# Quangsheng No.62 low angle vs No.5 vs No.5 1/2?



## Joe1975 (16 Nov 2022)

Please help me decide.

There’s not a huge difference in price between these planes, but I can only afford one. I will purchase a low angle block plane as well, and already have an old Stanley No.4. The three planes will have to do for now.

I have a bandsaw, but no other machines, so will need to use the plane for dimensioning and smoothing all stock. I also will use it for shooting end grain.

I am new to woodworking and am intending to build freestanding contemporary furniture like modern chairs, coffee tables, boxes etc. 

Please comment if you have experience with these planes


----------



## Jacob (16 Nov 2022)

No point in low angle planes (except little one hand user block planes) so I'd cross that off the list.
5 is much smaller than a 5 1/2. Perhaps 5 for furniture, 5 1/2 for joinery?
5 1/2 seems to be most favoured if you only have one. Thats what I'd go for, as you already have a 4 which is close to 5 in size.
Not the "bedrock" unless its same price as standard. Bedrock is another pointless design.
I'd prefer a 2nd hand Record 5 1/2, available at a fraction of the price!
You can "shoot" end grain with any plane, if it is nice and sharp and preferably with a slight camber


----------



## D_W (16 Nov 2022)

how much are you going to do with a plane and what will that be? Is that yet to be determined?

low angle planes are little more than a glorified block plane smoother and not good for much else, but people love them because they're simple. I've had offerings from LN and LV and have none of them - they are a hindrance to doing significant work...BUT, if all you intend to do is smoothing work, not that often, maybe with a little bit of shooting mixed in, you won't notice how limiting they are- or may not. 

If you're looking at QS planes, which should be in pretty good working condition from the start, the 5 or 5 1/2 will do everything except imitate the low friction of a wooden plane in heavy work. You may not ever do heavy work to worry about it - just keep the wax handy. 

The bevel up 62 type plane will never be good for heavy work, and it ultimately won't be as good really at anything, but it will allow you to get going quickly. 

I never liked the low angle planes for shooting, but that's just me. I built a shooter and then found what I'd already known - shooting a lot with a hand plane is generally going to take longer than finding another way to solve the same problem with hand tools except for very very small work. After spending 80 hours building the best thing I could think of for a shooter, it sits dormant. 

I haven't for a second missed the low angle planes, but remember that they seemed like the easy way to solve problems at the start. They're just the wrong way, and greatly advanced in terms of market share by advisors to LV who had no clue what they were doing and didn't know enough to know that they didn't have a clue, either.


----------



## Bm101 (16 Nov 2022)

I don't pretend to the knowledge of either Jacob or Dw. They both have a lot to say about tools. 
If you want the opinion of someone who has swam in the same sea as you're in right now then here's my tuppence worth. The QS62 is a valuable tool. We'll made. Precision engineering. If you are tackling various wood prone to tear out etc like exotics then it might show value. I have one. Like all the QS tools imported by reputable sellers it's impressive. 

Now here is what I'd recommend. Buy a decent 4 / 5 1/2 vintage Stanley or record. Everyone is different.Learn to sharpen and use. In my case I have a 4 1/2 and a 5. How long is a piece of string!
What I'm trying to say is .... You can't throw money at a skill shortage.

Well actually you can. Often pitifully.
I promise.
You will see progress when you can set a plane,when you can sharpen the iron, when you develop an understanding of the medium you are cutting. 
Save your money. I'm trying to say that buying tools doesn't boost skills or productivity. Skills and knowledge does that so you have to earn them bit by bit. 
Concentrate on skills not tools.
Sorry mate.

Ps.
If you want I have an OLD 4 1/2 for sale. Working tool. Rosewood handles. Needs a new iron. Pm if you want. It's a good plane. I need a sale and I'll let it go for a great price.


----------



## --Tom-- (16 Nov 2022)

Depends on what you’re doing but 5 1/2s are nice planes and secondhand hold value well enough.


----------



## rogxwhit (16 Nov 2022)

I'd favour a no.5. If I was to have just one plane, it would be a no.5. If I was to have two planes, they would be a no.5 and a no.601/2. A no.4 seems to be a kind of default, and I have a couple, but I could easily live without one. 


Joe1975 said:


> I am new to woodworking and am intending to build freestanding contemporary furniture like modern chairs, coffee tables, boxes etc.


You have have a pretty big remit there. I hope that you enjoy the journey. Hold to the vision, stay grounded. 

A no.51/2 is pointless ... over-heavy and over-wide.


----------



## Bojam (16 Nov 2022)

Hi Joe

I don’t have any Quangsheng planes but I do have a 5 1/2 (Axminster Rider) and a No.62 style low angle Jack (Veritas). The low angle Jack is a newish purchase but I already love it. So simple to set up and gives a lovely silky finish on the tropical hardwoods I work. I plan to repurpose the 5 1/2 as a fore plane.

Clearly there is a notable difference in build quality between the Veritas and the Axminster Rider. The latter is decent, easy enough to tune up and worked fine when I relied on it to flatten stock before I got a powered planer/thicknesser (PT). It is heavy and that heft helps power through hard dense stock. However there are elements of its construction that I dislike. It clearly doesn’t match Veritas construction and QC standards. Of course it was also a lot cheaper! Not sure where Quangsheng lie on the spectrum.

Looks like we’ll be relocating in the near future and I may be forced to lose my machines and work entirely with hand tools. In that event my plan is to clean up rough stock with the 5 1/2 converted as a fore plane (widened mouth, cambered iron). Then true it flat with a wooden jointer plane. Then smooth with the low angle jack. I also have an old Stanley No.4 for smoothing though it is a bit beat up and has a plastic handle (passed on to me from my Dad). The low angle jack is also going to be put to use on a shooting board as it is ideal for end grain work, esp on dense tropical woods.

I don’t profess to know anywhere near as much about planes as DW and Jacob, but I do know that there is a lot of love out there for 62’s; a lot of people who enjoy using them and prefer them over conventional jack planes. You’ll find loads of conflicting opinions so it quite possibly comes down to personal preference. Can you save yourself some money by trying out the different sizes and styles of Jack plane before committing to buying one?


----------



## D_W (16 Nov 2022)

When you move to move to a place without the use of power tools, keep the 5 1/2 set up for middle work - like camber only perhaps some large fraction of a hundredth of an inch like a try plane and find a wooden jack plane. 

there is a lot of nonsense about suggesting using metal planes for initial rough work, but it's driven by either selling for "friends" or selves (gurus pushing tools made by people they like to hang out with or see at shows, etc), or by folks who are teaching courses and just want to see people showing up with newish tools that work vs. newish tools that will actually be fit for purpose. 

There's no real substitute for doing the initial work, and really the trying work, too, with wooden planes until or unless wood is absolutely horrid. 

Look up use of the cap iron on the 5 1/2 you have and you'll find it to leave the 62 in the dust fairly soon, but you mention what I was describing above - initial success draws people to them. When I first got mine as well as some other high angle planes, I was so pleased to be able to plane already flat boards more or less of mexican hardwoods, but once I tried to work with those planes in context with stock that wasn't yet flat, it was a no go. 

You'll find out why planes that were popular.....were popular. Metal planes across the board pretty much take over once planing could be done in the shop. 

What planing becomes once you go from rough to finish vs. what you'll enjoy just for pleasure when you start will be drastically different. But, don't worry - the pleasure of working wood from start to finish properly is 20x as physically satisfying, and it will teach you things you couldn't learn otherwise. Sawing joinery and other such things after doing all of that from rough will become reflexive.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (16 Nov 2022)

I have all of the above (LN 62, though). My most used plane? My Millers Falls #5, then my Clifton #3. Discounting specialty planes, my least used is the BU 62. An exception for me is my LN bevel up #7 jointer, which I use mainly for long edge work.


----------



## Joe1975 (16 Nov 2022)

Thank you all for your views so far. 

You have helped to cross the BU 62 off the short list. They seem to have acquired popularity recently, if YouTube channels are anything to go by. I was concerned that they are not the silver bullet they are often made out to be. I would also like to be able to adjust depth of cut whilst planing as easily as possible and the 5 and 5 1/2 have an big advantage with regard to this.

Choosing between the 5 and the 5 1/2 is more difficult. My old 4 is seems too short for flattening boards and jointing work, and the adjustments are very clunky and imprecise, otherwise I would just carry on using that a bit longer. I’m concerned that buying another old plane would feel the same.

The 5 1/2 might be a bit big and heavy, maybe the 5 is the way to go?


----------



## Bojam (17 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> When you move to move to a place without the use of power tools, keep the 5 1/2 set up for middle work - like camber only perhaps some large fraction of a hundredth of an inch like a try plane and find a wooden jack plane.
> 
> [...]
> 
> There's no real substitute for doing the initial work, and really the trying work, too, with wooden planes until or unless wood is absolutely horrid.



Thanks for this DW. Interesting insight. So are you suggesting starting rough stock prep with something like one of these ECE wooden jack planes? Then refining with the slightly cambered Rider 5 1/2. Then getting true flat with the ECE wooden jointer plane (101S) I already have? Then smoothing with the Veritas BU jack or the old Stanley No.4? 

What makes a wooden jack the go to for initial stock prep in your experience? Is it the weight and/or other things that make it ideal for this step?


----------



## D_W (17 Nov 2022)

Joe1975 said:


> Thank you all for your views so far.
> 
> You have helped to cross the BU 62 off the short list. They seem to have acquired popularity recently, if YouTube channels are anything to go by. I was concerned that they are not the silver bullet they are often made out to be. I would also like to be able to adjust depth of cut whilst planing as easily as possible and the 5 and 5 1/2 have an big advantage with regard to this.
> 
> ...



Lee Valley managed to convince people that the bevel up planes were swiss army knives. Their incompetent internal advisory group seems to have convinced most folks that cap irons are too hard to set. I guess they must be - it takes about 1 week to learn to do them, which is too much for folks? I don't know. It's just the wrong mindset in most of these companies that are obsessed with CNC type production and can't get a handle on trusting hand and eye. I've encountered the same thing on the knife forums "you can't heat treat in a forge and get reliable results!". It's kind of a shame - I get how it happens, but it's still a shame. 

At any rate, several people pushed on LV's behalf along with the goofy "high bench" concept, which is completely detached from reality and body mechanics, but I get it if the bench is a staging area for chest height joinery - it's not a good thing for planing. Most of us bought and tried the planes - instant success is deceptive in that it doesn't communicate how poor the planes are for anything beyond smoothing and even at that, they're incapable compared to a stanley plane with a cap iron. 

The pressure to make bevel up plane for LN, which appeared later, probably came from folks who said "I want a bevel up plane, but I want it to have stanley-ish aesthetics instead of LV aesthetics", and maybe some complaints about the handles. 

The comment about using them if you're not going to do much planing isn't snark - most people don't do anything more than smoothing in any volume, and if that's the case, a 62 isn't as good as a 5 1/2, but success will be instant and maybe use will never be often enough with a 5 1/2 to really figure out how to get the most out of it.


----------



## D_W (17 Nov 2022)

Bojam said:


> Thanks for this DW. Interesting insight. So are you suggesting starting rough stock prep with something like one of these ECE wooden jack planes? Then refining with the slightly cambered Rider 5 1/2. Then getting true flat with the ECE wooden jointer plane (101S) I already have? Then smoothing with the Veritas BU jack or the old Stanley No.4?
> 
> What makes a wooden jack the go to for initial stock prep in your experience? Is it the weight and/or other things that make it ideal for this step?



The continental jacks like that work fine. I think it's better to use an english double iron jack and when it starts to make you tired on one hand, start learning to plane with the other (seriously, it takes very little time to be able to do rough and middle work with both hands and you'll appreciate the ability to do it when you don't want to constantly walk around a bench or move work around). 

I like the English jack planes better probably more due to the fact that a 16-17 inch long jack will remove wood just as fast, but it'll be flatter and you can get much closer to the mark with it before switching to quick work with a try plane or heavier set 5 1/2 and then a smoothing that is finished in a wink. 

I would guess that the difference in physical effort in a long session is about double for a metal jack plane - you end up leaning on it as you get tired, or as it dulls and it just isn't obvious how much it takes out of you until you do the same task with one plane and then the other. 

The length of an english jack, though, will communicate issues with flatness to you by feel (you won't have to stop and check them) a lot better. 

ECE does make longer continental types - the iron is farther back in them, which just is a different feel - that's all. More of a two-handed plane feel with the plane feeling more like it's back into you vs. being out at the end of your arm. I would guess the tradition is to do most work with two hands firmly on the plane, and the design reflects it. Nothing wrong with it, just different.


----------



## Ttrees (17 Nov 2022)

I'd not want just the one plane to do it all.
Even if you did end up with "clunky" adjustments, the only ones I can think of being
extra backlash, difficultly advancing cutter which David has mentioned recently on the newer Stanley's
or possibly a cap iron with a bend which creeps closer to the end than on some other planes, a square top iron I have does this,
I can't imagine backlash nor cap iron creeping when cinched would likely be problematic or importance and the other issue mentioned likely not the case for 99% of ebays...

I vote for a nice 5 1/2 as the five is something which can do it all but preferable for nothing, should the weight not be an issue, which might become noticable if going for a ductile iron plane, I've not held one of those.


.


----------



## Bojam (17 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> The continental jacks like that work fine. I think it's better to use an english double iron jack and when it starts to make you tired on one hand, start learning to plane with the other (seriously, it takes very little time to be able to do rough and middle work with both hands and you'll appreciate the ability to do it when you don't want to constantly walk around a bench or move work around).
> 
> I like the English jack planes better probably more due to the fact that a 16-17 inch long jack will remove wood just as fast, but it'll be flatter and you can get much closer to the mark with it before switching to quick work with a try plane or heavier set 5 1/2 and then a smoothing that is finished in a wink.
> 
> ...



Cool, I’ll have a look at English style wooden jacks. Any particular manufacturer you recommend?

I note that you don’t mention using a jointer plane at all. As I say, I already have the longer ECE wooden jointer. I bought this in anticipation of the day I lose my PT 

Where, if anywhere, would this fit into your work as you progress from rough stock to fully prepped board?


----------



## weigen369 (17 Nov 2022)

Quangsheng No.62 Available Veritas #4 Smooth Plane blade (please Flattening A Plane Sole)


----------



## undergroundhunter (17 Nov 2022)

I fell into the low angle trap, I bought a quangsheng 62 from workshop heaven thinking it would be a one stop planing shop, in all honesty I really don't like it, the adjustment is not great and impossible to make adjustments mid cut, I don't like the rear tote, there is nowhere to rest my index finger and I get more tearout than with a bevel down plane. If you have a machined surface and want to remove the tool marks then I guess it would be ok but personally I'd still reach for my 4, 4 1/2, 5 or 5 1/2. For serious stock removal a 62 is a no go. 

I just purchased a record 5 1/2 from David Charlsworths workshop, complete with a hand written tag dating all the parts, all I've done is sharpen it and what a tool! It never ceases to amaze me how well an 80 odd year old tool works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

Matt


----------



## Jameshow (17 Nov 2022)

undergroundhunter said:


> I fell into the low angle trap, I bought a quangsheng 62 from workshop heaven thinking it would be a one stop planing shop, in all honesty I really don't like it, the adjustment is not great and impossible to make adjustments mid cut, I don't like the rear tote, there is nowhere to rest my index finger and I get more tearout than with a bevel down plane. If you have a machined surface and want to remove the tool marks then I guess it would be ok but personally I'd still reach for my 4, 4 1/2, 5 or 5 1/2. For serious stock removal a 62 is a no go.
> 
> I just purchased a record 5 1/2 from David Charlsworths workshop, complete with a hand written tag dating all the parts, all I've done is sharpen it and what a tool! It never ceases to amaze me how well an 80 odd year old tool works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
> 
> Matt


Bit of history in that plane. 

I would go for a no 51/2 just because you can do more with a 5 1/2 which you cannot with a 5 which is only a bit longer than a 4. 
Also 5 are easy to pick up for less than £30. 

I like planes set up to different depths ready for use including a no5 scrub plane.


----------



## DougT (17 Nov 2022)

I have 51/2 and 62 I like and use them both but I think buy 51/2 first


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Nov 2022)

rogxwhit said:


> I'd favour a no.5. If I was to have just one plane, it would be a no.5.
> 
> A no.51/2 is pointless ... over-heavy and over-wide.


I had every size from a No.3 to a No.8 (and duplicates of most) before I owned a No.5 - and that was only because I was given one.
My first plane 56 years ago was a No.5 1/2, and it's still my most used. I gave the No.5 away.


----------



## Luke Barnard (17 Nov 2022)

I own a QS No. 5 that I bought from Workshop Heaven. I've been very happy with it. I don't make big things - the largest in recent years was a small wall cabinet. Therefore, I use a Record No. 6 as a jointer, my No. 5 as a jack, and a No. 3 as a smoother. The No. 5 has been very nice to use and performs well. If you want a new No. 5, I think this is a good option. For the things I like to make, I think a No. 5 1/2 is overkill.

I also have an Axminster Rider 62, that I bought from Axminsters ebay outlet store years ago. It's sole purpose now is to be used with a shooting board. I too was taken in by the marketing of a 62 being an excellent all-rounder. In my experience it was, at best, a mediocre all rounder. But it's good on a shooting board, and as I already had it, it was conventient to set it up to be used just for that.

If I had neither and were in the market now, I'd certainly get a No.5 over the 62, and the QS is a good option. I wouldn't replace the 62 if it was lost, but I would the No. 5.


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2022)

Two probs with low angle - they have thick blades which take longer to sharpen, they tend to have Norris adjusters, which look neat but don't work at all well. You end up having to tap the blade with a little hammer.
Also they don't cut any better than a normal Stanley as the effective angle is about the same and they don't have the advantage of cap iron.
OK for block planes though, as the low profile makes them good for one handed use i.e. you can hold the workpiece with the other hand etc.
And they are expensive - you can buy 3 or 4 old Record 5 1/2 s for the same price.
That's four problems!
Also they are harder to camber effectively
That's 5 problems, plus the price!


----------



## D_W (17 Nov 2022)

Bojam said:


> Cool, I’ll have a look at English style wooden jacks. Any particular manufacturer you recommend?
> 
> I note that you don’t mention using a jointer plane at all. As I say, I already have the longer ECE wooden jointer. I bought this in anticipation of the day I lose my PT
> 
> Where, if anywhere, would this fit into your work as you progress from rough stock to fully prepped board?



ECE's jointer is about the upper end of the size of try planes in length, and I'd be surprised if it wasn't close in weight. You'll find a use for it. 

Traditional wooden jointers were more like 26-30" and they are nose heavy and hard on the user. The same is true for modern iron planes when they get overweight (like a 10 pound 8 or a 9 pound 7), so you tend to use them only when necessary, like long edges or match planing something long. 

I think you'll find the ECE plane is useful following a jack plane. I just looked up the specs on listings for them here - just under 24" long and 7 pounds. 

By far the most common routine for me would be jack, try plane, smoother. Try to do as much as possible with each to lessen the load on what follows. For example, when you get good with a jack plane, it's pretty low effort to use and you can just develop a rhythm and go with it and stop pretty close to a mark, leaving relatively little to do with a try plane and almost nothing smoothing. I don't rely on keeping camber low, either - the camber on my jack plane is pretty strong. If wood gets harder than something like beech, then the cut just gets shallower and narrower, there's no real virtue in setting the rougher planes too finely. It's just more work. 



that is my jack - you mentioned brand. It doesn't really matter if it's that style - straight from front to back and 16 or 17 inches. No razee and no big bulky handles. This one is just in the same proportions as a nice mathieson jack that someone gave me. The ulmia plane in the background was one that someone sent me to refit - I can't remember what was wrong with it, it didn't adjust right for some reason. I later made the guy who sent it (along with another small smoother with a defective iron) a jack more like mine, but I'm fairly sure he uses it like a smoother. 

