slowish and steady seems to have kept me reasonably engaged for all that time, and I'm aware of quite a number of contributors that have come and gone, and some that come back again. Slainte.
> 
> PS. I was about to post this, and I happened to look up and spotted your posting numbers. I'd say you're, well ... er, prolific, and over a relatively short time too, i.e., 6,000+ messages in less than five years! That's going it a bit I'd say, ha ha.



Hold my Beer as the younger generation would say, I've got an average of 42 messages a year.

I enjoy reading your messages (and DW's).


----------



## TRITON (29 Apr 2021)

Cheshirechappie said:


> Why the added lead, though?


I'm going to chuck in that I dont think its anything to do with weight as the amount looks to be a couple of grams worth. I think its maybe more to do with a split/crack or hole to stop it spreading.

Could be wrong, frequently am.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (29 Apr 2021)

TRITON said:


> I'm going to chuck in that I dont think its anything to do with weight as the amount looks to be a couple of grams worth. I think its maybe more to do with a split/crack or hole to stop it spreading.
> 
> Could be wrong, frequently am.


I see the logic, but Dr W's try plane seems not to have any cracks of substance, and JohnPW's plane shows minor cracks at the toe end, but not where the lead is.

That said, since we don't have a definite reason, might not be wise to rule the idea out completely.


----------



## JohnPW (29 Apr 2021)

My guess is the previous onwer had some sort of weakness in their left hand and/or arm and couldn't press down the front of the plane hard enough at the start of a cut. Therefore the added weight at the front end which makes the plane front heavy helps to keep the plane horizontal when starting a cut.

Or they had a problem with the right arm/hand and couldn't hold up the plane at the beginning of a cut!

Maybe it doesn't make the plane front heavy, but evens out the weight in front of the blade edge and behind it, ie the balance point would be the mouth.


----------



## Droogs (29 Apr 2021)

You are probably onto something there @JohnPW , lots of one handed/armed woodworkers from WW1 on, so, perhaps done to help a vet who was a bench joiner.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (29 Apr 2021)

Maybe - again, let's not completely discount the possibility; but it doesn't really explain the example JohnPW found, though.

There have always been fashions in woodworking, just as in every other walk of life. Heavier planes and lighter planes being two such fashions. Could it be that someone wrote in a magazine some decades ago that heavier planes are better; they hold better to the wood - and some people took it a bit too literally, like they did fairly recently with plane sole flattening? Always the odd one or two who go too far with things.


----------



## TRITON (29 Apr 2021)

Cheshirechappie said:


> I see the logic, but Dr W's try plane seems not to have any cracks of substance, and JohnPW's plane shows minor cracks at the toe end, but not where the lead is.
> 
> That said, since we don't have a definite reason, might not be wise to rule the idea out completely.


When posting I only noticed the two parallel holes on top. The larger hole now i see it I suspect was for adjusting the plane blade.
Im sure weve all seen a striking knob on old planes and thats possibly what was originally there. seems too coincidental otherwise.

Maybe the two on top was where a plate was fitted to stop a strike damaging the body. Normally advancing the blade thats where you hit it. I dont know if you can advance the blade by striking the front, as normally you struck the back, but I know ive seen a knob on other old planes in that area right at the front.

info here.


----------



## D_W (29 Apr 2021)

Adam W. said:


> "Said in context" innit.



Ahh...I'll admit I never looked up the definition of the acronym. It's used differently here (in the US) as mentioned above, but may be used more properly in an academic circle (rather than as a way to parrot something rotten that someone said and blame it on them, or to point out someone's inability to spell or use proper grammar). 

As Richard said, there's plenty of expressions that don't translate over here where we supposedly speak the same language. If you told someone to hump something, they may pick it up and carry it, or they may get the wrong idea and who knows what next. Nobody would ever use it here with making someone upset or inferring something of that sort. 

I'd imagine at least half of the population in the US thinks that when you use the phrase "taking the ___" or "____ taking", they think you're collecting actual urine. Perhaps robbing a toilet bowl with a ladle.


----------



## D_W (29 Apr 2021)

Cheshirechappie said:


> My humble apologies for interrupting the general conversation, but I'd like to ask a question, if I may.
> 
> Dr W posted pictures of a fairly standard wooden try plane with a gob of lead stuffed up it's nose. A few posts later, John PW posted pictures of an unusual looking shortish wooden plane with a very high angle double iron, a ludicrously tight escapement and stuffed with gobs of lead front and back. My personal suspicion is that the latter plane wouldn't function very well, if at all; but, nonetheless, somebody went to some trouble making it, including the added lead.
> 
> Erm - I'm curious, and don't know why - what's the added lead there for? More weight, presumably - but why?



back to my comment about weight. before making planes, I probably said a different number, but I know I bought at least 10 try planes and who knows what else.

The planes in the 7-8 pound range were definitely much better for heavy work in medium hardwoods than some that were exceptionally dry feeling and 5 1/2 - 6 pounds but same or similar size. The difference in feel was drastic. If that plane weighs 6 1/2 *with* the lead in it, I'd suspect someone found it not very favorable in use with hardwoods and wanted to correct the issue. Lead is nice and linear and easy to install (and cheap, especially if it's scrap) . If the plane is mostly used on the board (vs. being lifted and carried around), the nose weight is probably not that much of an issue.

Lead shot was more recently used here just because it's cheap to find - drill a hole, fill with lead shot, plug the end of the hole with wood or whatever else (epoxy). The objective usually with smoothers was to make a wooden smoother that felt smoother through the cut and not so much battering.

I find little favor in hardwoods with a beech coffin smoother. In softwoods, they're great. I quite like woods in a coffin smoother if their specific gravity is closer to 1 or a little greater, but changing the wood is an expensive way to solve the problem and you have to be a planemaker to take advantage of it.

How would a typical user have known the difference if they weren't try plane shopping and comparing like I did? Just by having another plane that they liked better or using a friend's tools and noticing the difference.

Just in coffin smoothers, a 2 pound plane vs. a 3 pound plane or even a little less significant than that will make for an enormous difference in feel.


----------

