# Essential hand planes



## Silly_Billy (1 Feb 2018)

I’m enjoying reading Chris Schwarz’s _Hand Plane Essentials_, in which he recommends four hand planes:
1. Fore plane - albeit he suggests using a No. 5 for this - which doesn’t have to be perfectly flat
2. Jointer plane, which does have to be well tuned 
3. Smoother, which also has to be highly tuned
4. Block plane (low angle)

What do you think? 

Please excuse this newbie question or if this has been covered before. I don’t yet have a jointer or fore plane. Having read Chris Schwartz, I’m now wondering if I can save money by getting a cheap fore plane, but confused because I thought a decent jack plane was important.


----------



## AndyT (1 Feb 2018)

As far as I know, the current use of the old term "fore plane" means the same as "jack plane", ie a plane with a wide mouth and a well-cambered iron, for rapid reduction of stock to size. You won't get far without one, unless you buy all your timber planed to the actual sizes you need, or plan your work around stock sizes.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (1 Feb 2018)

I think it depends on the type of work you plan to do. If you aim to make furniture and similar case work, or joinery work such as windows and doors, by hand methods from rough sawn stock, that's very sound advice. If you plan to do that sort of work but doing your stock preparation by machine sawing and planing, maybe you can manage without the fore plane (except when you come to a board too wide for your machines). If you're aiming to do mostly turnery, or green woodwork, or Windsor chairmaking (for example), then there are probably much higher tool priorities.

On jack (fore) planes, you can indeed save a bit, by buying one or two of the many wooden jacks out there. You will probably need access to a grinder to put a camber on the blade (tip - don't be too aggressive with the camber to start with), but it's a great way to get into wooden planes. A woody jack can make a lot of shavings very quickly - and flatten some pretty wonky stock. A jack is a 'roughish' tool for bulk waste-shifting. The try and smoothing planes do the refining of dimension and final surface, and do need to be a bit better tuned.


----------



## JohnPW (1 Feb 2018)

> 1. Fore plane - albeit he suggests using a No. 5 for this - which doesn’t have to be perfectly flat



What he suggests seems to be a jack plane.

A fore plane is a number 6, in between a 5 and 7.


----------



## D_W (1 Feb 2018)

A block plane is unnecessary, but the others are fine.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (1 Feb 2018)

D_W":767u0m7o said:


> A block plane is unnecessary, but the others are fine.



????? I use a block plane all the time. I could live without one if I only made free standing furniture, but for any fitting work (I fit out boats) they are essential (well to me anyways)


----------



## D_W (1 Feb 2018)

If you're making furniture, you can do everything you'd do with a block plane with a smoother instead. For some things, the smoother is a lot faster (trimming end grain to a marked line) and more comfortable. 

I'm out in terms of what it takes to make boats. 

I've had a gaggle of block planes over the years, but I really struggle to find a use for them.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (1 Feb 2018)

It's not really a "boat thing". It's more to do with when you are away from the bench and one hand holds the work and the block plane is in the other hand. For sure it is possible to do this with a no4 but bench planes are really a two handed affair.


----------



## D_W (1 Feb 2018)

I generally do as you say with a #4. Small pieces in hand, plane in the other. At the bench, of course, and if the work is heavy enough to warrant, I put the 4 upside down in the vise. 

I saw someone on another forum state that block planes were developed as a construction tool, and i think that's probably accurate. 

Presumably, most people asking general questions are hobbyists who will be working at a bench.

Not casting stones at someone who prefers a block plane in that situation, either. I've seen more than one person talk about wanting to have one in their pocket at all times, but a hand dimensioner who is using a jack plane would find something in a shirt or apron pocket to be pretty annoying as it taps them on each repetition. About as annoying as carrying a pistol in your pocket.


----------



## Tasky (1 Feb 2018)

AndyT":1boflswm said:


> As far as I know, the current use of the old term "fore plane" means the same as "jack plane", ie a plane with a wide mouth and a well-cambered iron, for rapid reduction of stock to size.