There are also wide jacks with a closed handle - mathieson made them and others probably did, too. They have 2 1/2" blades like a try plane but length like a jack, and they also make a nice jack plane. 

At any rate, If I had the ulmia plane based on proportions and weight, it's closer to a try/long plane and I'd use it like that - after a jack, before the smoother. Use the cap iron, keep it in a continuous cut and it will refine what the jack did and get you right to the mark without any risk.


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2022)

Bojam said:


> Cool, I’ll have a look at English style wooden jacks. Any particular manufacturer you recommend?
> 
> I note that you don’t mention using a jointer plane at all. As I say, I already have the longer ECE wooden jointer. I bought this in anticipation of the day I lose my PT
> 
> Where, if anywhere, would this fit into your work as you progress from rough stock to fully prepped board?


A long wooden try plane (26" +) is worth hanging on to for long stuff, as they are much lighter in weight for the length, much cheaper and longer than the biggest metal plane No 8
But otherwise I wouldn't bother with woodies as they are a faff to use unless you are a dedicated enthusiast. Cheap though - nobody wants them much!


----------



## thikone (17 Nov 2022)

Joe1975 said:


> There’s not a huge difference in price between these planes, but I can only afford one. I will purchase a low angle block plane as well, and already have an old Stanley No.4. The three planes will have to do for now.
> 
> I have a bandsaw, but no other machines, so will need to use the plane for dimensioning and smoothing all stock. I also will use it for shooting end grain.


I did that for some years, dimensioning and smoothing all stock. Only recently I started to learn and use machines.

Since you have already #4, I would suggest #7 (or #6 at least), rather than #5. This is by far the most used plane for me, #7. It is set as medium cut and occasionally as fine for edge work. I also shoot long grain with it - I just put it on its side on my workbench, offset my piece with some plywood off cuts so that it is above workbench for plane blade to cut it and clamp it. And it does work on end grain amazingly well too.

And I wouldn't want to be without some sort of scrub plane (maybe make a wooden one with some nice blade, say PM-V11 with 35° bevel - very rarely needs resharpening in scrub plane).

Block plane I also use a lot, mostly for correcting joints and chamfering. I would suggest the one with open sides - Qiangsheng Luban Low Angle Rebate Block Plane. I have JUUMA Rabbet Block Plane (same factory as Quangsheng), my first purchase.

My set for dimensioning at the moment includes Veritas Custom #7, #5-1/2, #4-1/2, Veritas scrub plane and Veritas shooting plane. I start with scrub plane then go to #5-1/2 that has blade with big camber. And finish dimensioning with #7. Once joinery is done I go to #4-1/2 to smooth showing surfaces and prepare for finish. And a saw followed by shooting plane replaced me miter saw, that is to make ends square.

So, I cannot stress enough #7. And you can level wooden workbench top with it and then your workbench acts as calibrating surface. Put a piece on it, see where it rocks, knock that place down with #7 and repeat. That's what I do and amazingly efficient too.

And yes, if you see that you become more and more efficient (means less force and less time and better result) - then you are on the right track, that's the measure that you do it right.


----------



## D_W (17 Nov 2022)

The jointers that I've had in 26-28 inch length have been the same weight as metal jointers. They make far less friction and can remove a larger volume of wood for the same effort despite the weight, though. 

I bought somewhere around 7 or 8 jointers when I was starting to make planes to find which ones worked the best. there were some that were surprisingly light (relatively) like a 2.75" iron 28" plane that was just over 8 pounds, and others that were boat anchors - like a Lamb plane (early US maker, good quality plane) 2 1/2" wide plane that was dead on 10 pounds and the extra weight always leads to fatigue on the top strap of your forearm. 

I've had stanley 7s as low as 7 pounds, and that's the lightest I've ever seen a wooden jointer, but with the caveat that it was somewhat dry rotted, which happens to beech as it gets old sometimes - it can become weaker and powdery and lighter as the volatiles leave...and also well worn, probably 1/4th of its height gone. 

I've seen try planes close to 6 (22 inches long), but also dry rotted. 7-8 is more typical in English planes. 

Worst offender I've seen is a 20" long plane that I found at an antique store here - old enough that the cap iron was bitted instead of solid steel - 9 1/2 pounds. I'm guessing that someone soaked it in seed oil several times because they liked that. It was easy to not like it. It had a tiny early scottish size handle to go along with the heavy weight, but was an american made plane.


----------



## D_W (17 Nov 2022)

thikone said:


> My set for dimensioning at the moment includes Veritas Custom #7, #5-1/2, #4-1/2, Veritas scrub plane and Veritas shooting plane. I start with scrub plane then go to #5-1/2 that has blade with big camber. And finish dimensioning with #7. Once joinery is done I go to #4-1/2 to smooth showing surfaces and prepare for finish. And a saw followed by shooting plane replaced me miter saw, that is to make ends square.



Not being critical here, but that would be a punishing regimen. I tried out one of the very early custom planes - LV sent it to me for feedback, and I later sold it. It was a well made plane ,but with a V11 iron, I could not do the same volume of work that I could do with a wooden try plane before resharpening. 

the plane design itself ( that was a 5 1/2, cap iron and all, same effort of cut with each sizing beech planes from rough to make planes) created a lot of friction. this is somewhat shocking (less work removed between sharpenings) because V11 abrades less than half as fast as the iron that was in my try plane, and still is (w. butcher, which are sometimes soft, but this one isn't so much), and in a contest of taking thin smoother shavings, I'm sure the V11 would last more than twice as long. 

I spotted brian holcombe early on using metal planes. Lie Nielsen for a jointer, and I don't remember what for the jack. I told him I'd make him a pair of planes at the cost of material and it would lighten the load a whole bunch, and I'm guessing that he's still using them from time to time, though his business volume increased a lot forced his hand on buying some high quality machinery. 

That said, a metal jointer is nice to have along with a wooden try plane of about the same length of a metal jointer both for match planing, and also if you're stuck doing a lot of rough edges where the volume of work isn't really that high, that can wear the center of a try plane and you can spare the sole with a metal jointer. It's also probably true of the volume is really that big, it's easier just to do the work with the wooden plane and correct the sole afterwards. 

Cosman and a lot of other gurus try to point people toward an all metal plane regimen for dimensioning wood and I think it's not going to be possible for someone using all metal planes to not tire of it and look for machines quickly. the level of friction for the newer premium planes adds a layer on top of that, both on long grain and end grain. 

if we were all in a town somewhere that people could come to my window, I'd refit wooden planes for everyone who had an otherwise solid older plane - I guess it's not always that easy to do if you don't do a bunch of them, but it's usually a 10 minute exercise for me and maybe an hour to make an attractive wedge on the odd circumstance that a wedge is so out of shape that it can't be saved. 

If someone *wants* to use machines instead, there's nothing wrong with that, but working from end to end for a while with hand tools will make someone a better woodworker, far better at sawing and planing once they go to machines, and less likely to get stuck altering designs or sticking to plain flattish work just because it's easier to figure out how to get it through machines. As soon as machines became the norm, work got ugly and boring pretty quickly.


----------



## D_W (17 Nov 2022)

That's not so much a whack at the custom plane design, by the way. I think a fresh new lie nielsen plane would give the same result. They're kind of like using a heavy shovel or a heavy wheelbarrow - it feels more solid and secure, but you end up moving the weight of the shovel or wheelbarrow, plus the addition of the considerable friction is sneaky in converting what would've been removed wood into heat in the sole of the plane. You can get the sole of a metal plane warm enough to melt paraffin without leaning on the plane itself - it just happens.


----------



## thikone (17 Nov 2022)

Veritas Custom #7 weighs 8 lb 9 oz (3500 g), not very heavy, unlike Clifton or even Quangsheng/JUUMA that weights 3820 g.

Looks very slim too:






Wouldn't know if that is too much or critical as my dimensioning sessions never exceeded 2 hours or so. Good exercise for body though and I gained some muscles. So, good balance, cannot complain!


----------



## thikone (17 Nov 2022)

Thanks David (@D_W), a lot of thoughts to process and interesting too. And thank you for the cap iron campaign, without it my beloved Custom #7 most likely would not have cap iron! 

There is friction with metal planes, quite noticeable too. At times it is simply not possible to fine plane hard wood like beech without some oil, plane just skips over. So I do use oil and quite often too... Heck, even shavings are warm to touch immediately after cut. One of my PM-V11 blades had discoloration near the cutting edge, like it was heated to high degree, dark surface on otherwise shiny and polished blade.

I did make one chip breaker dark for easier adjustment of the distance to edge. Helps a little bit but not very much, they way I did it it is still shiny enough. Something I picked up from your posts somewhere...


----------



## thikone (17 Nov 2022)

I do want to make some wooden planes one day. At least a scrub plane for starter. And now I think I should consider making a bigger try plane or a jointer. I will use metal planes to make wooden planes. Also to correct wooden planes. Then I would definitely stick to #7, one plane to make them all!


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2022)

thikone said:


> ....
> 
> There is friction with metal planes, quite noticeable too. At times it is simply not possible to fine plane hard wood like beech without some oil, plane just skips over. So I do use oil and quite often too... .......


Candle wax is better. Just a quick squiggle, wood or metal plane.


----------



## D_W (17 Nov 2022)

yeah, it's not the weight, it's the friction and proportion. 

The 5 1/2 has the mouth back just a little bit from where stanley does, and the plane doesn't work quite as well with the typical lean and extend (vs. getting low and bracing up - hand work over the long term is always a lean or a twist or something vs. something athletic that will wear us out). 

But I didn't think the 5 1/2 was very heavy, it just had a lot of friction. 

Now that you're on to doing bulk work with power tools, it's not a concern. I don't have a jointer, but I do have a power planer that I use every 2 years or so. Just used mine a month ago. If I used power tools more often, I'd be less stubborn about discussions like this with wooden planes. I don't think it's by chance that once stationary planing machines became very local all the way down to in every shop of any size, planes went to all or almost all metal aside maybe from profile planes and moving fillisters. 

I used a lie nielsen jointer until moving to working entirely by hand and then started to notice just how much it would drain batteries. 

QS/woodriver's weight is probably aimed at winning the spec sheet war and based on the pretty heifer-ish advice that was everywhere 15 years ago about more weight always being better. It's a "wood show spec" - if you plane one stroke in wood and one plane is heavy and the other is less heavy, the heavier plane will seem like it's more stable. 

I was reminiscing the other day looking through old "definitive statements" from Chris Schwarz where he was touting an 8 1/2 pounds smoother and a 12 pound shooting plane. it was just the thing, completely detached from any historical reality, but everyone was saying they used hand tools a lot without actually doing it that much. Chris had some segment about that long ago where he wanted to make a small simple workbench and he got to the point of cutting the ends off and got out a circular saw because it was too physically demanding to crosscut. Anyone working by hand will eventually crosscut something large with a rip saw just out of laziness for not wanting to walk back across the shop and figure out how much faster it cuts in big wood than a crosscut saw, but Chris never burdened himself with too much do vs. talk about. 

At any rate, the weight of the QS and woodriver tools will be a burden, and the friction of the Ln tools and the bit of extra weight eventually became offputting to me. It could also be that I am very selectively lazy (that's true), but I just want to keep working by hand as the projects where I don't get to do much of it sort of unstoke the fire a little. 

For anyone thinking this means that nobody should start with any of those heavy planes, there's nothing really wrong with starting, getting the hang of things and then changing to fit your needs. If heavy planes and fine threaded adjusters are sort of like the training wheels that get you to the tall frame road bike later, that's not the worst thing in the world.


----------



## thikone (17 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Candle wax is better. Just a quick squiggle, wood or metal plane.



Never tried, but always wanted. I have fear it is somewhat hard to find the proper one. Should it be byproduct of oil, the paraffine one? Or wax as bee wax? Modern candles are full of other stuff, and they are often packed in plastic...


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2022)

thikone said:


> Never tried, but always wanted. I have fear it is somewhat hard to find the proper one. Should it be byproduct of oil, the paraffine one? Or wax as bee wax? Modern candles are full of other stuff, and they are often packed in plastic...


Just normal paraffin wax candle.
It doesn't do to overthink these things - I expect most sorts of candle would do.
If in doubt, try it out!


----------



## D_W (17 Nov 2022)

thikone said:


> Thanks David (@D_W), a lot of thoughts to process and interesting too. And thank you for the cap iron campaign, without it my beloved Custom #7 most likely would not have cap iron!
> 
> There is friction with metal planes, quite noticeable too. At times it is simply not possible to fine plane hard wood like beech without some oil, plane just skips over. So I do use oil and quite often too... Heck, even shavings are warm to touch immediately after cut. One of my PM-V11 blades had discoloration near the cutting edge, like it was heated to high degree, dark surface on otherwise shiny and polished blade.
> 
> I did make one chip breaker dark for easier adjustment of the distance to edge. Helps a little bit but not very much, they way I did it it is still shiny enough. Something I picked up from your posts somewhere...



that's interesting you mention that. If I dug up my notes to LV for the custom 5 1/2 ,you'd find the same thing in it - I blued mine with cold gun blue and suggested to them that it would be a lot easier for people to set if it was contrasting to the iron. 

Simple and dumb as it may sound, just the fact that stanley's cap iron is round makes it a lot easier to differentiate in terms of reflecting light vs. the back of the iron. When the cap iron is two planes that aren't coplanar, they still can be difficult to discern if they're not different colors. 

I gave LV some suggestions but mentioned that I was used to the proportions of a stanley plane in terms of how I lean and push planes (and stanley planes are pretty much right in line with the proportions and orientation of old english wooden planes) - at any rate, I mentioned that I couldn't get to a point where I'd prefer the custom plane because it feels a little like it's under your armpit vs. a stanley feeling like it's more at your fingertips. I'd bet the iron is not even an inch further back, but little changes in proportions with handles and mouths make a big difference in feel. 

if one is using them instead of stanley planes, I think you'd just get used to the custom plane proportions, though, and it wouldn't be mechanically out of whack with how you're working like it is with me. 

By the time LV sent me the last one before production, it did, fortunately, have a cap iron, but it seemed like that would've also been better if it would've just been a copy of the stanley. the test plane would advance the cap iron forward as you tightened it. sometimes that's the case on old planes and it's a matter of scuffing the cap and iron so that they have more friction to each other than the screw does to where it touches the iron (as it's turning, it pushes one toward or away from the other), but it seems like that should be accounted for on a premium plane, and maybe it was. 

but interesting that you mention darkening the cap iron - I really struggled to see setting it at first.


----------



## D_W (17 Nov 2022)

thikone said:


> Never tried, but always wanted. I have fear it is somewhat hard to find the proper one. Should it be byproduct of oil, the paraffine one? Or wax as bee wax? Modern candles are full of other stuff, and they are often packed in plastic...



paraffin. If you get it in a bar, let the corner of the bar wear a little and instead of squiggling, you can just pull it in one quick stroke from the back of the plane to the front. 

It's like sharpening - do it before you start to notice that it needs to be done, like estimate 2/3rds of the way, and then it becomes part of the work rhythm and you won't get the skipping feeling that can mislead, leave little ridges at the starts of cuts and make it seem like a plane needs to be resharpened when it doesn't. 

when I still had a bronze LN 4 (don't now), it would warm enough so that pulling the paraffin across the bottom back to front (it won't harm the iron, so there's no need to lift it from one spirited stroke) would result in the wax melting to the bottom of the plane. 

Not sure about there, but most candles here are paraffin. Gulf wax sold here for canning used to be the typical do-all for drawers in kitchens and chests, etc - people used it because they already had it for canning and it was really cheap. It's still really cheap.


----------



## D_W (17 Nov 2022)

I'd second the recommendation for a #7 that thikone made, too. I'd probably have a try plane first, but if means aren't an issue, I like a metal jointer better than a wooden one. 

Second double iron plane that I made was a 28" jointer with a 2 1/2 inch iron. I figured I'd use it a lot. The third plane was a 24" try plane (listed as a "long" plane in some listings, with try 20-22", but whatever - kind of the same thing for us - I think 22 and 24 are both nice). 

I haven't used the wooden jointer since making the first try plane. The things where a fine set jointing plane are useful are just easier to do with a decent metal plane - there's a bunch of little nitpicky things that I could mention, but i'll spare everyone. a 22 inch really flat metal plane will match what a 28" wooden plane will do for accuracy on long work, which is why I mentioned the ultima wooden plane being more like a try plane than a jointer. 

A 7 "puts it to your forearm" a lot less than a good quality wooden jointer, too. 

Raffo on here mentioned to me that he'd read somewhere that there are accounts of the jointers being hard on workmen or complained about - I'm just not much of a reader, so I don't know where they are. But it's not a "today I totally wore myself out" thing, it's more of a "I could see this becoming a problem over time just like a cabinet factory worker could develop repetitive injury grabbing a heavy duty stapler". 

A fine -working metal jointer and a stronger cutting try plane make a really nice combination. 

I'm not in england, so I can't get the dirt cheap try planes that show up there needing nothing more than a little refitting. The best try planes and jack planes that I've gotten have all come from England, too. Really good makers making a good plane end to end here disappeared long before 1900, and the early-mid 1800s planes just aren't common compared to the "everywhere" ohio, auburn, etc, planes that were sort of a cut-quality plane other than the wood.


----------



## thikone (17 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> I was reminiscing the other day looking through old "definitive statements" from Chris Schwarz where he was touting an 8 1/2 pounds smoother and a 12 pound shooting plane. it was just the thing, completely detached from any historical reality, but everyone was saying they used hand tools a lot without actually doing it that much. Chris had some segment about that long ago where he wanted to make a small simple workbench and he got to the point of cutting the ends off and got out a circular saw because it was too physically demanding to crosscut. Anyone working by hand will eventually crosscut something large with a rip saw just out of laziness for not wanting to walk back across the shop and figure out how much faster it cuts in big wood than a crosscut saw, but Chris never burdened himself with too much do vs. talk about.



Oh boy, I'm so glad that it took me ONLY a year or two to find the proper authority, like The English Woodworker. I did fall into the trap of bevel up planes superiority and table saw necessity after watching American woodworkers and reading American magazines. Americans are good at selling anything, . Construction table saw I sold pretty fast after I built workbench for hand tools with it in my apartment. But I still have BUS, LAJ, BUJ (bevel up planes of sizes that of #4, #5 and #7). They are even useful at times, mostly to delay sharpening of double iron planes... Shooting plane I use all the time though, it has the same iron as those other 3, but it is only for the end grain.

There is a huge difference for me, between "this is how I did it first time and it worked out alright for me" and "this is how I learned from my father and this is why previous generations found this approach better than that and this in this particular situation".

Sawing I find more demanding than planing, at least ripping for a few meters is. Band saw was a bliss, got small 10" quite soon. Sawing and planing also led me to conclusion that it is very nice to be ambidextrous. I try to teach the same operation to the right hand and the left hand if I can. And rhythm and breathing and all other yoga or martial arts like things that you can find useful. Not as substitute for proper technique, but it helps of course.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (17 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> Lee Valley managed to convince people that the bevel up planes were swiss army knives. Their incompetent internal advisory group seems to have convinced most folks that cap irons are too hard to set. I guess they must be - it takes about 1 week to learn to do them, which is too much for folks? I don't know. It's just the wrong mindset in most of these companies that are obsessed with CNC type production and can't get a handle on trusting hand and eye. I've encountered the same thing on the knife forums "you can't heat treat in a forge and get reliable results!". It's kind of a shame - I get how it happens, but it's still a shame.
> 
> At any rate, several people pushed on LV's behalf along with the goofy "high bench" concept, which is completely detached from reality and body mechanics, but I get it if the bench is a staging area for chest height joinery - it's not a good thing for planing. Most of us bought and tried the planes - instant success is deceptive in that it doesn't communicate how poor the planes are for anything beyond smoothing and even at that, they're incapable compared to a stanley plane with a cap iron.
> 
> ...



Not so, David. While I thank you especially for helping many of us learn to use the chipbreaker to control tearout, this was only discussed in seriousness on the fori from 2012/3 onward. The day of the BU plane preceded this time. There was no con by Veritas or LN - a high angle BU plane planed rings around a BD plane without a chipbreaker. I was one to use a high angle BU plane very seriously when planing interlocked timbers, and it worked very well. It has not suddenly stopped working very well - it is simply that a closed up chipbreaker can control tearout … in _highly_ interlocked grain … better. My go to preference is a chipbreakered BD plane, but I will still happily use a BU plane in selective situations. The forte of the BU plane is taking fine shavings, and it is easier to set one up to do this than a BD plane. A LA Jack makes a fine shooting plane, and preferred in this task over a BD #5.

Having said all this, if I was making small stuff, such as boxes, then the LA Jack would be my choice. However, if making bigger stuff, such as tables and cabinets, then I would get a #7 jointer. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (17 Nov 2022)

thikone said:


> Oh boy, I'm so glad that it took me ONLY a year or two to find the proper authority, like The English Woodworker. I did fall into the trap of bevel up planes superiority and table saw necessity after watching American woodworkers and reading American magazines. Americans are good at selling anything, . Construction table saw I sold pretty fast after I built workbench for hand tools with it in my apartment. But I still have BUS, LAJ, BUJ (bevel up planes of sizes that of #4, #5 and #7). They are even useful at times, mostly to delay sharpening of double iron planes... Shooting plane I use all the time though, it has the same iron as those other 3, but it is only for the end grain.
> 
> There is a huge difference for me, between "this is how I did it first time and it worked out alright for me" and "this is how I learned from my father and this is why previous generations found this approach better than that and this in this particular situation".
> 
> Sawing I find more demanding than planing, at least ripping for a few meters is. Band saw was a bliss, got small 10" quite soon. Sawing and planing also led me to conclusion that it is very nice to be ambidextrous. I try to teach the same operation to the right hand and the left hand if I can. And rhythm and breathing and all other yoga or martial arts like things that you can find useful. Not as substitute for proper technique, but it helps of course.



I owe everyone a demonstration of dimensioning as I know it now. I know the average workman 200 years ago could've dusted me, but I doubt that anyone at any woodworking show would be able to do the same block of work that I could sawing and planing in the context of work in 4 hours, and i'm not really in very good shape - like running or sport shape. 

My point with this is that I think workmen found like farmers, a position that they could work in expending the least they could on themselves, holding themselves up, and the most on whatever they were doing. 

This means relaxed legs and an upright position whenever able and switching when not stamina is needed as switching is generally pretty easy. For example, if shoveling something it's all leaning or rotation and little hard squeezing or arm-like moves. If you have to lean, so be it, but you can shovel left handed or right handed. 

Sawing is the same way. Chris Schwarz and other folks demonstrate sawing as a one armed thing with a bunch of arm motion, and then holding up his or their bodies, whoever is demonstrating. This is dumb for anything more than the shortest of cuts. The power for the saw comes from leaning or twisting, originating at the shoulder and being upright wherever possible, sitting at the work, standing astride a bench or on-knee on a saw bench and upright holding the wood down with a knee instead of a hand. As soon as you lean over on a hand, you'll be holding up your body and restricting the ability to create power by twisting. 

Whatever position you may be sawing in, figure out a way to generate power with shoulder, twisting, whatever it may be and see if you can do it in a position that's upright enough that you don't have to strain leaning over or holding yourself up. 

frequent but fast saw sharpening for rip sawing is necessary - just so that the saw is cutting on its own without bearing down on work but not so aggressive that it's catching or stopping abruptly at the end of the cut. Sounds very prickly and like a narrow window to operate in, but it becomes easy pretty soon. 

If you're doing something like resawing moderate sized wood in a vise, it becomes pretty easy then just to use one arm, and then switch sides and use the other. If you like to rip one armed, you can also saw with your off hand without much practice. Fine crosscutting....a little less safe to just go at it, but it'll be uncommon that you wear yourself out crosscutting anything. 

the only time I ever have a hand on a piece to be ripped when it's on a saw bench is just to start a cut. After that, it's never necessary to do anything other than get back upright and leave a knee on the wood, or sit on it and saw with both hands from head height. You'll get blisters on your hands before the rest of you tires. 

if a saw is aggressive in a certain position, you have the whole handle to work with - the saw will be much milder gripping the bottom of the handle. When I saw sitting, to avoid the saw grabbing, I usually go with one hand through the handle, but backwards resting on the inside of the loop, and the other on the bottom of the handle on the outside. the same saw that saws nicely with one arm will saw nicely like that. And you're sitting on the wood, so there's little effort in keeping it still. 

I think to see all of this stuff demonstrated would look boring, and of course, it assumes that you have materially conquered tool setup and maintenance and controlling the tools without having a death grip on them. Everything is small adjustments. The same way, I always imagined myself as a kid outworking my grandfather, who was already in his mid 70s. It looked like he did all of the work with a turn or by using his "butt". he was a farmer and he retired to fall, cut and split and sell firewood 3 days a week. nice retirement. he always looked to me like he was just going through the motions and not trying very hard, but I doubt I was working as fast as him or could've worked nearly as long - I just didn't get what he was doing at the time. He spent a lifetime figuring out how to do as much work as possible. 

If you measure what you get done, you'll be surprised to find that you can probably figure out ways to get a volume of work done faster without feeling like you're working as hard, and the opportunity to find something never goes away, which is one of the draws of working by hand. 

While I feel like I owe organizing and showing it, regardless of who would like to criticize what (I don't care), I also haven't been in that big of a hurry, because I think, like the magazines present, people are looking for entertainment and just enough of a taste to practice escapism. The share of folks who are going to stick it out behind observation is small. The share of the share left who are going to go beyond observation to really getting after things and having the physical sense of doing things and doing them well to the point that they are natural seeming is probably smaller yet in proportion. 

The only shame of it that I can think of in terms of how good it feels to work entirely by hand without it being painful or punishing is that if it were done for gainful purposes in the past, people would've gotten to the point where I am now and then still progressed to "ok, now that I can do this easily, let's see how fast I can do it to torture myself to get just a little more". "and then a little more after that". Before my grandfather was old, that was him. 

My comment about nobody outworking me doing this was a nod to him. My dad recounts him hiring a dozen men during hay season and then declaring "there isn't a man alive who can outwork me", treating the men well, but not standing around while they did his work, rather showing them he'd be in the mix with them and none would be able to criticize him for slacking while others took the punishment. I stop at the lazy pleasant part. I think many others would love that part, too. You can get really fast at things just keeping it extra lazy and pleasant. The cap iron needling came out of laziness. The fast sharpening came out of laziness. All of it did.


----------



## D_W (17 Nov 2022)

I'm probably wrong, too - the guys at williamsburg might be able to dust me because they're actually working by hand in front of the public all day. I forgot about folks like that.


----------



## Hornbeam (17 Nov 2022)

There is a lot of personal preference issues as well as size of projects you plan to undertake
I have all 3 of the sizes you mention. A 5 1/2 is my go to plane, I find the no 5 a bit small.
I would suggest the 5 1/2 would go better with your existing No4
The low angle bevel up is a bit more specialised, but very good on end grain. Unfortunately the sides are not as high as a bevel down plane which can make them a bit less stable when using a shooting board


----------



## D_W (17 Nov 2022)

here's something for you guys to try - take something about the size of a drawer side or panel end and put it upright in a vise. plane it with a #4, and compare that to planing it on it side. 

Once you do that, mark a certain amount to be removed and remove it planing each way. If you're worked about the back side breaking out with the wood in the vise, you can install a piece to back what you're planing or just (easier) plane the back edge off to the mark first. 

You'll find that there aren't very many instances when you do this, or ten of these, that the shooting board works as well as a regular bench plane - no matter what's being used to shoot end grain. You'll probably also find the bevel up plane to be a bit sticky when it's upright on a vise (don't forget the wax). 

Most importantly, if you do this for a group of things, notice how much longer it takes the plane being upright to feel like it's not cutting. if the planing seems sticky or hard to start, double check that the sole of the plane doesn't need to be waxed by waxing it. 


I tested irons a few years ago (was already long into giving up the shooting board) and do some calculations about how often you sharpen a shooting plane - I found that I was able to plane cherry endgrain with V11, about 1100 feet and something like 900 with a good O1 iron. I think you'll find you get about a tenth or a little more than that with a shaving of a couple of thousandths using a plane on its side. 

this is one of the reasons you'll find few or no references to shooting ends in older texts - it was to inefficient, and at the same time, the person doing the sawing probably was able to saw smaller items (drawer sides) right to a mark without needing to shoot anything. Especially if the ends are going to be planed after dovetails are made. 

if I told you that I knew the last thing I shot the end on, I'd be lying. 

I *do* remember the last time I trimmed miters for mouldings, but they weren't done in a shooting setup, they were done on a miter jack. 

I just found an old picture of that test of irons - this is a box full of end grain shavings. They were made by a #4. In order to make sure the test was fair, I measured number of shavings, but also weight. Some types of steel don't seem to do as well as the iron dulls in terms of getting a nice continuous shaving and starting as easily.


----------



## D_W (17 Nov 2022)

(not for a lack of tooling, either. I have a better shooting plane than you can buy.



It'll trim a half thou off of cherry, or it'll take off a hundredth or more. But there's not really much occasion to use it, and if there is and the work isn't really small, it's a sign of something that could be done more efficiently elsewhere. 

I think the draw to the shooting board is that it's something like a crosscut sled or whatever, but we don't go to power tools trying to figure out how to use them like hand tools ,and the converse often isn't good policy either


----------



## D_W (17 Nov 2022)

(I got a lecture from imgur readers about how I needed to be better at sharpening when I posted that picture with the caliper...

"dude, you need to work on your sharpening. You should get a guide and some waterstones and take nice thin shavings". )

I had some crackpot idea at the time that you could set a shooting plane heavy, cut just shy of the line by a seen amount and be within a thousandth or two on something like a drawer side. it's a failing concept compared to accurate crosscut sawing, but it did seem a way at first to get past the fact that shooting planes don't have any downforce and don't last long before needing sharpening


----------



## BucksDad (18 Nov 2022)

@D_W please do put a video together on YouTube for us to demonstrate all your techniques.

Respectfully, it might then mean you can refer to that in threads and write shorter posts rather than infect any thread you join with dozens of long posts which interrupt the flow and discussion of others as well


----------



## planesleuth (18 Nov 2022)

Low angle, High angle, Round the bend angle ....it don't matter as long as the tool is sharp and made from Sheffield steel because it is the best in the world...and with Jacob about Norris adjusters and thick blades.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (18 Nov 2022)

Hornbeam said:


> Unfortunately the sides are not as high as a bevel down plane which can make them a bit less stable when using a shooting board


I forget where I read it but it was suggested to deliberately make your shooting board very slightly crowned - higher in the middle - because if by chance there was a slight dip in the centre of the board the plane would be supported at the heel and the higher part of the plane could roll into it causing the cut edge then be out of square.


----------



## Jacob (18 Nov 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> I forget where I read it but it was suggested to deliberately make your shooting board very slightly crowned - higher in the middle - because if by chance there was a slight dip in the centre of the board the plane would be supported at the heel and the higher part of the plane could roll into it causing the cut edge then be out of square.


 I'll try and remember that if I ever feel the need for a shooting board!
I did make one years ago when I was starting up as they seem to be everybody's favourite accessory, but in the end never seemed to use it.
There's not much you can do with a shooting board which you can't do quite easily without one, and they generate another little set of problems of their own - biggest being the delusion that you need a special very expensive plane. 
I very occasionally knock up some sort of simple 5 minute jig for a job but that's as near as I get.


----------



## D_W (18 Nov 2022)

BucksDad said:


> @D_W please do put a video together on YouTube for us to demonstrate all your techniques.
> 
> Respectfully, it might then mean you can refer to that in threads and write shorter posts rather than infect any thread you join with dozens of long posts which interrupt the flow and discussion of others as well



I looked through your post history and didn't find any evidence that you would be affected by talk or lack thereof regarding handtools.

Please feel free to add me to your ignore list rather than bothering me with pushy nonsense.


----------



## BucksDad (18 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> I looked through your post history and didn't find any evidence that you would be affected by talk or lack thereof regarding handtools.
> 
> Please feel free to add me to your ignore list rather than bothering me with pushy nonsense.



It was hardly pushy nonsense - just my experience of being in this forum as someone looking to get into primarily handtool woodworking. My post history doesn't show much because I haven't started yet because I'm still building my workshop which is taking a while for various reasons, however I am now putting on the cladding so I might get done by Christmas.

I was just offering my perspective as someone new and trying to learn and trying to make this forum a better place -- I'm afraid that lots of lengthy posts telling people that LA planes are not the answer combined with jibes of every plane manufacturer & random anecdotes about bayling hay and saw technique creates a very low signal <> noise ratio.

Having read your contributions I can see that you have plenty of expertise with handtools, planes, chisels, making them, discussing the various types of steel etc. etc. etc. but I was just trying to point out that as a beginner, I can't see the wood from the trees with your contributions and a concise presentation of your points in a YT video would be great. 
Forums are not lecture theatres and are designed to provide a medium of discussion and garner various opinions. Ignoring people doesn't work because it then makes a thread disjointed when those on your ignore list contribute.

I was just trying to provide a comment to help communicate your expertise and knowledge in a way which is more accessible and helps more people rather than your typical bloviating posts which I feel don't serve many.


----------



## D_W (18 Nov 2022)

Use the ignore button. I'm not here to build consensus among casual users or build a business. The ignore button will do everything you want.


----------



## Jacob (18 Nov 2022)

BucksDad said:


> .... bloviating...


 Spot on! though I had to look it up. Not such a well known word here, it's American.
Is bloviating a particularly american habit? Often seems so.  
Ignore button is a good idea I've been using it for a long time though as you say it sometimes makes things seem disjointed.


----------



## D_W (18 Nov 2022)

Jacob
Messages *23,984*​


Jacob said:


> Is bloviating a particularly american habit?


​We obviously don't have exclusive rights to it here.


----------



## Jacob (18 Nov 2022)

Bloviation - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




"....William Gibbs McAdoo, compared it to "an army of pompous phrases moving over the landscape in search of an idea....."


----------



## D_W (18 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Bloviation - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There's something humorous here given the messenger. 

What did come out of this thread that wasn't done with enough consideration when I started was honesty about what the various tools really are. 

Maybe 50% of the people coming to forums want to just talk like they're at a restaurant, maybe hear what a friend says to buy (but that's different than having much intention), another 45% want to have some kind of self appointed manners and know something isn't that great, but be afraid to say so either out of fear that someone will say they don't know anything, or out of a sense of manners that was originally cultivated thinking that always pumping up self ego about having great manners is helpful to other people. 

It's not helpful in a situation where people are looking for legitimate advice, and the pool of folks who go beyond trimming joints and buying expensive fretsaws to feed wood through a planer is pretty small. 

i'd point everyone to nicholson, but then when I do that, I have some guys who spent their working lifetime feeding shapers and painting windowsills discounting what's in it when it's really one of the few accurate accountings of what it's like to work wood by hand. 

For folks like "bucksdad", if it really is a matter of wanting economy of communication - find the nicholson text that 
* talks about the tools
* talks about how to set them up and use them

And figure out what they're saying in their compact discussion - make it a burden to do that, not to seek advice from people who are more concerned with being nice to an advertiser and censoring their own speech or believing somehow that a huge group of buy-and-lose-interest amateurs somehow will cultivate a bunch of manufacturers who cater to serious woodworkers. They're not the market. Guys like sellers and cosman and others if you really want to use hand tools, they're all dead ends unless you want to feed wood through power tools and cut joints here and there and sand after using hand tools. 

15 years ago, it would've been hard to get several people who bought a type of plane to say they didn't like it that much and it was limiting. Several here did, and that is a good conclusion. We did already have people who pushed stuff through shapers for 30 years, never bought or used any of the stuff they said wasn't any good, but claimed to work a lot with hand tools, though. That's not new. 

The one thing useful for anyone giving things a go beyond nicholson is the use of a stanley type smoother - they are better than anything wooden for practical finish planing in a range of woods, and they don't really give up anything to be good at a lot of things. And 1900 era saws are better than 1800 era saws. Other than that, there's not much that's better than what was around in 1820 for actually woodworking, and most is worse. But it's not aimed at a market who would know, it's aimed at a market who will buy.


----------



## Joe1975 (18 Nov 2022)

No.5 1/2 is a clear favourite here, and endorsed by Rob Cosman (if that means anything). Perhaps it would also compliment the 4 I already own as well. 
Thank you everyone. I would like to at least hold one of each and perhaps try out as well before committing, but it’s not easy to organise.


----------



## D_W (18 Nov 2022)

5 1/2 is a good choice. Not sure that Cosman's recommendations on hand tools mean much - he'll recommend whatever he's selling and he doesn't break character if you make a reasonable suggestion about what would be more practical working by hand. 

That said, 5 1/2 is a good all around plane for bench work and it can be set to do panel work and prep for a smoother, as well as joint all but long stuff.


----------



## DougT (19 Nov 2022)

I called in to see my brother and he was clearing out his garage and I saw a very old rusty Stanley no4 and I said do you want i,t he said it was our fathers who was a cabinet maker and was sentimental to him and me. 
I took it away to renovate and I use it for everything. My brother doesn’t recognise it. It’s my favourite plan.


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> 5 1/2 is a good choice. Not sure that Cosman's recommendations on hand tools mean much - he'll recommend whatever he's selling and he doesn't break character if you make a reasonable suggestion about what would be more practical working by hand.
> 
> That said, 5 1/2 is a good all around plane for bench work and it can be set to do panel work and prep for a smoother, as well as joint all but long stuff.


OK for long stuff too.
You can do most things with any standard pattern plane if you have to. They aren't that specialised until you get to moulding/rebate planes etc. But it's handy to have a few sizes from the range, not least to roughly match the size of the workpiece. 5 1/2 is mid range


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (19 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> OK for long stuff too.
> You can do most things with any standard pattern plane if you have to. They aren't that specialised until you get to moulding/rebate planes etc. But it's handy to have a few sizes from the range, not least to roughly match the size of the workpiece. 5 1/2 is mid range


Why is there no love for a #6? I’m curious! I like UK forums far better than the US forums, as many participants are more users than trend following fan-boys, and the UK opinion, as users, seems more appropriate.


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2022)

Tony Zaffuto said:


> Why is there no love for a #6? I’m curious! I like UK forums far better than the US forums, as many participants are more users than trend following fan-boys, and the UK opinion, as users, seems more appropriate.


I've got one but don't use it much. Perhaps because it's not that much bigger than a 5 1/2 enough to make a difference. Ditto 4 1/2, not small enough to make much difference.
Though if I'm doing a lot of hand planing I'll drag them all out and keep working them until they all need sharpening, to save having to stop.


----------



## D_W (19 Nov 2022)

Tony Zaffuto said:


> Why is there no love for a #6? I’m curious! I like UK forums far better than the US forums, as many participants are more users than trend following fan-boys, and the UK opinion, as users, seems more appropriate.



The 6 is an excellent plane. I'm sure were mostly past the part where Patrick said it was a pointless plane. He also had everybody and their brother buying the large scraper plane believing it was a great tool for solid wood. 

His poo-pooing did allow me to get a few 6s for very little, though. 