Is that not also a Scrub Plane, these days?



D_W":1boflswm said:


> About as annoying as carrying a pistol in your pocket.


Yes, but Uncle Mike's don't make belt or leg holsters for planes... do they?


----------



## D_W (1 Feb 2018)

Well, i never carried in a holster. I tried one time putting a ruger SP101 in my pocket (you can do that legally here if you have yourself vetted by the county and get a permit), and it was about as annoying as putting a block plane in a top apron pocket and having it knock around. And too much responsibility for me - never did it again. I'll take my chances with the old eyeball gouge or nut punch - and before that, avoiding getting into needless trouble or loitering in bad neighborhoods. 

(the sidebar to that is that in the states, if you do like to shoot recreationally, having a carry permit allows you to do something - in my state - other than going to and from the range directly. If you go to a target range or to hunt here, you are bound by law to go directly to and from and to make no stops in between. We have to take hunters safety here, too, and that is where they will advise you to pay the $19 every five years to be able to carry. My English and Scottish friends are always horrified - or used to be - when they were here and realized I had guns in the house - as if they would jump up out of the safe and commit a felony by themselves). 

I traded all of my shooting "stuff" for woodworking "stuff" and watches over the years - no permit needed, and you can get away with using your woodworking tools and not cleaning them all the time.

(I only ever tried putting a block plane in an apron once, too - the plane clanked around and in hard planing, the apron had a tendency to get hooked by the horn on my plane. Rather have a tie and nickers like the old days if I had to dress up to look like a woodworker).


----------



## AndyT (1 Feb 2018)

Tasky":9pdgwln3 said:


> AndyT":9pdgwln3 said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I know, the current use of the old term "fore plane" means the same as "jack plane", ie a plane with a wide mouth and a well-cambered iron, for rapid reduction of stock to size.
> ...



I don't want to get sidetracked into a discussion about what people call things - that's linguistics not woodworking - and I am well aware that usage is fluid, over time and countries. 

But there exist two different planes but with overlapping purposes and many people prefer to use two different words to distinguish them. 

A scrub plane is a short, narrow, lightweight plane with a very heavily cambered iron. When it crops up in the English tradition it generally has a horn as its front handle, making it look obviously 'foreign' - hence its alternative name of "Bismarck Plane". Using it is a bit like using an axe - it's quick and rough. You won't get a smooth surface from it - more of a ploughed field. 

Here's my scrub plane in use







A jack plane is longer, wider and its blade is less cambered. It can leave a fairly smooth surface, ok for an underside or for preliminary sizing before smoothing. 
Wooden ones are very common, as are the Stanley style 5s and 5½s

Here's the first forum photo of a wooden jack plane I found






The usage can overlap - but I think that if you have both tools you will tend to use them differently


----------



## Racers (1 Feb 2018)

I couldn't live without a block plane.

My minimum is N08 5 1/2 and LN 62.

Pete


----------



## D_W (1 Feb 2018)

I'd assume that the scrub type planes are construction tools. I don't think they were needed or used for a very long time in preparing lumber for finer work, where a Jack plane will work just as fast and has the potential for a flatter and better surface. 

I've stated this before on at least several forums, and the response is often "I couldn't live without a scrub plane, it's really useful". I doubt the "scrub work" they do is any faster than jack plane work for an experienced user, but a scrub plane may be easier to use to trim doors, etc. 

I've never met anyone who hand dimensions who ever says they do much with a scrub plane - it's usually the idealized thing of "knocking a high corner off of a wide board before it goes onto the machine jointer". Also done at least as well with a jack, with the potential of using the cap if the wood is outright terrible, and with less blowout at the side of the board.


----------



## D_W (1 Feb 2018)

Racers":3rf59eai said:


> I couldn't live without a block plane.
> 
> My minimum is N08 5 1/2 and LN 62.
> 
> Pete



I had the same feeling early on, and at the time, I also though it should be low angle. If you went without it for a little while and used a stanley 3 or 4 and could manage with one hand, you'd probably find out that you can do without the block plane with little trouble, and may prefer not to use it in general. 