I would personally have a 6 before a 5 1/2, but not the overweight 6 that quangsheng or woodcraft sell.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (19 Nov 2022)

Patrick did more for reviving interest in vintage than all current internet sensations. He also (with Pete Taran), started interest in boutique saw making, but at reasonable cost. LN, which purchased their brand remains one of the best brands, and at prices lower than most, except LV.

Leach and I know each as friends. I’ve manned his booth for him a few times and acted as a pick up point for him, in our part of PA. Haven’t seen him since before the pandemic.


----------



## Bojam (19 Nov 2022)

Tony Zaffuto said:


> Patrick did more for reviving interest in vintage than all current internet sensations. He also (with Pete Taran), started interest in boutique saw making, but at reasonable cost. LN, which purchased their brand remains one of the best brands, and at prices lower than most, except LV.



Who is this Patrick of whom you speak? Genuinely interested


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2022)

Bojam said:


> Who is this Patrick of whom you speak? Genuinely interested





The Superior Works - Patrick's Blood & Gore: Preface



He's right about the #6! Nothing wrong with it it's just a bit unnecessary between 5 1/2 and 7


----------



## Bojam (19 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> The Superior Works - Patrick's Blood & Gore: Preface



Thanks


----------



## D_W (19 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Though if I'm doing a lot of hand planing I'll drag them all out and keep working them until they all need sharpening, to save having to stop.



very strange.


----------



## D_W (19 Nov 2022)

Bojam said:


> Who is this Patrick of whom you speak? Genuinely interested



Sorry, I couldn't remember Patrick's last name. His site is a nice free offering to folks from the viewpoint of a dealer, and he's long been a dealer of tools and honest in a couple of things that I've bought. 

The statements about the use of tools and which are useful and which are not are more from a dealer's point of view and less from a serious users, though. 

To trial things here and there and use them in bits and pieces is far different than using them 2 or 10 hours a week in relatively heavy use. The latter will lead you toward what Nicholson suggests, but you'll get there on your own (I did) and then only understand the value of the advice after that. 

I don't have a great feel for what's practical when hand tools are seldom used (aforementioned cosman type stuff where they're not intentionally being used in earnest from rough to finished- if he was actually doing that rather than doing it to be filmed, he'd do things differently) or do 2% of the work. If the tools aren't being used seriously, one can come up with all kinds of opinions and then not risk having them be obviously impractical. 

Patrick's adoring of the scraper plane and thinking a 6 is pointless is a little weird. The scraper plane a tool that became popular for veneers - it's a dog if you work wood that has sat overnight when the temp has changed in the shop.


----------



## Jorny (19 Nov 2022)

No 6 turns up quite often in Sweden, seems to have been a popular size here. Another thing I have noticed is that corrugated soles are a lot more common here than uncorrugated. I wonder why, the internet guys seem to say that corrugated soles are inferior and should be avoided.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (19 Nov 2022)

_To trial things here and there and use them in bits and pieces is far different than using them 2 or 10 hours a week in relatively heavy use. The latter will lead you toward what Nicholson suggests, but you'll get there on your own (I did) and then only understand the value of the advice after that.

I don't have a great feel for what's practical when hand tools are seldom used (aforementioned cosman type stuff where they're not intentionally being used in earnest from rough to finished- if he was actually doing that rather than doing it to be filmed, he'd do things differently) or do 2% of the work. If the tools aren't being used seriously, one can come up with all kinds of opinions and then not risk having them be obviously impractical._

David, this is a significant issue. You spend much of your time planing wood, it seems for hours on end, but not building furniture. Most here who build furniture are likely to be blended woodworkers (as I am), and only spend some time planing. We are nothing like woodworkers of 200 years ago. Why would we be? If woodworkers of old were alive today, they would also more likely be blended in their use of power and hand.

The point is that some of your conclusions may be accurate, but few are going to take them seriously because they refer to times considered archaic. I find them interesting, and have learned from your postings, but I am also a student of woodworking methods. Having said this, there remains much of what you write will appear disparaging to many because you present it as absolute ("tools aren't being used seriously"). There are as many methods as there are preferences and personalities.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (19 Nov 2022)

It's simple - it's not like I never make furniture. I've hand planed board feet above 4 figures. I don't make a piece of furniture a month, but I make either decent or utility furniture or cabinets often enough that if I was poor at using hand tools, it would make it undesirable. 

What I see is people who don't use hand tools other than like you do wanting to make definitive opinions or jumping to conclusions when someone says they want to work entirely by hand. Derek, you have no clue what you're talking about with the use of planes, body mechanics or anything like that, and when it's pointed out, you complain loudly. 

I have no idea why. I don't know which fret saw works the best with blue tape - I stay out of most of the discussions about drawer slips and corner biscuits because I don't think much about that stuff. 

Once in a while, someone comes along who says they want to work entirely by hand. They're met with misleading statements about whether or not it can be done, bad advice about what tools to use to do it, or answers that have nothing to do with the question they asked. I think that's a shame. 

Last time I made the point about body mechanics and how bad the demonstrations and advice usually are - to the point that they will convince someone that you can't work by hand entirely - you threw a fit and went to pulling strings behind the scenes - seems like a pattern there. It's only so long that someone like me needs to have a self-appointed sheep dog trying to herd everyone and pretend that speaking from a sand foundation is solid when it comes to working entirely by hand, and the same thing here ...."i'll tell you what you should do" is nonsense. 

Not everyone wants to build flat furniture and do things the way you're doing them, and not everyone wants to do everything by hand. 

People can choose which way they want to go - I sure hope if someone wants to know what to kit their shop out with if they want euro machines they don't ask me ,and I sure hope if they think they want to work completely by hand or give it an honest try, they don't ask you. One of us will give an answer regardless, the other one won't. It does nobody favors to pretend to be an expert and change advice with the seasons.


----------



## D_W (19 Nov 2022)

Here was the line that caused me to speak up in this thread vs. not much in others lately:

>>so will need to use the plane for dimensioning and smoothing all stock<<

The words low angle come up and that objective comes up, and I will speak up. I feel like nobody gave me any good advice about dimensioning - I learned it the hard way. Warren gave good advice, but it was sparse and hard to figure out. 

I don't see much elsewhere. 

The statement about it not mattering which type of plane if it's just trimming and fitting joints is still accurate - I don't think it will ever be much of an impediment. If it did, we wouldn't have had a decade of advice about how great bevel up planes were. As soon as the scope of the work widens a little bit past smoothing things, scraper planes and bevel up planes fall on their face. It doesn't do anyone any favors to pretend to be friendly and discount the avenues of more credible advice.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (19 Nov 2022)

Now let’s be careful with dissing bevel planes! I’ve gotten a crapload of dressing edges today and yesterday with three BU planes with gorgeous results: 7-1/2, LN 95 edge plane and LN 101.

of course the material is exterior PVC,


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> very strange.


I guess you don't do a lot of planing. It's hard work and it's good to get a bit of momentum up if you want to get a job done.


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> ........we wouldn't have had a decade of advice about how great bevel up planes were..


er - can't say I took much notice myself. Too many salesmen on the case!
I always saw them as just a retro fashion - a touch of "steam punk" style.


D_W said:


> Here was the line that caused me to speak up in this thread vs. not much in others lately:
> 
> >>so will need to use the plane for dimensioning and smoothing all stock<<


Nobody normally goes in for "dimensioning and smoothing all stock" except timber yards supplying PAR for DIYers or mouldings for the trade including floor boards, T&G etc.
In a small shop planing is done after sawing to size from the cutting list. Stock stays untouched until needed.
There are exceptions of course; small stuff better left together and sawn after planing e.g. I used to make 100s of 6" cube boxes, 6 x 1/4" planed first in handy lengths before cutting to finished length.


D_W said:


> ..... I feel like nobody gave me any good advice about dimensioning - I learned it the hard way. Warren gave good advice, but it was sparse and hard to figure out.
> 
> I don't see much elsewhere.


It's an essential and unavoidable procedure which everybody does one way or another.
You keep talking about it, why not describe your procedure in more detail, not just photos of shavings?


D_W said:


> ..... the avenues of more credible advice.


Where do you find them?


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2022)

.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (19 Nov 2022)

David, your personal statements are repetitive and without any truth. As soon as I disagree, you immediately and predicably resort to playing the man and not the ball. Your comment about my not taking criticism is pure projection - the pot calling the kettle black.

Derek


----------



## D_W (19 Nov 2022)

Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) said:


> David, your personal statements are repetitive and without any truth. As soon as I disagree, you immediately and predicably resort to playing the man and not the ball. Your comment about my not taking criticism is pure projection - the pot calling the kettle black.
> 
> Derek



Derek, I dismiss your opinions on things like hand dimensioning. I don't expect you to agree with mine - it's an impossible goal for two reasons:
1) you have a habit of wanting to tell people who they should be addressing their messages to and how they should do it, which culminates in complaining to forums and lobbying people to go register and address things that aren't even on your radar
2) you don't have experience dimensioning wood and have given a lot of bad advice in the past related to dealing with relatively regular woodworking tasks. I followed some of it early and learned the hard way

If the person in this thread says they're going to need to do everything with a plane, you don't have the context any more than I'd have context lecturing Warren about carving, which he does professionally, among other things. 

What I find really offputting is someone who isn't doing something wanting to tell other people what their message should be. I don't care if your message is wrong - most peoples' messages are wrong. It's the grabbing of everyone else's belt loops while they're walking that I find annoying, and then trying to pull strings, which to claim here that you don't do is _really _odd. 

Something is off, I don't know what it is, if it's the lack of new tools being introduced and getting the admiration for posting them? I don't know. I'd prefer no interaction with you because the things that I like to discuss, you're outmatched on and we get this. The things I'm outmatched on, I don't try to discuss.


----------



## D_W (19 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Where do you find them?


Jacob - the poster of this thread asked that question - a plane that will be used on all phases of stock preparation. You have to assume that when they mention they have a #4, the plane that they get will be assigned to things not smoothing - or at least it should be. That was copied words, not mine. 

As for the people working by hand, I know only of one, except for a group of folks at Williamsburg who is censored in the tools that they're allowed to use. If dimensioning by hand is going to be the thing to do for someone, Nicholson is a better starting source than anything else. 

As for the comment about not doing a lot of planing - sure. I made the comment about having a whole bunch of planes and making them dull all at once because it's detached from what you actually do if you're doing a lot of planing. It may not be detached from what you'd do if you're using machines and smoothing a bunch of stuff or working at a site. I've seen accounts of site workers not wanting to sharpen tools on the job. I've never encountered anyone (add a second - Brian Holcombe worked by hand for a while until he couldn't handle it because his order list got too large - a good thing to have) who advocated that in the context of dimensioning or doing a lot of work by hand. It's false efficiency.


----------



## D_W (19 Nov 2022)

At any rate, the purpose of this thread for the OP - to find the next plane that would be a good fit - well taken care of. He got the right one and avoided the wrong one based on what he asked about.


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> ...... It's false efficiency.


er, what is and why?


----------



## Jameshow (19 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> very strange.


I do that tbh. 

I use a number 5 scrubbing and then a 5 1/2 or 6 to flatten, then a no 4 to finish, I find a n6 is just too big for a fine finish. Perhaps it needs a finer sharpen!


----------



## raffo (19 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> I do that tbh.
> 
> I use a number 5 scrubbing and then a 5 1/2 or 6 to flatten, then a no 4 to finish, I find a n6 is just too big for a fine finish. Perhaps it needs a finer sharpen!


I don't know if that is what Jacob meant, but it sounded like he has multiples of the same plane and goes through them until they are dull. It is not as efficient as just resharpening as needed and not have to carry as many planes.


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2022)

raffo said:


> I don't know if that is what Jacob meant, but it sounded like he has multiples of the same plane and goes through them until they are dull. It is not as efficient as just resharpening as needed and not have to carry as many planes.


Simple really. I've got 7, 6, 5 1/2, 5, 4 1/2, and various others (non of which I have to carry). If I'm doing a lot of planing I might just work my way through the the top 5 or so instead of stopping to sharpen.
Not inefficient at all. Come to think that's when I'm most likely to use the 6 which otherwise I tend not to pick up. If there's a sharp plane lying there why not just go for it!
A bit of overthinking going on here? 
Basically you can do all basic stuff with just a 5 1/2.


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2022)

Trouble with these threads is what BucksDad earlier called the poor signal <> noise ratio, not to mention the "bloviation".  To which I'd add "over-thinking"  alternating with "under-thinking" and loads of pure BS.
Ending up being completely useless and uninformative.
Anyway the answer is 5 1/2! Which I said right at the beginning!


----------



## G S Haydon (19 Nov 2022)

BucksDad said:


> It was hardly pushy nonsense - just my experience of being in this forum as someone looking to get into primarily handtool woodworking. My post history doesn't show much because I haven't started yet because I'm still building my workshop which is taking a while for various reasons, however I am now putting on the cladding so I might get done by Christmas.
> 
> I was just offering my perspective as someone new and trying to learn and trying to make this forum a better place -- I'm afraid that lots of lengthy posts telling people that LA planes are not the answer combined with jibes of every plane manufacturer & random anecdotes about bayling hay and saw technique creates a very low signal <> noise ratio.
> 
> ...













Typical Sharpening of a Rip Saw

Here are a few of David's videos. I turn to him for advice on hand tools. Even after being a professional Joiner for over 25 years I find David's understanding of the nuances of hand tools well beyond mind.

That doesn't mean you have to copy and paste his methods, I don't. But he has significantly influenced my method.


----------



## D_W (19 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> I do that tbh.
> 
> I use a number 5 scrubbing and then a 5 1/2 or 6 to flatten, then a no 4 to finish, I find a n6 is just too big for a fine finish. Perhaps it needs a finer sharpen!



That part's fine - we all do that, working through a few boards in a sequence - it's certainly better than jack planing 15 boards, then try planing, etc. 

What strikes me as odd is more the idea that if you were using a 6, you'd grab another plane to do the same thing as the 6 instead of sharpening the 6, or grab another jointer to take over for a jointer that just needs a minute of sharpening (2 minutes total if you count taking the plane apart, and by the time that's the case, it's nice to have the 2 minutes built in so that the planing can be continuous mixed in with the sawing). 

That rotation of work is part of what makes continuous dimensioning tolerable and pleasant for a few hours. But allowing a big pile of planes to grow with dull irons becomes an obstacle.


----------



## BucksDad (19 Nov 2022)

Thanks @G S Haydon. I thought I remember David had some videos up but couldn’t find it.

I shall watch these and learn!


----------



## D_W (19 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Simple really. I've got 7, 6, 5 1/2, 5, 4 1/2, and various others (non of which I have to carry). If I'm doing a lot of planing I might just work my way through the the top 5 or so instead of stopping to sharpen.
> Not inefficient at all. Come to think that's when I'm most likely to use the 6 which otherwise I tend not to pick up. If there's a sharp plane lying there why not just go for it!
> A bit of overthinking going on here?
> Basically you can do all basic stuff with just a 5 1/2.



I'm not sure how many people believe you've done much dimensioning work by hand, especially as a volume vs. much of anything else. 

I don't get the sense that anyone here does much of it, aside perhaps from adam working from riven. And I'm just guessing he does that. 

I can tell by the way that Warren Mickley talks that he does it, the talk about sharpening, economy of effort with various things and his comments about doubting that rip sawing was left to the least skilled in the shop, or anything of the like. 

I landed just by continuing to do work instead of pushing wood through machines and then talking about using planes a lot or for crude work....exactly at what Nicholson describes. I think almost everyone would - it's just a natural landing point, and I've seen the only two people I know who actually did much work by hand end up at the same place. Brian Holcombe and Warren. I don't round over cap irons corners, and I walked the boards a little more than i needed to early on with the jack plane. Warren pointed out that Nicholson said to match the cap to the iron (I still don't think that serves a point, and I don't think Nicholson had a better grasp on planes than I do, because my planes don't have any of the shortcomings that he asserts are there - like leaving the cut shy of the corners. I solved that by my second double iron plane and I think all of the English planemakers did later). 

The comment about working at arms length down a longer board and then moving periodically and not being to quick to want to work the full length of the board until the end turns out to be more productive. 

If you were working by hand, you would be talking about stuff like this. Nobody or near nobody is doing it, but everyone seems to want to assert what can or can't be done. Even DC tried to stick me with a couple of things that couldn't be done while he was still around (not being able to plane a length straight or hollow without stop shavings, etc) and I know he had no ill intentions - he was as honest as anyone I've met. 

Most people aren't doing it because they wouldn't like it. Some aren't doing it because they think they're above it (few are), and I think there is a small share of people who would like to do it if they could get decent advice. Maybe I'm wrong. 

Calling things like plane setup and cap iron discussions overthinking gives me plenty of information to know what I need to know.


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2022)

G S Haydon said:


> ....... ......
> 
> That doesn't mean you have to copy and paste his methods, I don't. But he has significantly influenced my method.


How has he influenced your method? What do you do differently?


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> .....
> 
> What strikes me as odd is more the idea that if you were using a 6, you'd grab another plane to do the same thing as the 6 instead of sharpening the 6, or grab another jointer to take over for a jointer that just needs a minute of sharpening (2 minutes total if you count taking the plane apart, and by the time that's the case, ......


on and on and on!  Back on ignore!


----------



## G S Haydon (19 Nov 2022)

BucksDad said:


> Thanks @G S Haydon. I thought I remember David had some videos up but couldn’t find it.
> 
> I shall watch these and learn!


I know David's posts can be hard to digest, but he's not selling anything which is very refreshing.

An interesting one I picked up was not to worry about stop shavings on edges, just learn to use the plane!

As much as these threads get a bit heated it's a good thing. Unless there is some lively debate allowed, forums die off.


----------



## D_W (19 Nov 2022)

BucksDad said:


> Thanks @G S Haydon. I thought I remember David had some videos up but couldn’t find it.
> 
> I shall watch these and learn!



they never were made well, and Graham is right - it's not that there's something that I'm doing that should be copied end to end. It's some of the ideas, like being able to feel square, or at least very close. Being able to feel when the plane is telling you that you've got no high spots, or telling you when the clearance is not gone in a plane iron but you should sharpen, anyway. 

There's a side benefit to it - you will automatically start gaining accuracy just in the course of work if you can get the limitations out of the way (like not using bevel up planes for any of this, too fine of saws, single iron planes in general where double iron can be used, and heavy iron planes where wooden is better). That is, you do all kinds of unexpected and pleasant neural development just in the course of work and fine sawing is really easy without ever practicing it. 

Plus, you will feel afterward like you took a nice brisk walk, but you'll have physical satisfaction in the upper body and lower at the same time. Not soreness, not stooping, but the "I did something" kind of feel. I'll post some pictures that I took last week, they're not that interesting, but they sort of illustrate some of this in context even on a junky project (a loft bed that will be painted per son's request, so it's just junky construction wood, cheap as possible).


----------



## G S Haydon (19 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> How has he influenced your method? What do you do differently?


Hi Jacob! Stopped "stop shavings". Learned to get the cap iron set right. Avoid "traversing" the grain. 

Reinforced others such as the value of a Stanley #4 etc.


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2022)

G S Haydon said:


> Hi Jacob! Stopped "stop shavings". Learned to get the cap iron set right. Avoid "traversing" the grain.
> 
> Reinforced others such as the value of a Stanley #4 etc.


OK. Why were you doing stopped shavings in the first place? What is "traversing the
grain?
PS OK I got it - it's planing across rather than along. Obvious really! It's a good way to remove material fast with a well cambered blade. Very useful and not anything to avoid, but can be over done and not always necessary. Really handy with badly twisted boards, taking off the high points. Fastest with a scrub at about 45º though actual scrub planes are a little over sold.
When you've taken off enough and near the line you go along the grain with a less cambered blade.
Those vids are just too long and too rambling - rather like some posts!


----------



## D_W (19 Nov 2022)

G S Haydon said:


> I know David's posts can be hard to digest, but he's not selling anything which is very refreshing.
> 
> An interesting one I picked up was not to worry about stop shavings on edges, just learn to use the plane!
> 
> As much as these threads get a bit heated it's a good thing. Unless there is some lively debate allowed, forums die off.



I think, unfortunately, that we're losing a lot of steam in hand tool work in general, but I also think the reason that there was a bunch of steam wasn't for the reasons that I'd hoped. I hoped we'd kind of be heading toward the "people will walk away from what they learn and own it and then move up the ranks as a maker" instead of just buying a bunch of flatwork machines, maybe move toward stuff like this and document what they're doing or share it. 






Andersen & Stauffer Furniture Makers : Highchests & Dressing Tables


At Andersen and Stauffer, we create authentic copies of 17th, 18th, and early 19th century American antiques. Founders Alan Andersen and Tom Stauffer have been working with wood for as long as they've been able to hold hammers. Together, our team develops and perfects techniques to construct...




www.andersenandstauffer.com





If you work by hand, no naturally start to veer away from just making more flat stuff to thinking about design and making the projects count. I'm sidetracked in guitars and tools - there's reality, too. I would love to make furniture like this, wouldn't care if it took 15 years to get to be able to do it, and complementary toolmaking, but it's one or the other pair and I've got the bug for making the tools and the guitars. 

What I think was really fueling the hand tool craze was just a few people doing much with them, some folks (like Don McConnell) who really know their stuff and sharing when people had questions, and a whole lot more buying for escapism with the desire to imagine woodworking, but not admit it. 

There has always been a strong resistance to actually raising the level of work beyond talking about joinery and expensive stationary machines. The same thing is going on in the world of knives and in the world of guitars. There is a lot of superb work in instrument making because there's a good market for it, but there's a whole lot of it done in a way that avoids hand tools and far more folks getting their feet wet and then running fast away from the challenging stuff. I found out pretty quickly on the knife forums that nobody wanted to talk about how you could heat treat in the open atmosphere and try to match stuff from the 1800s. That will get you banned quickly. 

I don't for a second think there's any extra virtue to working by hand if people don't want to do it, or that doing it will automatically make someone a better worker - but I think if folks want to do it, they will start knocking down the dominos toward fine work faster and the little nits of hand work and getting a feel come a lot faster. 

No real comments about what's profitable or what's not. I could make tools profitably, but I don't think if that was the focus, I would be able to make them the way I like to.


----------



## G S Haydon (19 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> OK. Why were you doing stopped shavings in the first place? What is "traversing the
> grain?


Edge jointing by hand described by modern proponents if a steady sequence of stop and then through shavings. I adopted it and then learned I didn't need to do it.

Traversing is a hipster name given to working across the grain as a first step when using a jack plane. It was being put forward as the way to work a sawn board. Working with the grain is more effective most of the time.

David isn't a genius, but thankfully he's not a lifestyle Guru either. 

Hey, I like your contrary take on stuff too. You did a sterling job on that chapel conversation. Hope you're enjoying your new home and the fruits of your labour.


----------



## D_W (19 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> OK. Why were you doing stopped shavings in the first place? What is "traversing the
> grain?
> PS OK I got it - it's planing across rather than along. Obvious really! It's a good way to remove material fast with a well cambered blade. Very useful and not anything to avoid, but can be over done and not always necessary. Really handy with badly twisted boards, taking off the high points. Fastest with a scrub at about 45º though actual scrub planes are a little over sold.
> When you've taken off enough and near the line you go along the grain with a less cambered blade.
> Those vids are just too long and too rambling - rather like some posts!



traversing grain is slower to get to the end point at the risk of ruining work, but it doesn't matter if you're doing relatively crude work. It's uncommon to be planing something that is wide enough that it makes economic sense, but it's very popular and the word "scrub" is often used now.

One of the things that made me reference nicholson was when I mentioned planing through the length and someone said "that's what nicholson says to do".

Dimensioning isn't sloppy scrubbing, but it isn't any slower than sloppy scrubbing and cutting across the grain. it's the same or better volume of work with the same effort and far neater and without risk.

Just grabbing random planes until you run out of sharp ones is also weird, and i doubt it was ever practiced in 1800. But the bar is low now. 

My interest isn't period anything - despite being accused of that. It's literally what makes sense to be able to work by hand or mostly by hand. It isn't "scrubbing" or constantly checking joints or stop shavings or leaving gaps at the ends of the board or any of that. It's something much more pleasant. The only reason 1800 comes up is because the art of doing work from end to end, which improves the skills throughout, was economically beaten. So, what do you do when you want to find out if you're on track? You search the last time that the methods were mature and had economic meaning or significance.


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2022)

G S Haydon said:


> Edge jointing by hand described by modern proponents if a steady sequence of stop and then through shavings. I adopted it and then learned I didn't need to do it.


Dave Charlesworth. He was just "simplifying" normal planing which can be hard to describe: the way you take more/less off as you go by varying pressure, keeping it forward at the start and back at the end, planing as if for a hollow...... etc


G S Haydon said:


> Traversing is a hipster name given to working across the grain as a first step when using a jack plane. It was being put forward as the way to work a sawn board. Working with the grain is more effective most of the time.


It is one way with very un flat (dished and twisted boards) or rough surfaces. Most effective when scrubbing old surfaces reclaimed timber etc which can be untouchable with a jack, unless it's very cambered. It's not unlike working with a gouge which is easier across the grain as the shavings tend to roll and break with less resistance.


G S Haydon said:


> Hey, I like your contrary take on stuff too. You did a sterling job on that chapel conversation. Hope you're enjoying your new home and the fruits of your labour.


Thanks for that! Not sold yet - looking at next spring.


----------



## D_W (19 Nov 2022)

G S Haydon said:


> David isn't a genius



I think the virtue is that you don't have to be. If you're working with sawn lumber, I think you end up doing work like Nicholson describes. It's just that there's a lack of people actually doing it to point out that "nicholson's discussion is the right one". Everything was mature by the time Nicholson wrote about it aside maybe from synthetic sharpening stones and grinding and the metal smoothing plane. 

Steel has more abrasion resistance in some cases now, but people get less done with it because they think that's somehow important.


----------



## D_W (19 Nov 2022)

Here's an example of using the hand tools in work that's not really very nice. I took pictures for Bill T from another forum as Bill mentioned that you couldn't get anything made if you worked by hand. I think it's true if you want to make a batch of something, you'll get a lot less made, but if you are just working on one version of something, even if it's crude, it's a little longer to work by hand but a lot more pleasant.

It's a loft bed - as cheap as I can make it. Yellow pine, and son's request - painted. If either kid had wanted a nice bed, I'd have made them one of cherry and finished it clear or stained, but no - they demanded paint. White and gray.

I told Bill i'd time a few things. If I don't get this physical interaction with the wood, I resent it and would find the way a lot of people like to work kind of boring, and probably just resort to screwing things together and using biscuits and such.. and then I'd stop woodworking.






These are 8 foot long 2Xs - this is the only time I ever use mill planed anything, but I'd use full 2x rough if anyone actually had it cheaper.

5 minutes to rip each. The real point of the pictures is the level of finish on the boards. These aren't overly carefully ripped, they're just ripped right to the marked line - it's where I'm at reflexively, and since I don't have a good tablesaw (just a bosch site saw), I can actually rip more accurately than the bosch saw, especially with anything that has tension.

One of the other things Bill gives me some static about is talking about how pointless shooting everything is if you can get past it. I mentioned that for drawer ends, I mark the ends off of an edge, and then mark the base lines, off of the edge and cut off the ends. There's no shooting anything. You plane what little fuzz there is off of the drawer ends after the drawer is assembled. There is no real error in this - the level of accuracy is a matter of several thousandths, it's more dependent on marking right.

Any significant use of the shooting board is more an invitation to figure out what's being done that could be taken up by more skill. Like sawing to a line and being able to get maybe better accuracy than you can get off of a site chop saw (I have an old USA dewalt chop saw. I can't saw the ends as smooth, but I can saw them more accurately if that makes sense - its only dependent on marking).





The edges of those boards are sides or top rails on the bed, they ended up being mortise and tenon, but the boards have to be left long. There's one little teat left on the one board where the two saw cuts met from each end - other than that, there's only four or five plane shavings of material to remove, and since the dimensioning is accurate and I can feel square pretty well, the cuts are not out of square.

The things that start off needing a lot of checking suddenly go away by feel and what took 20 minutes to do in an iffy way soon takes 5.

But it doesn't take long to get there.

The cap iron is the missing link, because you can plane edges on even junky stuff like this with knots and have bright shiny wood without even actually smoothing (this will just be filled, sanded and painted, anyway, so it'll never get finish planed).




What's not obvious from the plane is that it's a coffin smoother, but it's set for a pretty healthy shaving. I figured a slightly heavier coffin smoother would be nice a long time ago and made this one (it's cocobolo - it wasn't as expensive back then). The iron that I used was a rare IH sorby that was a little too soft, and I ended up liking a stanley plane for smoothing better, so I relegated this plane to this kind of work - and then this past year, made a couple of tapered irons, so not it has a better iron in it.

I have a nifty marples 4 1/2 that would work for this, but on pine, which has a lot of friction like poplar would, it's just a lot less effort to use a wooden plane.

the last point in this is, I don't at this point have the power tools to do this kind of crude stuff quickly. My table saw isn't up to wood that needs to be constrained, and I don't have a power jointer. My thickness planer is a dewalt 734 - I use it every couple of years. I used it on this stuff after getting it from the store so as to whizz off all of the dents and scuzz, but I sure wasn't going to worry about jointing it. This wood moves too much to worry about that kind of accuracy, anyway - you need to be able to mark it where it needs to be accurate and then not be stuck needing it to be stable, which isn't much of an issue if you're using hand tools.

I'd rather have made a nice bed entirely out of cherry, but the kids like paint, and I really also like being able to make something quick for them, get it out, have the nice physically pleasant feel of woodworking - none of this is rushed, and none is slow, either - even if I don't care so much for this wood and its movement. And I like being able to make something they can beat on since they're young. The bottom part of my house is filthy - the top part is a museum. Wife and I are opposites. If I make something nice for the kids, she gets maniacal about how they have to "take care of it".

I made them beater guitars, too.


----------



## Joe1975 (19 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Trouble with these threads is what BucksDad earlier called the poor signal <> noise ratio, not to mention the "bloviation".  To which I'd add "over-thinking"  alternating with "under-thinking" and loads of pure BS.
> Ending up being completely useless and uninformative.
> Anyway the answer is 5 1/2! Which I said right at the beginning!


Brilliant comment!

I’m new to forums and threads as well as woodworking, I’m really grateful to those who genuinely offered their advice as it has been very helpful. This thread has largely gone off topic as far as I am concerned. I’m going to stop reading from now on because I think I have my answer.


----------



## Joe1975 (19 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> At any rate, the purpose of this thread for the OP - to find the next plane that would be a good fit - well taken care of. He got the right one and avoided the wrong one based on what he asked about.


That’s right, thank you


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (20 Nov 2022)

David wrote:
_Not everyone wants to build flat furniture …._

David, you make statements which are patently invented to anyone who has read my contributions on the fori. The reason you are irked with me is simply because I was one of several who complained on WoodCentral forum that your lengthy and compulsive posts about steel have taken over the Handtool forum (any similarity to your style here?!). I suggested the start of a separate forum for metal work. You had a hissy fit, and left (later returned as you cannot stay away … which you have done on this forum at least once as well).

Now you say I only build flat furniture, which is intended as a derogatory remark (there is nothing wrong with flat work - most furniture is flat work). I build all sorts of furniture. Here are three pieces which are not flat. I challenge you to post any three pieces of furniture. Not solid body guitars, but furniture pieces that require concentration and dedication to build and complete - planing a few boards is not the same. I do not doubt that you have the hand skills to do so, but I have not seen any evidence of furniture making outside one bookcase and a kitchen (which I think took you 3 years). Talk to us about how to build furniture once you have spent the time do so for extended periods of time, with all the joint-making and myriad of components and tasks which are involved. These require frequent shifting of goals. I am not sure you are up to this.

This chest features bow-front drawers and tapered sides ..






All the drawers feature compound dovetails …











This is a hand built copy of Hans Wegner’s “The Chair” …











Alongside an original chair …






Bow-fronted side table with compound dovetail drawers set in a mitred- through dovetail case ….











All of these pieces won awards in competitions. I have a bunch more I can show. You can just produce three.

David wrote:
_One of the other things Bill gives me some static about is talking about how pointless shooting everything is if you can get past it. I mentioned that for drawer ends, I mark the ends off of an edge, and then mark the base lines, off of the edge and cut off the ends. There's no shooting anything. You plane what little fuzz there is off of the drawer ends after the drawer is assembled. There is no real error in this - the level of accuracy is a matter of several thousandths, it's more dependent on marking right._

Lastly, your comments about a shooting board indicate that you do not make drawers, or that the drawers you make are not fitted with an attempt at precision.

I thank you for educating us on the chipbreaker (that is, explaining how it works), but do not tell me how to make furniture. I thank you for demonstrating your methods for planing, but don’t make derogatory remarks to those who may do it differently.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Ttrees (20 Nov 2022)

Might as well ask a related query here, since this thread has hinted strongly into some sort of thread regarding volume work.
Just wondering if the mouth on those premium ductile planes is rather tight with those thicker irons, compared a to say a Bailey pattern from the mid century (golden age to some)
Hard to get an impression as I don't see many folks plane thicker shavings with these planes, suppose most folk who can afford those, end up going a bit more professional than I could ever afford.
I try and steer clear from those universal motors if I can help it, well noisy ones anyway, and electrical plus other involved factors concerning not puttin up de rent,
constraints getting anything decent,
so my bench is treated as a surface planer bed for my own fussy work.
(fussy alter bench person talking here)
The 5 1/2 is unmatched for the task, and nearly too long, _but not quite! _
Just even holding the 5 seems like an ice skate by comparison to me_,_

Perhaps I should have taken that one from the folks aswell,
as it would stop my sleeve getting trapped under the heel of my cheapie no.4.
I never liked nor valued the four until I learned _how to set a cap iron correctly,
which David has multiple threads from,_
I learned this from his woodcentral article, although I don't think David was pleased about it, *I found it quick and concise.*
so I bought another nice vintage one for twenty quid after, for smoothing.
(Yet still only a_ handful _of folks on YT giving you the whole picture regarding this)
I suggest seeing the proof of those _straightened shavings_ if you wish to learn
It's an easy way for a newcomer to spot_ specifically _this _._
Should you not ha_v_e any strong opinion of any folks on yt, (yet)
it would be a great start after a taste of the very seldom bit from Cosman's method _that he will show ya_, (one single video on YT has some good _hints_, that's it.
Then there's Charlesworth's videos, which is where the stopped sha_v_ings comments
have came from_._
I strongly suggest watching some of those for some hints regarding precision,
not the plane setup, but the _use of thereafter._
as it's the best information you might find regarding some techniques which you are bound to use_.
the definition of a straight edge and getting there using stopped shavings,_

Choose your poison after you've got more of an opinion,
which likely matches with what you're doing.

Good luck should you go shopping for vintage.
Tom


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (20 Nov 2022)

Ttrees said:


> me work.
> Just wondering if the mouth on those premium ductile planes is rather tight with those thicker irons, compared a to say a Bailey pattern from the mid century (golden age to some)



Quick answer, Tom:

The LN, Clifton, and Veritas planes are built around the blade thickness, as are the Stanley and Record. All have adjustable frogs, which means you can adjust the mouth size to be as wide or as tight as needed. As you likely are aware, closed up chipbreakers can block the escapement if the mouth is tight. Such planes need mouths wide enough to permit shavings to pass. Opening the mouth does not degrade the performance of the plane set up this way.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Ttrees (20 Nov 2022)

@Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) I never measured my Bailey's mouth, so am guilty of laziness, but do have a good piccy of a dense exampe of iroko with about the thickest shaving I can take, not the lighter examples of the stuff where one could get much thicker shavings using a different plane or whatever.
Just a guess on my part, but these denser examples seems to be a bit similar to some common found hardwoods over there.
I've seen you make some good articles on the subject of cap irons...
(one of the few good resourses BTW for Joe or whomever to study)
but what I can recall has been concerning smoothing difficult timbers,
and wondering if you've got a few shots of dimensioning stuff which was too short for the beds of the machines.
Just trying to get an idea whether this is all in my head, which is easy disproved with a side by side vintage vs (dare I say) premium, ductile iron Bailey plane, 
with the evidence to see if one takes a heftier shaving with less effort.
not wanting to get into a weightlifting discussion as I've not held one, 
nor weighed either of my no.5 1/2's.

Would be interesting to see if anyone else has done a side by side.

Thanks
Tom


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (20 Nov 2022)

Ttrees said:


> what I can recall has been concerning smoothing difficult timbers,
> and wondering if you've got a few shots of dimensioning stuff which was too short for the beds of the machines.
> Just trying to get an idea whether this is all in my head, which is easy disproved with a side by side vintage vs (dare I say) premium, ductile iron Bailey plane,


Smoothing Tasmanian Oak (a Eucalyptus) with a LN #4 1/2 and closed chipbreaker ...






Tom, it is not so much "dimensioning stuff too short for the beds of the machines", but dimensioning panels which are _too_ _wide_. That is a common issue.

I have a Hammer A3-31 jointer/thicknesser, which was purchased around 2012 or 2013. Before then, I relied on a tablesaw, 14" bandsaw and hand planes for all dimensioning.

Here are a few photos from the build of a blanket box ("kist"). The wood used was Fiddleback Marri, a West Australian timber - VERY interlocked and tough wood! The full article is here http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Furniture/Kist.html

Note that this build was in 2013, just as we were exploring the use of a chipbreaker. A dreaded Veritas BU Smoother was used to finish the panels (and we all know that one does not work). The grunt work was with another dreaded plane, the Veritas LA Jack, used for traversing (!! we all have been told that this is a no-no), and flattening was done with a single iron high angle jointer I build (again, we know these do not work).

_The point I wish to make is that, while a closed up chipbreaker is something I now prefer using, because it does control tearout better than high cutting angles, this is really only apparent on the more extreme examples of interlocked grain. The moderate - moderate-severe examples are worked pretty well with a high cutting angle (60 degrees)._

Extract:

The boards all had significant cup and twist, and to retain the maximum thickness the boards were sawn into shorter and narrower lengths, jointed on one side, and then resawn and thicknessed to 3/4" (what is saved from this process runs from 1/4" - 1/2" and will be used for the lower shelf and, possibly, drawers).








This all sounds quite standard and, indeed, this preliminary work was done on machinery, however it was not straight forward. Curly Marri is very hard and the grain is extensively interlocked. My 8" jointer struggled, and stalled at times. The lunchbox thicknesser left noticeable tearout. And I began to ask myself whether I should just burn the boards instead of building with them.

“Ordinary” Marri is not as hard as Jarrah, and it is not as abrasive. However the colour can vary quite a bit, and there are pockets of resin that dry and fall out leaving voids. These voids are not attractive, and it is usual to fill them with black-tinted resin. This is “Curly” Marri. It is harder to match boards. Not only does one need to match for colour, but for figure and for curl direction. It is like working in 3-D rather than 2-D.


The sawing and jointing took one weekend. This past weekend I glued up panels on Saturday, and then began planing then to final thickness on Sunday. Here are a few photos ...

Traversing ..







Checking for twist ...








My secret weapon - flattening with a 36" heavy Jarrah jointer with a 3" wide Berg blade ...