The only thing where I favor a block plane is on the ends of very small exposed (through) tenons - faceting/beveling the narrow side of them accurately can be a bit difficult with a larger plane. Even that, though, can be done very well with a quick pop of a chisel.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Feb 2018)

Depends what you are used to - I've owned a block plane for probably 30 years, and I doubt it's been used for 10 minutes in all that time.


----------



## custard (1 Feb 2018)

I also find a block plane pretty useful, 

-at the timber yard I'll keep a block plane, a tape measure, and the cutting list in a pocket. If there's an interesting looking rough sawn board then a few strokes of a block plane reveal more detail about the grain.

-for levelling up legs on chairs and side tables I prefer to hold the leg with one hand and use the other hand to plane down to the scribed line with a block plane.

-a block plane's a handy tool for chamfering, easing an arris, or putting a quarter round on an edge. Its size makes it perfect for shaping an escutcheon to fit or rough flushing inlay work.

I use both machinery and hand tools on most jobs, so apart from a block plane the only planes I really _need_ are a longish bench plane for jointing edges, a smoother for final clean up, a shoulder plane for fitting tenons, and also a hand router plane for things like letting in escutcheons and cutting hinge mortices. If I've got a board that's too wide for the planer/thicknesser then I prefer a wooden jack for timber preparation, personally I've never found much use for a scrub plane. I could see a use for a carriage makers plane when it comes to preparing drawer cavities in case work, but I don't own one and I've always managed to find a work around.

Too many tools are as big a problem as too few, maybe bigger. You need many hours of practical experience with any tool before you really get it, and spreading those hours across too many tools means you don't achieve full mastery of any. Plus of course tools need fettling and maintaining, and that's all time that's better spent making stuff!


----------



## Tasky (1 Feb 2018)

AndyT":3dbguhqz said:


> I don't want to get sidetracked into a discussion about what people call things - that's linguistics not woodworking - and I am well aware that usage is fluid, over time and countries.


TBH, I find understanding of the 'linguistics', the what and the why, matters quite a lot for reasons of clarity. Perhaps more so these days with an international audience. 

I have been reading about it meantime and it seems a Scrub plane (made official by Stanley in the 1890s) is meant for initial hand-dimensioning of rough timber and "hogging off" huge amounts of wood at a time, before you go on to the Jack but, like other roughing and furring planes, have largely been replaced by machines these days and are now mostly the domain of hobbyist hand-toolers (and YouTube Gurus) who usually modify a spare No 4. 

However, I do keep reading about people who mod up these Scrub planes, but still use them like or instead of a Jack (as in jack-of-all-trades), hence the question.


----------



## D_W (1 Feb 2018)

According to Lie Nielsen, the scrub plane was designed to do things like make doors narrower. 

I'd say that I'd suggest people avoid buying one and buy a decent wooden jack plane instead, but I'm sure I've had at least three scrub planes at different points, so who am I to criticize?

I still have an old $10 continental smoother set up as a "bismarck" now, but it's difficult to find a use for it.


----------



## patrickjchase (1 Feb 2018)

JohnPW":qgqktiw7 said:


> A fore plane is a number 6, in between a 5 and 7.



A "fore" plane is a British term for a roughing plane, that came into use literally Centuries before there was such a thing as a #6. If you look at classic literature on the topic, the descriptions of Fore plane look more like what we would now consider a Jack. Schwartz' use is historically correct.

When Stanley decided they needed to name their planes they happened to slap the name "Fore" on the 6, but it's arguably a misnomer. The 6 is closer to a traditional panel plane IMO.


----------



## thetyreman (2 Feb 2018)

no7, no5 1/2, no 4 1/2 are my most used planes, I like the wider planes more, even on narrow or small stock, it just feels more solid, plus I have huge hands which can be annoying.


----------



## Tasky (2 Feb 2018)

D_W":ecwwv9xb said:


> According to Lie Nielsen, the scrub plane was designed to do things like make doors narrower.