Smoothing ... aaahhh, as the curl becomes clear we see what all the fuss was about ...








The grain switches back-and-forth. Some tearout is inevitable.


Here's an example of the tearout that occurs with little warning. The only possible (?) tell is that the grain changes direction in this area - but it changes direction like that elsewhere without similar results ...






Here is closer look at some of the curl. Some of it, like this, is quite raised. And it makes it difficult to traverse across the grain as it can still tearout (picture taken after the above tearout was smoothed with a cabinet scraper) ...





Out come the cabinet scrapers ..






Final piece ...







For fun, a recent example of working with a board that cannot fit on or in a machine: I was approached to teach a local woodworker how to plane down a Fiddleback Jarrah panel he planned to build into a table. The panel had a serious cup through the centre. This was removed traversing with a jack plane (Stanley #605) and then planing down the centre with my 36" wooden jointer (as above). Daniel had little experience with hand planes before this day. Here he is smoothing the panel with a LN #4 1/2 set with a closed chipbreaker ...






Incidentally, the chest of drawers ("Lingerie Chest") in an earlier photo started life as a rough sawn board 11 1/2" wide and 2" thick. This was flattened with a jack plane ...






... before re-sawing on a bandsaw ...






More traversing (the start of a bow-fronted apothecary chest, below). This time Black Walnut from the USA. This is so easy to work compared with Oz timbers ...
















More of the "flat furniture" which David accuses me of ...












Again the point is that I really doubt that any woodworkers today would work with just hand planes if they are serious about building furniture in a reasonable period of time. A combination of power and hand is inevitable for hand tool-orientated furniture makers.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jameshow (20 Nov 2022)

Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) said:


> Smoothing Tasmanian Oak (a Eucalyptus) with a LN #4 1/2 and closed chipbreaker ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Love the 36" heavy Jarrah jointer! 

Amazing work!!


----------



## frankederveen (20 Nov 2022)

‘ve got a nice LN 5 1/2 but almost always grab my old Stanley #7. It’s about the same weight and seems to glide smoother. Works fine for smaller stuff too. If I could have just one it would be #7.

I do like Jacob’s comment about using whichever one is sharpest


----------



## Jacob (20 Nov 2022)

G S Haydon said:


> Typical Sharpening of a Rip Saw
> 
> Here are a few of David's videos. I turn to him for advice on hand tools. Even after being a professional Joiner for over 25 years I find David's understanding of the nuances of hand tools well beyond mind.
> 
> That doesn't mean you have to copy and paste his methods, I don't. But he has significantly influenced my method.



Don't want to get dragged into the swamp of bloviation - once in it's difficult to get out!
But I did sneak a look at the first vid. Wife was watching cr*p on the telly so I thought I'd do similar with my laptop and earphones.
That's _*not*_ how you join two boards to make one. At the very least you would plane best face and one square edge on each board, _before_ attempting to join them, for a number of very good reasons.
Seems to struggle with the plane somewhat, maybe needs a squiggle of candle on the sole.
Also it's about 25 minutes too long.
I'll give it 3/10 for effort!
Trying to avoid the temptation of looking at the others - I sense a car crash. 
PS had a look at the "short"  dimensioning vid. About 30 minutes too long. Didn't have much to say of interest. 3/10 must try harder!
PS changed my mind. To be realistic there was absolutely nothing in the video worth watching. No help even for a total beginner. 0/10


----------



## Jacob (20 Nov 2022)

Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) said:


> .............
> 
> 
> Again the point is that I really doubt that any woodworkers today would work with just hand planes if they are serious about building furniture in a reasonable period of time. A combination of power and hand is inevitable for hand tool-orientated furniture makers.
> ...


Actually a powerful combination - even for a committed machine user, having hand tool skills can save the day.


----------



## Hornbeam (20 Nov 2022)

I make furniture and have a fully kitted out workshop, so my views are based on what I consider the most effective method to prepare rough sawn timber to finished dimensions. That does mean that I use a planer and thicknesser before hand planing. However some boards are too wide and occasionally have to be hand planed. Because I dont do this rough planing that often I am not as skilled in it as others might be
I find some peoples views fall into what I would term "tool afficionado" rather than practical making experience
I am not interested in whether I can get the last gnats bit of performance out of a hand tool. I just want to get it working well and practical
Some people are also much more physical than others, so a small lady would generally be better off with smaller handles and smaller tools such as a No. 5
I wish people would take a more pragmatic and less self rightous approach
It is clear from Dereks posts that he has outstanding skills in hand tool use and actually makes excellent furniture.


----------



## Ollie78 (20 Nov 2022)

Hornbeam said:


> I make furniture and have a fully kitted out workshop, so my views are based on what I consider the most effective method to prepare rough sawn timber to finished dimensions. That does mean that I use a planer and thicknesser before hand planing. However some boards are too wide and occasionally have to be hand planed. Because I dont do this rough planing that often I am not as skilled in it as others might be
> I find some peoples views fall into what I would term "tool afficionado" rather than practical making experience
> I am not interested in whether I can get the last gnats bit of performance out of a hand tool. I just want to get it working well and practical
> Some people are also much more physical than others, so a small lady would generally be better off with smaller handles and smaller tools such as a No. 5
> ...


I agree entirely with this. 
Most people, including me are trying to get the job done as efficiently as possible. Using every tool available to do it. 

Ollie


----------



## Bojam (20 Nov 2022)

Hornbeam said:


> It is clear from Dereks posts that he has outstanding skills in hand tool use and actually makes excellent furniture.



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Jacob (20 Nov 2022)

Hornbeam said:


> ..... However some boards are too wide and occasionally have to be hand planed. .....


Or too long to manhandle in a controlled way over a planer. In my case some 14ft 4x4" newel posts - hand plane and square two sides, through the thicknesser and over some rollers for the other two sides.


----------



## G S Haydon (20 Nov 2022)

Joe1975 said:


> Please help me decide.
> 
> There’s not a huge difference in price between these planes, but I can only afford one. I will purchase a low angle block plane as well, and already have an old Stanley No.4. The three planes will have to do for now.
> 
> ...


Bailey 5 1/2 from eBay. Usually less than £50.

Thought I better check what the point of the thread was


----------



## D_W (20 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Don't want to get dragged into the swamp of bloviation - once in it's difficult to get out!
> But I did sneak a look at the first vid. Wife was watching cr*p on the telly so I thought I'd do similar with my laptop and earphones.
> That's _*not*_ how you join two boards to make one. At the very least you would plane best face and one square edge on each board, _before_ attempting to join them, for a number of very good reasons.
> Seems to struggle with the plane somewhat, maybe needs a squiggle of candle on the sole.
> ...



All nonsense, Jacob. The more you mention what we would do with hand tools, the less I think you've done. The bit about having to square the edges individually and plane a face before joining is comedy club worthy.


----------



## Jameshow (20 Nov 2022)

60 X 3Mm Blade Fore Plane No. 6 465991 PT | eBay


Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for 60 X 3Mm Blade Fore Plane No. 6 465991 PT at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products.



www.ebay.co.uk





£23 gotta be worth a punt!!


----------



## D_W (20 Nov 2022)

Ttrees said:


> I learned this from his woodcentral article, although I don't think David was pleased about it, *I found it quick and concise.*



If you mean the article, I wrote the text for it because I posted a whole bunch about using cap irons shortly before the K&K video came out. It got no traction, and then when Bill T and Steve dug up the video, suddenly the Chris Schwartzs of the world started wanting to be the expert on it and people were saying all kinds of nonsense, like making shims to set the cap iron, and some other self appointed experts wanted to describe a week after they picked it up what it would or wouldn't do (let's call it having trouble of letting go of advice on buying a bunch of varying bed angle tools or maybe just not being very good at first at setting the cap). 

I rushed to write the core part of the article so that it would be out before Chris Schwartz and other "I'll try this once and write a book about it" guys started polluting everything 

Here's the part that I didn't notice - Ellis was the editor of the article. He wanted to include credit for everyone in it. I wanted to include credit for Steve and Bill digging the video up and getting actual rights from a university in Japan to show it. I also wanted to use the video as proof that it works because before it came along, I posted that I was wrong about high angle planes, described setting the cap iron and it didn't get very far (warren noticed it, though - when he came to my shop earlier this year, he asked if I still had the millers falls 9 that I posted about). 

What ended up happening with the article is it got twisted to make it out like the cap iron is learned by watching the video and thus based on it. I asked ellis to plane further on the picture that he made of mahogany, because I figured it might get read a few thousand times and internet cranks would focus on it. Ellis was delighted that he could basically read the article while editing it and get that far ahead of where he'd been without it, so I let it slide. I either let the last part of the article slide about the substance being based on the video or I didn't read it at all in one of the levels of edit. 

So for a decade now, I've been wondering why people tell me "you learned to use the cap iron from the video" when the timeline is available in the WC archives *if one could actually find it*. Warren is a master at searching the archives - I find them difficult to navigate. 

There'd be no difference in what I'm doing or what you're doing had the video not existed, it just catches the 95% who really aren't going to read or try anything, but will see the video and say "there, it works!". 

The trouble with it is the next step is "there, it says 80 degrees, and 8 thousandths, so now we need to make a jig to set the cap". 

(I don't have the millers falls 9. I was argumentative before that article, too, because it seems like people won't really tell you much of what they know until you get the flow going in a productive spat - far different than unproductive. Ellis made the article writing more work than I really wanted to by continuing to edit for readability, but I'm sure that helped it. I made a mistake being agreeable about points - one I wouldn't make again. It would have no mention other than Steve and Bill T, either - I was impressed that they would bother to go find something that neither even uses, and figure out how to converse with professors who don't speak english. It's not like it took them a day or a week to find that. )


----------



## D_W (20 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> 60 X 3Mm Blade Fore Plane No. 6 465991 PT | eBay
> 
> 
> Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for 60 X 3Mm Blade Fore Plane No. 6 465991 PT at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products.
> ...



It could probably be made usable, but if it's not right out of the box, you might regret it. 

What does a stanley 5 1/2 or 6 cost outright on ebay based on recent completed sales? 50 pounds?


----------



## D_W (20 Nov 2022)

Hornbeam said:


> I make furniture and have a fully kitted out workshop, so my views are based on what I consider the most effective method to prepare rough sawn timber to finished dimensions. That does mean that I use a planer and thicknesser before hand planing. However some boards are too wide and occasionally have to be hand planed. Because I dont do this rough planing that often I am not as skilled in it as others might be
> I find some peoples views fall into what I would term "tool afficionado" rather than practical making experience
> I am not interested in whether I can get the last gnats bit of performance out of a hand tool. I just want to get it working well and practical
> Some people are also much more physical than others, so a small lady would generally be better off with smaller handles and smaller tools such as a No. 5
> ...



Here's one thing that seems to come up over and over. If you don't want to work entirely by hand, that's fine. If I post about working entirely by hand, it always seems to bring up the idea that you can't make enough with it and people either get defensive or they're lobbying for their case - like consensus building. 

In the last 10 years, I've burned through about 2000 board feet of wood, I've made somewhere around 100 planes, 150 chisels, 10 guitars, 100 plane irons and 20 knives and redid my kitchen (With some of that 2000 board feet of wood) and more than half of it was hand dimensioned only). Derek for some reason likes to tout that I'm not making anything, or in his words, he referred to me as a reenactor and then at another time "i make simple things, derek makes complicated things". 

I've bit my lip for years as in my opinion, there is an enormous divide between the work that's on the andersen and stauffer page and derek's. Derek executes joints. If you asked what I thought about it, I would say it looks like a display of joints, but often it's flat and blocky or there's a strange and unappealing mix of curves and straight parts and things that look undone. The round faced chest is overly round on the front and then abruptly flat on the sides and back and with thick exposed dovetails showing at the top. It's begging for something that goes beyond just how fast can you get the flat work through a machine and "you couldn't do it by hand". 

I could be wrong, but I think one working entirely by hand would struggle to be stuck there because you would have more time and more freedom in how you would lay things out and maybe you'd never get to andersen and stauffer even after 30 years, but you would sure be drawn into more like it and want to get there. 

When I first learned to do dovetails, I wanted to leave them exposed, but it didn't last long. I couldn't tolerate the aesthetic. 

Look at the mouldings on this chest:





Andersen & Stauffer Furniture Makers : Highchests & Dressign Tables : Marshall High Chest


At Andersen and Stauffer, we create authentic copies of 17th, 18th, and early 19th century American antiques. Founders Alan Andersen and Tom Stauffer have been working with wood for as long as they've been able to hold hammers. Together, our team develops and perfects techniques to construct...




www.andersenandstauffer.com





AT first, you may find this level of detail overdone or stodgy - I did. I fell into the "I really like shaker furniture" bits to start and thought some of the other later machine stuff was interesting. I don't know what happened to my eye over time. If my eyes and brain are good enough, I'll give this stuff a shot in about 10 years when I retire. I think at some point, you start noticing proportions and asking questions - like why does the round faced chest look awkward when you get past the initial part of it's neatly executed - because if you're going to make the same thing, you have more than just the obligation of executing - you owe it to yourself to make it look as nice as possible, and that very well can and almost always will be making mouldings or hiding joints and focusing more on general lines and not breaking classical design rules, like having curves and flat areas meet abruptly. 

I made less stuff when I had a mostly power tool shop, and a good friend of mine who has a power tool shop to die for makes about 1/4th the volume that I do. It's not the lack of tools, it's that he won't be drawn to the shop. 

I'm interested in building by hand. You may not be, and you shouldn't feel like you're obligated to lobby or defend against the idea that someone else can. 

If I built only furniture, I'd have either gone into the weeds trying to move up the chain to stuff like the A&S pages of wares, or I'd have blown through so much wood that I wouldn't have a place to put the furniture. That's already I problem - there is no more space in my house to put furniture in the upstairs without taking others out, and that seems like running around a track. 

I doubt that power tool or not makes much of a difference on the A&S stuff. If you had some friends who wanted you to make 10 square nightstands with dovetail joints, all much the same with all flat bits, I could see it making a big difference, but with most folks like that (at least like many here, including my wife's friends who often say "would you make a piece of furniture for us?", if it were connected underneath with kreg jig screws, they wouldn't notice the difference or care. I always decline making furniture for anyone who asks. I will often make tools and give them away or sell them for the cost of materials. 

What I don't do is take pictures of every single project - I think it's kind of pointless. I don't have videos about making guitars, though I think I could probably make decent ones if I had to now. There's plenty of that out there already. What isn't out there with much accuracy is how to use hand tools if that's all you want to use.


----------



## Jacob (20 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> ....
> ..... my wife's friends who often say "would you make a piece of furniture for us?", if it were connected underneath with kreg jig screws, they wouldn't notice the difference or care. I always decline making furniture for anyone who asks. .....


What, because your quality of work is just too good for them?  
I think you need the practice - put your money where your mouth is!


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (20 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> Derek for some reason likes to tout that I'm not making anything, or in his words, he referred to me as a reenactor and then at another time "i make simple things, derek makes complicated things"



No David, I did not say this. I said that you don't make furniture. You have a lot to say about my furniture, joinery and designs when you have not made anything in this vein. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (20 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> I've bit my lip for years as in my opinion, there is an enormous divide between the work that's on the andersen and stauffer page and derek's.



Just noticed this. So you want to compare me to professionals who make high end reproduction furniture? Why not compare me to the genre I cover - contemporary. Still, I am not sure whether to be impressed or consider you twisted since I consider myself just an amateur.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (20 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> What because your quality of work is just too good for them?
> I think you need the practice - put your money where your mouth is!



Because it's pointless to make furniture for people who don't really appreciate furniture. The case is usually wanting something that could be found used and repaired, with the idea "you're already woodworking, so just make something for me". 

All you have to do is give a ballpark figure for stock costs and it usually causes pause. What is the stock cost for a nice chest of drawers in all solid? $600. 

I don't know why you wouldn't be familiar with this - it looks like you attempted to make plain furniture at the end of your run and gave up on it. Imagine if your market was limited then to just your friends. 

There are things I can do well enough that I don't have to waste my time with that, and the offer to help them buy and restore something usually doesn't get taken up because that involves effort on their part. I would help with that. Makes little sense for me to make furniture for people who don't like it that much who think $600 is sort of being put out as a "friend" ("couldn't you make it cheaper? that seems like a lot") when there's often something suitable on FB or craigslist for $100 that needs very little. 

I will make tools for professionals at this point, but that's about it. I've started to get introduction to fine furniture makers who want something unusual because they saw tools I made for someone else. 
---------------------------------------
Separately - I hope someone tracks down something in old texts (before 1900) about match planing or bookmatching pieces to see how far off you are. I haven't read about the process, but vaguely recall Warren Mickley saying "we would join the wood first and do the rest of the steps later". What you relayed is something power tool folks would want to follow - it's a waste of time and effort to do ahead of time and the age old "you have to see which way the grain goes" thing is another power tooler's folly. You pick boards on aesthetics, which if they are well matched, can usually be done without facing anything, and you join the edges from rough. I think that whole process and how little there was too it went right over your head, all the way down to why you'd tolerate a little extra resistance from the cap iron to make sure the joint was invisible from top to bottom and end to end. 

This stuff is a lot like golf. I played golf when I was young - kind of lost the taste for it as a time waster. There are a lot of armchair experts at golf who talk about how it's really simple for the better players, and this or that. And a lot of people have played mini golf and gone to the driving range, so they also become self appointed experts and they know if they just played a little more, they could be a +2. Except when you go and play with the guys who "make everything look simple" and you start asking for their thoughts in various spots and various shots, you find out some things matter that you didn't think did - and maybe a whole lot, and others are off base. 

I could never tell for sure which one of those Warren was. I've seen some of his work now, and I've seen some of his shop - he is a finer worker than he lets on, and he does exactly what he says and works in a shop that's exactly what he says it is. I regret giving him some grief for not showing more proof, but have always been a little wary because even though he doesn't disclose much, I usually find out what he says is true - the burden is to figure it out. 

If you ask me my honest opinion about what I gather from you? I think you started using hand tools a little bit when you retired, maybe you did when you started, but I don't think you ever did much of this stuff entirely by hand - maybe not any. I think it's a shame for the folks who pop by here who have an honest question to ask and assume that the assertion of experience is the same as actual experience. There are George Wilsons and Warren Mickley and Custards around, but they never seem to stay on the forums.

The reason for the jointing video is simple - I made the comment that you can join two boards as cleanly as you'll find anywhere without resorting to a bunch of checking and in the process of jointing the edges. It shows that. It seems to be over the head of a lot of armchair experts. It's kind of a shame because everyone here could do the same thing and people just starting out could be at this point within a couple of months and actually get past a lot of this. But if they start facing boards and planing edges needlessly, and trying to sort things like grain direction instead of aesthetics, they're doomed from the start.


----------



## Hornbeam (20 Nov 2022)

I have come to the view that this post has become one person trying to justify their views and getting quite personal
Regarding the original question, I stay with the 5 1/2
Regarding understanding the real differences, the only real way of finding out would be an reasonable trial period with all to compare. I suspect that quite a few have done this and come to our own conclusions. I do not see how anybody who hasnt used all 3 can make a reasonable comparison
Out


----------



## Jacob (20 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> .......
> 
> The reason for the jointing video is simple - I made the comment that you can join two boards as cleanly as you'll find anywhere without resorting to a bunch of checking and in the process of jointing the edges. It shows that. It seems to be over the head of a lot of armchair experts. It's kind of a shame because everyone here could do the same thing and people just starting out could be at this point within a couple of months and actually get past a lot of this. But if they start facing boards and planing edges needlessly, and trying to sort things like grain direction instead of aesthetics, they're doomed from the start.