"A scrub plane is designed to quickly remove large quantities of wood. Based on the Stanley 40 1/2, the open throat and curved blade allow you to take deep cuts with ease"
"In the past, Scrub Planes were used like a Thickness Planer to take rough-sawn boards down to size. Then the woodworker would progress to a Jack Plane, and finally to a Smoothing Plane"
https://www.lie-nielsen.com/product/scrub-plane 

So yes, narrowing doors might fit in there, but mostly hogging off great thicknesses of wood. 
And since I don't have space or money for a thicknessing machine.... 

Last two paragraphs of particular interest: 
https://www.popularwoodworking.com/wood ... ous-animal


----------



## El Barto (2 Feb 2018)

Speaking as a beginner I found that buying tools as I need them works for me. Hence for a while I only used a 5 1/2 jack plane and a no. 4 that I converted into a scrub plane.

I recently added a bevel up block and a bevel up jack to my arsenal but I was getting by pretty well without them (I can’t say it isn’t convenient having options to choose from). 

So that system works for me and generally I know that everything has a use rather than sitting on a shelf collecting dust.


----------



## Sideways (2 Feb 2018)

Related to the original question - do any experienced woodworkers use two of any plane ?
I've inherited my Dad's tools with leaves me with two identical Record #4 smoothers. Trying to decide if the "spare" one is better traded along for something I don't have or maybe setup with a cambered iron and an open mouth and kept for scrub planing.
I find the tote of the Record #4 uncomfortably small so I need to rehandle at least one of them and try a 4 1/2 before I make a decison.


----------



## D_W (2 Feb 2018)

Tasky":2thfb9ec said:


> D_W":2thfb9ec said:
> 
> 
> > According to Lie Nielsen, the scrub plane was designed to do things like make doors narrower.
> ...



Lie Nielsen's text is wrong. They've said elsewhere (perhaps in video - it was the SIC there who made the comment - deneb) that it is a tool intended to do exactly what Stanley says - reduce the width of boards, and not thickness. 

A jack plane is far better (and at least as fast - and faster once the follow-on work is considered) than a scrub plane for thicknessing lumber. 

To someone fitting doors, if the amount needing removal was something like a quarter of an inch, there in between planing and sawing, and then the plane makes sense. As to anyone doing any significant dimensioning, abandonment of a scrub plane for a well-made and well-set jack plane happens pretty quickly. We try not to get stuck doing things like planing a half inch off of a five square foot board, and high spots are easily removed with a jack in such a way that garish tearout and torn off edges aren't a problem (like they are with a scrub). It's an impractical plane for general shop use, but the concept seems attractive. If it was practical, it would've existed long before the 1890s, but by then, Stanley was probably focusing on site work professionals. The market of mail order millwork, etc, was well established here, and that work wasn't being done by hand, but fitting mail order and factory made millwork certainly was.


----------



## Bodgers (2 Feb 2018)

D_W":wpr2mtoo said:


> Tasky":wpr2mtoo said:
> 
> 
> > D_W":wpr2mtoo said:
> ...


Strange.

If that's the case why am I seeing youtube videos with people reducing boards down to thickness and leveling using scrub planes? Is this the Internet misinformation at work again?



Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk


----------



## D_W (2 Feb 2018)

It's not that you *can't* do it, it's that it's not historically accurate. Usually when something isn't historically accurate, you find out why when you get more experience (in this case, because a jack plane is better for the job. ). 

You'll find youtube videos of all kinds of things. Like guys making double iron planes. You can never believe them!!

(in this case, though, follow historical practice if you want to prepare rough lumber by hand - you'll be better off and you'll have fewer fits with gross tearout and blown out edges of boards, and spend less time and effort in the process). 

When I started to do some of my work with only hand tools, I found it pretty difficult to locate other people who actually did the same thing. Suggestions of how to dimension wood from people who generally run their boards through a thickness planer are plentiful. I can say that the advice that I've gotten from Warren Mickley has been accurate every single time. I traveled my own path through several dozen planes to end up with a wooden jack, a wooden try plane (and a metal jointer for some cases where the work is rough on a try plane), and a metal smoother. 

Warren works by hand in the middle of PA where amish (who don't do much hand work) makers are plentiful and makes his living doing jobs that are cheaper to do by hand than with machines (restoration, carving, sash work, etc). 

I'd imagine most of the people showing dimensioning work in videos and using a scrub plane, etc, or a lot of modern boutique tools - probably don't do much of it when the camera isn't on.

Chris Schwarz writes a lot about hand tools (the above article is a bad example, because it's from 12+ years ago, and he's comparing thicknessing a board with a scrub plane as being "fun" vs. a smoothing plane. It's completely irrelevant), but he also often writes narratives that suggest he's not very good at completing rough work with them (e.g., talking about being unable to cut the end off of his bench with a hand saw and going to a circular saw to complete the task - I don't think Sellers did that on his bench videos, but I'll admit I'm chancing that because I haven't actually watched it. But I can watch sellers and see that he is a competent sawyer). His demonstration of sawing on Roy Underhill's show was pretty painful whereas Marcus Hansen's demonstration on the same show was a display of control and experience.


----------



## Bodgers (2 Feb 2018)

D_W":2e4bxiv8 said:


> It's not that you *can't* do it, it's that it's not historically accurate. Usually when something isn't historically accurate, you find out why when you get more experience (in this case, because a jack plane is better for the job. ).
> 
> You'll find youtube videos of all kinds of things. Like guys making double iron planes. You can never believe them!!
> 
> ...


Interesting info. I see there is an article from Chris Schwarz on the pop woodworking site about the scrub plane (from about 2005) basically making the same point about it historically. Reckons it was more of a site carpenter's tool.

I see in Vic Tesolin's demo of the Veritas plane, the primary demo is of reducing width (as stated) with secondary uses being roughing in a bevelled edge and thicknessing...



Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk


----------



## D_W (2 Feb 2018)

Not sure if LV makes a good plane for ...wait, revise that. They have the custom planes now and you can get one in jack size, and presumably they still sell a bevel down plane of their original bench plane design. 

Anyway, I'd probably not even use it to rough in edge bevels on anything - again, done better by jack. If it has to be done quickly but safely, then up a notch from that. Scrub planes have geometric characteristics that make them expert at surprise catastrophic tearout, and chunking the ends and edges of boards. 

Of course, if you want to use one as a novelty, that's fine. We do a lot of things for novelty (like working with hand tools when second hand furniture is cheaper than our supplies), but looking for the first step in roughing wood efficiently? Stick with a less fun and less garish looking jack planes. You'll find out that using it with good effect is plenty of fun. Shooting past a mark with catastrophic deep tearout or breakout with a scrub planes, not quite so much.


----------



## Tasky (2 Feb 2018)

D_W":2pg54r0c said:


> Lie Nielsen's text is wrong.


I merely looked up what you said and that's what I found.... 



D_W":2pg54r0c said:


> If it was practical, it would've existed long before the 1890s


Apparently it did. 
Stanley just made the first metal ones from 1890... 



Bodgers":2pg54r0c said:


> If that's the case why am I seeing youtube videos with people reducing boards down to thickness and leveling using scrub planes? Is this the Internet misinformation at work again?


Oh, yeah, that'll be Sellers, Schwarz, Charlesworth, Maguire, Cosman, Wright, Wearing, Tribe and all the other Woodworking Gurus lying to you to sell tools, innit.... I'd just assume anyone you've heard of is a complete liar now, just to be safe, y'know? :roll:


----------



## Silly_Billy (2 Feb 2018)

I can see that if I ask two experienced woodworkers for advice, then I’ll get three answers  

However, forums (fora?) would be no fun without healthy debate.