The Bloviator strikes back! 
The mistake you made is to join the boards before you planed them. Your way just makes the job much more difficult.
You just need more practice - and if you made some bits of furniture instead of typing frantically all day, you might find somebody who wants to buy them instead of dismissing them all as tasteless idiots - a very feeble excuse!


----------



## Jameshow (20 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> Because it's pointless to make furniture for people who don't really appreciate furniture. The case is usually wanting something that could be found used and repaired, with the idea "you're already woodworking, so just make something for me".
> 
> All you have to do is give a ballpark figure for stock costs and it usually causes pause. What is the stock cost for a nice chest of drawers in all solid? $600.
> 
> ...



Why not stick to tool making David, where you excell rathe than commentating on furniture design and making?


----------



## D_W (20 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Why not stick to tool making David, where you excell rathe than commentating on furniture design and making?



This is the first time I've probably ever said that. I do like furniture design because it's not really just furniture design - it actually appears in the tools at the time, too. The classical design rules are kind of important because they aren't just rules that apply to furniture or tools or whatever else. They'll even help you figure out why when you look at some guitars, they look funny, and why some - even plain ones (like a fender stratocaster or a les paul) don't look funny, even though the strat itself is very plain. 

The reason neither of those fairly basic guitars look funny is because fender and gibson both hired or staffed designers to make sure they didn't violate simple things that make for awkwardness. There are later 70s and 80s cut budget designs in the US that look really dated now, and probably looked odd at the time, but maybe edgy. It turns out, they weren't professionally designed and some of the straight lines melding with curves were early attempts at making everything on CNC. They are technically just as good as a gibson les paul, but I would've and did - think they didn't look as good but didn't know why back when I was playing a lot of guitar and not building anything. Knowing why they don't look right helps avoid sinking time into making something like them as well as possible only to have it look awkward. 

Design doesn't have to be fancy. This is one of the things that doesn't get talked about much, and it's why some of derek's tool handles look funny and mine don't. It's a missed opportunity. We all seem to miss it because any time someone critiques design on a forum, the experienced folks shy away knowing that there will be a flood of "yeah, well design is all opinion, so your opinion is just arrogant!". 

Rob cosman's furniture shows the same issues -it's very tidy but blocky and with weird proportions. Those are things that shouldn't bother anyone early on, but we should have our eye on them from the start. You can't just make perfect furniture in every aspect in the first three months, but I remember Warren making a point on another forum that I found kind of difficult (because it seems like a burden), in that an apprentice in the 18th century would be fed a big dose on design while they were learning fundamental competence in using the tools. We seem to have fallen into a trap where we think "first you get really good at the dovetails, then you get really good at mortise and tenon, and ...." and way later, we'll see if the proportions are striking because that seems too nebulous and it's sometimes arduous to think through, and even worse, it often forces making something a second time to improve the aesthetic bits that didn't turn out that great the first time. 

It's largely excluded from forum discussions because there is no separate place where people will have thick enough skin to soak in design criticism, and because sometimes you make something where design isn't the focus because it's not supposed to be an heirloom piece and if you even so much as say that out loud, it causes peoples' oppositional nature to be "well, you mentioned design. You still could've made the design better by ___________"

I cannot design things without stealing elements, but I had a couple of saw handles that looked a little off early on, and plane eyes, and other things, and luckily, George Wilson will more or less give you free advice if you'll swallow pride and take it. Not having curves and straight lines crash together is one of those things. 

I think it's fair to say also that a lot of people on forums don't really want to be burdened with chasing anything in the first place - sometimes a hobby is just what golf is to me at this point. I'll play it. I have no interest in making getting better at it a focus - but I guess it's also fair to say, I have no interest in getting online and talking about it either, and there's probably a lot of people doing it.


----------



## D_W (20 Nov 2022)

Hornbeam said:


> I have come to the view that this post has become one person trying to justify their views and getting quite personal
> Regarding the original question, I stay with the 5 1/2
> Regarding understanding the real differences, the only real way of finding out would be an reasonable trial period with all to compare. I suspect that quite a few have done this and come to our own conclusions. I do not see how anybody who hasnt used all 3 can make a reasonable comparison
> Out



I haven't seen evidence that many people have made an effort in earnest working by hand. 

I've said elsewhere on here, I think probably 5% of people might like to do it and find it more rewarding, and some people who get bored with making would find working by hand interesting enough that they wouldn't just build a big nest of a power tool shop and not go in it. 

Getting coarse, fine and whatever the text that Chris Schwarz wrote (or DVD) or learning to plane from paul sellers isn't an earnest effort at working by hand. 

The forums are pretty devoid of it and you can't make any real progress into it, all the way down to sharpening saws. How long does it take to sharpen a saw? A couple of minutes. 

"You have to joint the edge or the teeth will get out of place!" 

No, they won't. 

I have seen only two people talking about making things by hand who actually discuss this kind of thing. I thought it was reenacting at first. No part of anything that I said here or anywhere else is "the other 95% should move into the 5%, too". It seems more like a bunch of people who don't know what they're talking about find comfort in being in the 95% because they can build consensus, and make sure that if someone else would like to do the 5% path, they can find more support for why it's "insanity" (charlesworth's words). 

Any actual critical discussion can be dismissed as someone just being difficult for no reason then, and everyone misses an opportunity to pull something useful out. 

I started all power tools, so it's not like I've got no experience with it. I do have a lot of experience with finding little clear cut anything when realizing that I liked working by hand better. Where my path diverged was just at the point where I was going to go one of three ways:
1) spend about $20k on power tools to level up (which wouldn't have been a big deal, but the space and work to set everything up and get dust collection in place would not have been minimal work)
2) quit woodworking and do something else
3) give it a shot working by hand - but starting from the wrong place assuming it was the right one

I slowly chose 3.

I don't expect this to ever really be a forum thing, either - people don't do it, people won't do it, but everyone's sure they know about it without doing it. The level of woodwork on the forums used to be more varied - lots of beginners and some fine woodworkers. The fine workers are gone and what remains is a more concentrated manufactured alternate reality of hobby woodworking - everyone "does it like this" and few people show their work - especially in this section. 

Guaranteed for sure that if you talk about aspects of tool making on a hand tools forum, someone who is self appointed and maybe not getting as much attention with their posts as they want will complain about it, too. The aspects of making hand tools being off limits in hand tool forums is really an odd concept, especially in subtopics going nowhere. This forum has declined in the HT side, but the general woodworking and "what did you make today" remains strong. The forum where the cap iron discussion bloomed out of is essentially dead, and the blue forum in the US has gone backwards and the owner likes it that way because it's good for the forum.


----------



## Jacob (20 Nov 2022)

Trying to be helpful here D_W.
Why don't you have a go at making some furniture? Lots of people on here doing it and you'd get loads of advice. You seem keen but you are getting left behind. It's never too late to start!

Have to comment on your vid; it says nothing which couldn't be said in one sentence.
This is the sentence:
"To thickness a piece of wood, plane one side flat, mark the desired thickness around with a marking gauge, and plane the other side down to the line."
Takes a few seconds to read that and doesn't need a half hour vid with somebody rambling on incoherently in the background.

I'd also suggest another credibility move; give up the search for the steel of excalibur! I think it's gone the way of your unicorn sharpening method. 

A good furniture starter is the nice little Chris Schwarz shaker table, which everybody else seems to have made. I've actually sold a few myself. It's a good exercise and being small doesn't risk spoiling much wood. You could do it entirely by hand, no prob. You can probably find the design on line - it started life as an article in his magazine, some years back.
Your wife's friends would probably buy one each!
PS here it is: https://www.popularwoodworking.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/HiRes-SEPT2004-Seg2.pdf
PPS and please don't bother replying to this with the usual 5 posts of 1000 words each.
Just do some woodwork and tell us (briefly) how you are getting on!

Looking forwards to the WIP!


----------



## Jacob (21 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Trying to be helpful here D_W.
> Why don't you have a go at making some furniture? Lots of people on here doing it and you'd get loads of advice. You seem keen but you are getting left behind. It's never too late to start!
> 
> Have to comment on your vid; it says nothing which couldn't be said in one sentence.
> ...


Phew! All quiet on the bloviator front! 
If you are still reading this D_W I'd add that I thought your rip saw sharpening vid was good, except I prefer filing alternately - one side and then the other. Just for balance - the filing imparts a tiny bit of "set" though I don't suppose it'd make much difference with a rip saw.
And your cap iron demo is OK too. Hardly original but that's OK.
You obviously could do the work if you tried, instead of playing the fantasy guru; annoying, insulting and boring the RRs off everybody.
Hope that helps.


----------



## thetyreman (21 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> 60 X 3Mm Blade Fore Plane No. 6 465991 PT | eBay
> 
> 
> Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for 60 X 3Mm Blade Fore Plane No. 6 465991 PT at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products.
> ...



no


----------



## Adam W. (21 Nov 2022)

What jolly japes.

@Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) Nice looking furniture there Derek.


----------



## Ttrees (21 Nov 2022)

Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) said:


> Quick answer, Tom:
> 
> The LN, Clifton, and Veritas planes are built around the blade thickness, as are the Stanley and Record. All have adjustable frogs, which means you can adjust the mouth size to be as wide or as tight as needed. As you likely are aware, closed up chipbreakers can block the escapement if the mouth is tight. Such planes need mouths wide enough to permit shavings to pass. Opening the mouth does not degrade the performance of the plane set up this way.
> 
> ...


I see some lovely furniture there Derek, but nice furniture doesn't answer the question,
of how thick of a shaving those premium bevel down double iron planes can take,
should someone be trying to decide whether to go to ebay or to buy a new ductile iron plane.
I see Daniel taking some smoothing shavings on a slab, of what looks to my eyes,
denser stuff than iroko, the shaving certainly suggests so. 

I was looking to see this but with something bit less dense, perhaps spotted gum or some other stuff which one can dial it up a little and take some thicker shavings, rather than be restricted from the get go with such a dense species.

I believe this question to be of use to someone who cannot choose between,
and wants as little planes to care for as possible.
My last post which seems to have started quite a scuffle, should perhaps shown 
a lesser dense example,
though I was trying to get across about the maximum for something dense,
where the no.5 1/2 shines, rather than something where one might say 
a woodie would be more suitable for that.


I'd like to be put right on my query,_ as for a designer on paper_....
very possible that the really really hefty double iron should come up trumps in 
a test of heavy work compared to a thin Stanley/Record

To my eyes it looks like one can achieve heavier shavings with a double iron woodie, than a Bailey, but I've never seen this translate to the same thing in the premium planes.

Not much importance to me, needing that extra percentage for my reclaimed timbers
but for some who want the least amount of tools,
the question might have some merit.

Cheers
Tom


----------



## D_W (21 Nov 2022)

Ttrees said:


> I see some lovely furniture there Derek, but nice furniture doesn't answer the question,
> of how thick of a shaving those premium bevel down double iron planes can take,
> should someone be trying to decide whether to go to ebay or to buy a new ductile iron plane.
> I see Daniel taking some smoothing shavings on a slab, of what looks to my eyes,
> ...



Thicker irons don't really translate to being able to take any more of anything in a typical plane, but they do feel like they're more solid. It's a transmission of feel rather than work done. 

I encountered this with LV planes (one being the custom 5 1/2, as mentioned, which in beech- not pine - could not get as much work done for a pair of reasons as a what-should-be much less capable beech plane with an old butcher iron). 

it is the case that you will get less in shaving thickness for same effort out of a metal plane, which is one of the bits of why the try plane was able to outwork a v11 equipped 5 1/2 - the plane itself is better designed (the try plane) for the work, and much less of the work that you do is turned into heat from handle rotation creating downforce on a metal plane. If you wax a metal plane, I would guess that the friction robs about 1/3rd of the efforts. If you don't wax it, more - and it clouds judgement about when a plane is getting dull. 

There is a point where wood is nasty, pounds the iron because it's poorly sawn, etc, where the metal planes become necessary at least for comfort, but it's usually a signal that a better wood could've been chosen. It's one part hardness and one part workability. Hard maple and heart beech are about the same hardness, and beech is longer wearing on the surface, but the structure of it somehow is more favorable planing. Neither is hard to plane in thin shavings, but jack plane work and sawing favor beech - maybe more jack plane than sawing - beech saws fine, but it's not fast sawing compared to easy sawing woods like mahogany or walnut. 

The easiest way to suss this stuff out is just to have one of each and measure the work you get done with them. There's no additional volume of work from LN or LV planes over a stanley, and no wood that a stanley can't handle that either of them can, but the fine fresh machining on the premium planes makes them higher in friction. 

I wouldn't want to go without four planes - metal stanley smoother (a coffin smoother is OK, but it's hard on the elbows in hardwoods), wooden jack, wooden try plane, metal jointer. Deviating from those will lead to more work, but the metal jointer is nice to have when you have wood with a lot of runout and you'll not be taking a heavy shaving because of that, anyway. 

LV sent me the plane to review - I think they would've been far better off copying stanley, but I relayed my preference to them. It was a nice gesture, but a burden to then have to test it in earnest and send it back given that it ended up not being something I'd want to keep. I sold it and donated the money. 

Still think their effort isn't wasted, we're all dead if we don't try new things. It just isn't a better plane than a stock stanley, and in my view, due to a couple of design deviations, not as good.


----------



## D_W (21 Nov 2022)

FTR - I actually tested the things above. None of it is supposition. The result was to end up using tools that I didn't expect to use because when you're a rank beginner, something like an english try plane that may not be well fitted or may not even have the original parts can seem very difficult to get to even get basic function. 

I think if one suffers through learning how the plane work and how they're fitted, it'll be useful more than just once, but I don't know how easy it is to fit a plane well if you're not making them. 

I'd equate trying a few different planes to something similar to a power tooler trying a couple of different power routers with different bases or controls, or trying a few different table saw blades if there was something specific you want. 

I guess it may be labeled as being fascinated with planes, but somehow trying several table saw blades to find one that you really like wouldn't be out of the ordinary. 

I can generally get along with any router because use is sparse and I don't demand much from one. Same thing. 

If you're going to work by hand, though, you have to figure out things like "should I get LN's mid sized/panel saws or an older disston" (definitely the latter, regardless of price), should I have 10 different sets of chisels from pigstickers to mini-butt and dovetail chisels in full sets or use one for nearly everything (the latter).


----------



## Jacob (21 Nov 2022)

Ttrees said:


> I see some lovely furniture there Derek, but nice furniture doesn't answer the question,
> of how thick of a shaving those premium bevel down double iron planes can take,
> should someone be trying to decide whether to go to ebay or to buy a new ductile iron plane.
> I see Daniel taking some smoothing shavings on a slab, of what looks to my eyes,
> ...


The whole point of the Stanley/Bailey design is that with a _*thin*_ blade it emulates the action of the older heavy bladed planes but with the huge advantages of ease of set, remove/replacement, sharpening, etc.
It does this very effectively which is why they are so popular and widely used. They win hands down, except for the disadvantage of greater weight. No contest!
n.b. there tends to be an emphasis at looking at shavings as a measure of performance. This is bonkers - you should get back to reality; look instead at the workpiece and the overall time/effort needed.


----------



## D_W (21 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> The whole point of the Stanley/Bailey design is that with a _*thin*_ blade it emulates the action of the older heavy bladed planes but with the huge advantages of ease of set, remove/replacement, sharpening, etc.
> It does this very effectively which is why they are so popular and widely used. They win hands down, except for the disadvantage of greater weight. No contest!
> n.b. there tends to be an emphasis at looking at shavings as a measure of performance. This is bonkers - you should get back to reality; look instead at the workpiece and the overall time/effort needed.


Shavings are a measure of performance. Understanding what to look for makes a big difference - they're not just an indicator by themselves but they provide significant information for several reasons - not the least of which is to confirm that when you're finish planing, you've covered the entire surface and there aren't significant areas of torn shavings corresponding with a surface that's not suitable for anything other than french polish. 

Weighing the shavings over a period of time comparing the same level of effort is enormously instructive. 

Saying the shavings have no information is like telling someone on a two man saw that the shavings from the log don't mean anything.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (21 Nov 2022)

Ttrees said:


> I see some lovely furniture there Derek, but nice furniture doesn't answer the question,
> of how thick of a shaving those premium bevel down double iron planes can take,
> should someone be trying to decide whether to go to ebay or to buy a new ductile iron plane.
> I see Daniel taking some smoothing shavings on a slab, of what looks to my eyes,
> ...



Tom, I was looking for shavings, but my collection of photos is more about what to do, or what was done, than showing shavings, per se (these are from furniture builds. I did the shaving thing in tool reviews).

I agree with others that a premium plane offers the same performance as a vintage Stanley ... with the provisor that the Stanley has been tuned up. This is partly what you get when purchasing a premium plane - they should all come with excellent fit and finish. But one still needs to set them up, sharpen the blades, etc ... the same as a Stanley. Whatever shaving thickness you will get with a Stanley you will get with a LN.

I see an irony in the way we prepare/sharpen the thick modern irons compared to the thin, vintage irons. Why irony? Because we have to find a way to turn the thick blades into thin blades. We do this by hollow grinding, or sharpening with a secondary bevel. This becomes especially relevant when the steel used is hard and abrasion-resistant. The thin Stanley blades can be hones on the full, and with relative little fuss.

There is an advantage of the thick, premium blades is that they do offer extra stability and a lower inclination to chatter, and overall they do hold an edge longer. A reasonable argument is that the thin, softer blades hone up faster. Choose your poison.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Ttrees (21 Nov 2022)

Not disagreeing whatsoever, I love my old Bailey's, and was wanting to
see comparison with the likes of a ductile iron version for potential buyers,
_thicker double iron, and more sensible totes/handles_,
to see whether these planes will take the same thickness shaving, as I haven't seen
someone working these premium planes doing heavier work with them,

This query is for those who have fat wallets/already have equipped workshops, or otherwise needing a plane which will likely be dropped for some bizarre reason,
perhaps a young chisler is about causing chaos, or for some wandering journyman.

Perhaps I'm off the mark, and someone can clarify if some find the mouth a bit small on the premium planes,
or infact perhaps have the opposite opinion, like what my perception that a "strange to me", woodie plane will take a heavier shaving, omitting the friction.

I made a big honking useless stainless steel rebate plane before which seemed similar, in that way. 
(Take some old fillister planes for example.)

Thanks
Tom


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (21 Nov 2022)

Tom, back when custom plane makers were focussed on single irons, rather than using double irons, the push was for small mouths.

Even the HNT Gordon woodies I have, which have 60 degree beds/cutting angles, have tiny mouths. The mouth size is irrelevant for this plane - as it is for a double iron plane with a closed chipbreaker - since the size of the mouth does not affect high cutting angles and closed chipbreakers. The exception here is that a small mouth may be blocked by the chipbreaker and prevent shavings escaping. One always opens a mouth when using a double iron.

The point is, once you have a plane that uses a double iron, and has an adjustable mouth, then you can set it up to take whatever shaving thickness you like. Premium planes as well.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (21 Nov 2022)

Ttrees said:


> Not disagreeing whatsoever, I love my old Bailey's, and was wanting to
> see comparison with the likes of a ductile iron version for potential buyers,
> _thicker double iron, and more sensible totes/handles_,
> to see whether these planes will take the same thickness shaving, as I haven't seen
> ...



I had several LV planes (5, 6?) and 10 LNs. I never noticed one that had a mouth too tight, but I would never use a friction monster as a jack, so my experience is limited to jointer and smoother in trying to get more through post-cap iron. 

LV's planes generally have moving sole plates - can't remember on the custom, but I had no trouble trying to ram beech through the 5 1/2. 

I have two thoughts on dropping planes as someone who has done it, but all but once with planes I've made for myself. 