I was going to ask which router plane would be best as a starter, but now I’m too afraid to ask :lol:


----------



## Cheshirechappie (2 Feb 2018)

Sideways":2da6kplk said:


> Related to the original question - do any experienced woodworkers use two of any plane ?
> I've inherited my Dad's tools with leaves me with two identical Record #4 smoothers. Trying to decide if the "spare" one is better traded along for something I don't have or maybe setup with a cambered iron and an open mouth and kept for scrub planing.
> I find the tote of the Record #4 uncomfortably small so I need to rehandle at least one of them and try a 4 1/2 before I make a decison.



I'd keep both, mainly for the family connection, but also because a second smoothing plane can be useful. The advice most experienced woodworkers give is to keep your working kit of tools as small as possible, so you become thoroughly familiar with each tool, and there's fewer to store and maintain. However - most experienced woodworkers have selected their 'small kit' from a wider assortment (very wide indeed in some cases!), and most have other tools 'in store' for when they might come in handy. Some of those will be specialist unusual tools, but some will be fairly standard. 

That said, if you find a smoother that does it's job well and is more comfortable to your hand than the Records, you may find both go into store, and it may be pragmatic to 'release equity'. 

Try a few different grips before doing anything drastic with the handles, though. Some people prefer to grip a small Bailey plane more like a woody coffin smoother than try to wrap their fingers round the handle, or lay their index finger on the side of the frog, giving them more a 'three-finger' grip. It's worth a play about before entirely sidelining them.


----------



## D_W (2 Feb 2018)

Silly_Billy":3itx0dhp said:


> I can see that if I ask two experienced woodworkers for advice, then I’ll get three answers



Well, if they're both accomplished, you might get very similar answers. If you ask a guy who writes books, and then ask a guy who fed himself doing the work the guy who writes books wrote about, then you might get two different answers. I'd probably rely on the answer from the guy who does the work, and save questions about how to write or publish books for the writer. 

Aside - I think you should start a question about the least number of stones that you can use to get an acceptably sharp edge, or the lowest possible cost for a reasonable sharpening system and what it is.


----------



## patrickjchase (2 Feb 2018)

D_W":3h7cgwen said:


> Well, if they're both accomplished, you might get very similar answers. If you ask a guy who writes books, and then ask a guy who fed himself doing the work the guy who writes books wrote about, then you might get two different answers. I'd probably rely on the answer from the guy who does the work, and save questions about how to write or publish books for the writer.



It's also worth keeping in mind that there are multiple woodworking "traditions" that simultaneously evolved different solutions to the same (or similar) problems. In some cases, most notably the Japanese tradition, those differences were partially driven by a bias towards different wood species. In other cases there's no such readily apparent rhyme or reason.

IIRC the planes we now think of as "scrubs" come out of the continental (specifically German) tradition, whereas fore/jack planes were originally english (I know that's true of "fore" planes, not positive about jacks). I could be remembering incorrectly, though - this is a case where input from somebody like Warren Mickley would help.

It's also worth noting that Stanley had a tendency to slap traditional names on planes that didn't always have a lot in common with like-named forebearers. Their use of the term "fore" to describe a panel plane was a particularly egregious example, but the Stanley #40 isn't quite the same thing as a Continental scrub either.


----------



## D_W (2 Feb 2018)

(I keep one of those conti smoothers very rank - it's fun to play with from time to time, but not a scrub. Coincidentally, I do have a Berg scrub iron, because someone was selling them a couple of years ago and I ordered two smoother irons from him, and he sent me a scrub plane asking if I'd make a scrub and then share the design with him).

Lasse or something? Nice guy. I didn't make a scrub yet, but it might be a nice ruse. Coincidentally, I made a purpleheart coffin plane with an intentional mouth plug to have a tight mouth and a sloping-away wear, and after all of that, the iron turned out to be chippy. Excellent design for a guy who doesn't tuck his shirt in and look in the mirror too often (as in, those interested in pretty would be ashamed of a plugged mouth coffin smoother), but the iron blew the effort out of the water. 