1) you can drop a lot of stanley planes, but you probably won't because you know you can't - they don't always break, but if they do, you can buy a lot of them for the price of one premium plane
2) you can drop a premium plane, if you drop one on concrete or cobble or whatever you might have on the floor of your shop, it may only lead to a big ding that you can mostly file out, but fair chance you'll break a handle and bend the handle rod. 

I'd like to say #2 isn't from experience. 

The nice thing about premium planes of any kind is they are really easy to unload if you don't like the one you have, but after you drop one, that may not be true. 

I had to buy a new handle, and I can't remember if I also got rods, because I didn't want to make a replacement handle and then try to sell the trial plane that I had with a mismatch handle. To sell something like that to most of the premium plane market is ...I don't know, I expect it would be more limiting than an ideal handle on a type 20 stanley. 

Other than breaking the handle (concrete fall off of bench, like accidentally bumped and just teetered off, not flung off) and bending the rod, and just a little filing and sanding to blend, though, the LV plane suffered no distortion at all in flatness. So it delivered on that.


----------



## Jacob (21 Nov 2022)

Ttrees said:


> Not disagreeing whatsoever, I love my old Bailey's, and was wanting to
> see comparison with the likes of a ductile iron version for potential buyers,
> _thicker double iron, and more sensible totes/handles_,
> to see whether these planes will take the same thickness shaving, as I haven't seen
> someone working these premium planes doing heavier work with them,


Probably because for heavy work any old plane will do. Heaviest work of all with a narrow single iron, a very deep camber and a wide mouth.
i.e. you wouldn't buy a "premium" scrub plane (unless you were a tool fanatic!)


----------



## D_W (21 Nov 2022)

Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) said:


> Tom, back when custom plane makers were focussed on single irons, rather than using double irons, the push was for small mouths.
> 
> Even the HNT Gordon woodies I have, which have 60 degree beds/cutting angles, have tiny mouths. The mouth size is irrelevant for this plane - as it is for a double iron plane with a closed chipbreaker - since the size of the mouth does not affect high cutting angles and closed chipbreakers. The exception here is that a small mouth may be blocked by the chipbreaker and prevent shavings escaping. One always opens a mouth when using a double iron.
> 
> ...



I will give you credit where it's due. by the time they sent me one, it was double iron. If you hadn't convinced them of that, I don't really know if it would make much difference in sales in the long term, but for serious users, they would've been DOA. 

I've long wished they would give in and make a $300 bailey pattern copy just dead nuts ($400-$500 on the long ones, no big deal). They can paint the casting and use bubinga or maple or whatever they want on that front, but just copy the proportions, weight and adjuster style exactly.


----------



## Jameshow (21 Nov 2022)

Like this?!!!









Amazon Basics No.4 Adjustable Universal Smoothing Bench Hand Plane – 2-Inch (50. | eBay


Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Amazon Basics No.4 Adjustable Universal Smoothing Bench Hand Plane – 2-Inch (50. at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products.



www.ebay.co.uk


----------



## Jacob (21 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Like this?!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What as a scrub plane? No prob!
You'd need to file almost a semi circle camber. This means the cap iron wouldn't match but that's OK you just put it in the same place on the blade where it _would_ have been, but back a few mm and just have the middle 1" width or so of the blade showing through the slot 2 or 3 mm. Sounds complicated but it makes sense once you've done it. Easier than modifying it to work without the cap iron and the blade is too thin anyway.


----------



## tibi (21 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Like this?!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bezos is so rich because he got it with reproduction of Bailey pattern just right, unlike LV


----------



## D_W (21 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Like this?!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The last time amazon suggested that plane to me, which it does often, it was $58. 

$58!!

The story of how amazon allows small retailers on their site and then requires them to provide supplier information and then the sellers magically find themselves being undersold snuck into my head with these planes. I get it on bluetooth headphones or a drink cup, but you have to be depraved (and maybe cognitively deprived) to dive into trying to take the junk plane market.


----------



## Ttrees (21 Nov 2022)

tibi said:


> Bezos is so rich because he got it with reproduction of Bailey pattern just right, unlike LV





D_W said:


> I will give you credit where it's due. by the time they sent me one, it was double iron. If you hadn't convinced them of that, I don't really know if it would make much difference in sales in the long term, but for serious users, they would've been DOA.
> 
> I've long wished they would give in and make a $300 bailey pattern copy just dead nuts ($400-$500 on the long ones, no big deal). They can paint the casting and use bubinga or adjuster style exactly.





Jameshow said:


> Like this?!!!
> 
> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/17540993...eJTeO&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY[/URL



You mean a real BBP,
Careful what you wish for?


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (21 Nov 2022)

I believe Nick Engler/U Tube/Workshop Companion, tried to fettle that Amazon plane to work. He did get it to work, but had to resort to a surface grinder, at a machine shop for some corrective work. He does not recommend its purchase and fettled more out of curiousity. 

Engler has been around a very long time, pre-dating the internet sensations of the past two decades.

I believe Rex Kruger (another U Tuber) also tried the Amazon and his conclusion was similar.


----------



## D_W (21 Nov 2022)

Tony Zaffuto said:


> I believe Nick Engler/U Tube/Workshop Companion, tried to fettle that Amazon plane to work. He did get it to work, but had to resort to a surface grinder, at a machine shop for some corrective work. He does not recommend its purchase and fettled more out of curiousity.
> 
> Engler has been around a very long time, pre-dating the internet sensations of the past two decades.
> 
> I believe Rex Kruger (another U Tuber) also tried the Amazon and his conclusion was similar.



I bought one of the cheap buck planes for $22 at one point to see if it could be used. Most people would've sent it to a machine shop - I filed it and then lapped it. 

But what I failed to notice was that the lever cap and adjuster were aluminum. And then when it arrived, it was clear that the cap iron couldn't reach the iron based on where the slot in the cap iron was. 

The aluminum lever cap was literally too flexible to allow it to stay in the cut. The adjuster was soft and weak and miserable, and I used a different cap iron or redid the slot and used a stanley lever cap and then it planed fine - still adjusted terrible. 

I don't think anyone would do the draw filing that I did, and it wouldn't be immediately apparent that the lever cap was incapable of working in anything but the lightest woods. 

The hump in the cap iron was almost triangle shaped. 

the last stanley that I got was $40 (a second type 20 smoother). Can't remember the motivation with the other plane - it might've been less than the $22 I remembered at the time. I threw all of it away. I vaguely recall thinking that you shouldn't just throw whole things like that away, but also thinking of how much more trouble it would be to figure out what to do with it to not throw it away. 

The youtubers love those tools because they can put up a reference link token and anything that people buy will kick back a share of money to them.


----------



## Joe1975 (21 Nov 2022)

I won’t be buying some rubbish off Amazon.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (22 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> I will give you credit where it's due. by the time they sent me one, it was double iron. If you hadn't convinced them of that, I don't really know if it would make much difference in sales in the long term, but for serious users, they would've been DOA.
> 
> I've long wished they would give in and make a $300 bailey pattern copy just dead nuts ($400-$500 on the long ones, no big deal). They can paint the casting and use bubinga or maple or whatever they want on that front, but just copy the proportions, weight and adjuster style exactly.



David, as you may recall, I visited the Lee Valley factory and HQ in Ottawa in late December 2012/January 2013 (Brrrrr) and spent a few weeks with Rob Lee and the design team. The Custom Planes were still in development/design. The original design called for a single iron with a range of frogs with different angles. It is to the credit of Rob Lee that the design was altered to incorporate a chipbreaker. Rob was keenly involved with the fori and the discussions on the chipbreaker and its set up. He is very astute as a designer and engineer.

At the time he was also rather inspired, it seems, with the Stay Set chipbreaker of Record, and the incorporation of the chipbreaker was a modern version (loosely). It is not my preferred design - I would rather have seen a less finicky connector. Having said this, the system works well, and it really more a case of being different from Stanley, where there is comforting familiarity.

The Custom Planes remain a line of planes where one can customise the parts to meet personal preferences. One can be a Stanley. One can be better than a Stanley.

I have a #4, which I purchased, and a #7, which was a gift from Rob. I was also working with Rick Blaiklock, who was Director of Research and Development for Veritas Tools at the time. Rick sent me two frogs for the #7, a 50 degree (my choice) and a 40 degree (his - inspired - choice). I purchased a 50 degree frog for the #4 as well as a 42 degree frog (influence by Warren, who had modified his #3 to 42 degrees).

The upshot was that the 40 degree lives in the #7 and the 42 degree lives in the #4. These are only viable - bearing in mind the interlocked timbers of Western Australia - because of a closed chipbreaker. This is also evidence, I guess, that the chipbreakers from Veritas work as intended (leading edges modified to 50 degrees).

The chipbreaker screw aside, I like these planes. They are balanced and have advanced features (which are used).

For those unfamiliar with my opus review: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes1.html









_



I've long wished they would give in and make a $300 bailey pattern copy just dead nuts

Click to expand...

_
David, Veritas would not do this on principle. For one thing, LN did do this, and Veritas would not go head-to-head with the same design out of respect for LN. Secondly, they want to introduce designs of their own with a mark of their own individuality. Not all have been successful but many have become classics. We have LN - maker of traditional designs - and Veritas - maker of contemporary designs. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (22 Nov 2022)

Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) said:


> David, Veritas would not do this on principle. For one thing, LN did do this, and Veritas would not go head-to-head with the same design out of respect for LN. Secondly, they want to introduce designs of their own with a mark of their own individuality. Not all have been successful but many have become classics. We have LN - maker of traditional designs - and Veritas - maker of contemporary designs.
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek



I guess it could be construed to be the same thing, and I know LN and LV generally won't overlap each other. But what I meant was a plane pattern identical to bailey with the stanley style cap iron (this would require a press, which is probably something LV wouldn't do?) at a weight lower than the LN planes and an adjuster like stanley's planes vs. the slow speed type. 

I clung to my LN planes for a while until it became undeniable that it wasn't faster to use them and it was more tiring - not a huge difference, but a few little things about stanley planes equate to less work - especially as removal rate gets heavier/faster. 

I haven't cut (filed) back a frog yet to make a plane at a shallower angle as warren has, but the next time he's in town, I'll see if he will bring his. 

Most of the cherry here isn't good enough to work without a cap iron, either - at least not practically. Walnut might be a different story but it was marginally affordable 15 years ago and now it's unaffordable. Walnut is more in a class of workability with good mahogany - and the same price now ($20 a board foot for well sawn 8/4 wood, and $10+ for stuff that's absolute junk). I'm guessing 250 years ago when single iron planes were more common, the sawyer would've been sawing all old growth trees and expected to saw the wood so that it would be amenable to planing. 

While I don't love all of the LV results of experimentation, I think highly of Rob, and at least they're trying. Unlike the shills copying their tools and LN tools.


----------



## D_W (22 Nov 2022)

What was the reason for the lower angle? I can't remember what warren was searching for, but of course, I tried a bunch of different planes at various angles in 2011/12, inculding japanese planes with cap iron profiles. 

I wouldn't be surprised if warren was looking for surface brightness. I mostly forgot about it and then the buffer creates an almost artificially bright surface if the bevel side is conditioned a little bit. I don't think getting it right is that easy for someone on a first or fifth try, so I haven't said much about it. The brightness of a surface is at least equal to a 8/10 bu japanese plane without the headaches that come with pushing the limits on clearance and angles. 

This is just a typical edge surface off of a routine sharpening with 5 micron compound. It's almost gaudy, but if you can keep any defects from showing in surfaces, there's no grain raising and finish starts to build immediately. 

In the trying planes, I thought about adjusting the orientation slightly to accommodate 42 degrees, but so far, having an ideal cap iron design makes a much bigger difference in planing effort. My own planes are generally cut back from the mark a degree or two as I always end up ahead of the initial 45 degree marks on the mouth and going just over at the top of the bed. But One of my planes done like that was soundly outworked by an English plane bedded at 47 degrees until I swapped cap irons. that is beyond the scope of what most people would want to discuss dimensioning, too - the cap iron setup is a little different than smoothing and the goal is a little different.


----------



## Ttrees (22 Nov 2022)

Be interesting to see if you can get enough clearance with the lower frog,
using the buffer method in a sort of practical way.

I'd guess the reason is simply down to effort, especially for one who hones a rounded bevel of 80 degrees on the cap.

I hope Warren visits soon, have you showed him that old cap iron to compare?


----------



## D_W (22 Nov 2022)

Ttrees said:


> Be interesting to see if you can get enough clearance with the lower frog,
> using the buffer method in a sort of practical way.
> 
> I'd guess the reason is simply down to effort, especially for one who hones a rounded bevel of 80 degrees on the cap.
> ...



I can't remember. The couple of times he's been here, it's like finding a long lost older brother who is a lot deeper than you are (you being me), but I think he may have been a little surprised to see the amount of activity and wares here from it, too. You never know if people are just making things up on the internet.

I learned that warren really is what he says even though I fairly rudely picked at him trying to get him to prove it before and share some work. It's his business as to why he doesn't want to share it, but a large part of it is well over my head and well over the head of anything I've ever seen on here (think fine work combined with carving that only a professional carver could do).

We did look over some planes and some chisels - but I just don't remember if I got into the minutiae of the cap iron in a try plane vs. a smoother. I roll the tip of my smoother a little less steep than warren does probably, but there's also unlikely to be that much difference otherwise. He mentioned that at one point, he was doing client work with something intolerant and added a tiny bit of steepness (hopefully that doesn't lack precision - warren's description of things is *precise*, there's not much willy nilly anything) and that allowed the plane to get through it and that was the end of that. But the profile he's talking about has relief up from the initial point quickly so that wasted work isn't done.

He feels like my planes are heavy a pound or two, which I already knew, but I don't think he had any objection to anything here other than he doesn't waste money on tools and have six of anything. I will have a current user, but travel into the basement and dig out five more of the same thing that are on hand for a reason other than current use - like comparing cap irons of all of them, which would sound like a waste of time, but it yet again, illuminates why the mature versions of the better companies were made the way they are.

I know it wears people out when I talk about being very deep in plane design and generally looking deeper than most people, and being pretty impatient when someone attempts to "learn me up" about something basic, but I kind of take the tool thing as being important like someone who makes mostly furniture would have their preferences and it wouldn't just be superficial things.

I also expect that most people won't care about almost all of the things that i find - I got past the point of thinking I should only look at things others would find useful in terms of wider consensus.

The intersection with what warren has learned and done is rewarding, though. I just don't process information as well as other people do and I really need to be in the soup. Warren is a combination of encyclopedic, detail oriented and mentally organized that I won't have.

He's nicer than me, too, but I did apologize about being hard on him and pushing him for information when explaining why. maybe the same thing would happen if Derek ever visited, too. I'd certainly have him in the shop without reservation. There'd be no great reason to come to Pittsburgh unless Rob Lee was here for an Ottawa Senators game, though.


----------



## G S Haydon (22 Nov 2022)

From memory the standard Veritas planes do have a Stanley style chipbreaker. However, it was many years ago I tried one.

The custom range never gained traction here and I think they've been dropped from UK retailers for some time. The standard planes are still available though.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (22 Nov 2022)

G S Haydon said:


> From memory the standard Veritas planes do have a Stanley style chipbreaker. However, it was many years ago I tried one.
> 
> The custom range never gained traction here and I think they've been dropped from UK retailers for some time. The standard planes are still available though.


Lee Valley still offers the line on their website. The description does not speak to the style of chipbreaker - maybe if Derek still has his LV plane, he can post a pic? For what its worth, I quite like the Record “Stay Set” and have it on my Clifton #3.


----------



## G S Haydon (22 Nov 2022)

Agreed Tony, North American and mainland Europe still offer the custom line. I think Axminster used to carry the custom but it's been absent for a long time.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (23 Nov 2022)

Tony Zaffuto said:


> Lee Valley still offers the line on their website. The description does not speak to the style of chipbreaker - maybe if Derek still has his LV plane, he can post a pic? For what its worth, I quite like the Record “Stay Set” and have it on my Clifton #3.



Here is my #4: 42 degree bed, "Stanley" handle, mushroom knob ..








PM-V11 blade; chipbreaker modified with a partly-rounded leading edge, which has a small secondary at around 70-80 degrees; blade hollow ground at 32 degrees and free-hand honed to 13000 (Sigma).











Driver for the screws ...







Finally, shavings on Jarrah scrap quickly made for this post. This was into the grain. The quality of the surface is blemish-free. Smooth finish, but the example of wood is open-grained and quite coarse.






Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (23 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> Warren is a combination of encyclopedic, detail oriented and mentally organized that I won't have.
> 
> He's nicer than me, too, but I did apologize about being hard on him and pushing him for information when explaining why. maybe the same thing would happen if Derek ever visited, too. I'd certainly have him in the shop without reservation. There'd be no great reason to come to Pittsburgh unless Rob Lee was here for an Ottawa Senators game, though.



David, I give Warren a hard time about the way he disrespects people. But I listen to his advice - what little he gives - and take it seriously. For years he told us all about the double iron, repeatedly without explaining one iota of how it was set up and used; It was not until you came along several years later and demonstrated the method that it became clear how to make it work. I would be happy to one day meet him and discover a different side.

I cannot lie - Pittsburgh sounds unlikely (even if Rob Lee was there), but I am happy to extend the invitation to Perth. (I have had Rob and his lovely wife to stay, as well as the Lee Valley team ... twice). We do a mean barbie, and the beer is Great!

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (23 Nov 2022)

Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) said:


> David, I give Warren a hard time about the way he disrespects people. But I listen to his advice - what little he gives - and take it seriously. For years he told us all about the double iron, repeatedly without explaining one iota of how it was set up and used; It was not until you came along several years later and demonstrated the method that it became clear how to make it work. I would be happy to one day meet him and discover a different side.
> 
> I cannot lie - Pittsburgh sounds unlikely (even if Rob Lee was there), but I am happy to extend the invitation to Perth. (I have had Rob and his lovely wife to stay, as well as the Lee Valley team ... twice). We do a mean barbie, and the beer is Great!
> 
> ...



I'll keep that in mind. I'm not much of a traveler, but if I should start crossing water, Australia would be a nice place to see. It's probably close enough to being the same language. 

I don't ever know what makes people tick - I guess warren likes to go to the forums for some reason. I didn't ask him that as maybe he wouldn't like to tell. Maybe it's just leisure time after work and the last thing he wants to do is get invested in giving detailed advice to people who won't follow it - that's a lot to do with why there's no George on forums. he's the same person in person, but it's a lot easier to communicate in person because there's no hours-long delay in a back and forth where you can dream up a whole tree limb of follow up thoughts and what ifs before there's clarification.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (23 Nov 2022)

David, George is a completely different person to Warren. George gave a great deal of himself to others, and was hurt when this was not reciprocated. I miss George. I considered him a friend and we used to send PMs back-and-forth for years, until he stopped visiting SMC.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (23 Nov 2022)

Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) said:


> David, George is a completely different person to Warren. George gave a great deal of himself to others, and was hurt when this was not reciprocated. I miss George. I considered him a friend and we used to send PMs back-and-forth for years, until he stopped visiting SMC.
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek



George was always a sharer. I don't think he ever really wanted anyone to give him anything back, but to give good advice and then have it actually be used - to see that it's got some effect. The forums aren't an efficient differentiator or converter and there's a strong mechanism, especially in some, that thwarts upward discussion or differentiation. He mentioned several other times that it takes a while for him to type out a response to someone (not ever being of the typing generation) and then there's little feedback or a dismissive response to world class advice given free (my words on the world class part). 

He also had the desire to discuss design and outcome as drivers rather than method, but that's not really well received on forums. Consumption of "buy this, use it like this" kind of cut and dried stuff will always dominate. 

George is doing fine, by the way. He still does a little bit of work and finds more focused people locally (through contacts he's done work for in the past, etc) who want to learn and are more motivated.


----------