On the fence about tempering it a little further, as my past experience with chippy irons is that it's usually not just that they're overhard, and chippy isn't a characteristic that many berg irons exhibit, even when they're hard. Feedback through the stones suggest that this iron is somewhere around 62, not impossibly hard. I had high hopes because the one place you want an iron on the harder side if you can have it (without compromising toughness) is the smoother. Everything else works well a little above saw temper on up, but smoothing with a too-soft iron is a bit of a nuisance.

Puts a damper on the smoother, but that's aside from this topic. 

if one finds a $10 conti smoother and sets it up as a rank jack, that makes for a decent "scrub" plane. 

Yes on the regions and their tools. There's not a whole lot in long planes from the continentals other than a jointer. Everything else tends to be similar in length, which suggests that they weren't obsessed with dead flat boards, but a skilled user can get "very flat" with those planes, or pretty flat (visually) and move on.


----------



## Bodgers (2 Feb 2018)

D_W":1zb9v6n3 said:


> Scrub planes have geometric characteristics that make them expert at surprise catastrophic tearout, and chunking the ends and edges of boards.



Nice!  



Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk


----------



## Silly_Billy (2 Feb 2018)

D_W":2z7ppsuq said:


> Aside - I think you should start a question about the least number of stones that you can use to get an acceptably sharp edge, or the lowest possible cost for a reasonable sharpening system and what it is.


I'm happy using 400, 1000 and 8000 stones, together with a leather strop. I don't feel sharpening is holding me back, thanks to taking a sharpening course. However, I won't claim to be Ron Hock and am hungry for any woodwork tips.



D_W":2z7ppsuq said:


> I'd probably ... save questions about how to write or publish books for the writer.


Well, I'm finding Christopher Schwarz's book helpful. Similarly, I bought a David Charlesworth DVD (recommended on this forum) that I'm finding extremely helpful too.



D_W":2z7ppsuq said:


> Well, if they're both accomplished, you might get very similar answers.


That's good. Unfortunately, I can't tell who's accomplished via an internet forum! For all I know, D_W, you could be the Theresa May masquerading as an accomplished woodworker


----------



## Bodgers (2 Feb 2018)

patrickjchase":7go4gbvy said:


> D_W":7go4gbvy said:
> 
> 
> > Their use of the term "fore" to describe a panel plane was a particularly egregious example, but the Stanley #40 isn't quite the same thing as a Continental scrub either.


Interesting. I assume you mean the German wood planes like ECE, Ulmia etc? I always assumed they were basically the same. I.e. smaller width sole, wide mouth, cambered blade.




Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk


----------



## Bodgers (2 Feb 2018)

Silly_Billy":jlr8nx2r said:


> via an internet forum! For all I know, D_W, you could be the Theresa May masquerading as an accomplished woodworker



https://www.youtube.com/user/daw162


Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk


----------



## Silly_Billy (2 Feb 2018)

Whoops! Now I’m embarrassed


----------



## patrickjchase (2 Feb 2018)

Silly_Billy":3l0lv8bt said:


> Whoops! Now I’m embarrassed



If you want to pick one somebody I'm the imposter here (relatively speaking). I choose not to show my woodwork because I know it's not on a particularly advanced level.


----------



## El Barto (2 Feb 2018)

Silly_Billy":13t3nn5w said:


> I can see that if I ask two experienced woodworkers for advice, then I’ll get three answers
> 
> However, forums (fora?) would be no fun without healthy debate.
> 
> I was going to ask which router plane would be best as a starter, but now I’m too afraid to ask :lol:



Veritas router planes are very highly regarded. I’ve got an old Record 071 that I refurbished. I think it was about £50. It works but if I was to buy one again I’d get the Veritas.


----------



## patrickjchase (2 Feb 2018)

El Barto":fnaddglo said:


> Veritas router planes are very highly regarded. I’ve got an old Record 071 that I refurbished. I think it was about £50. It works but if I was to buy one again I’d get the Veritas.



I have the Veritas and I like it. The fact that their medium router plane takes the same irons is a plus IMO.

Router planes are actually an interesting example for why you shouldn't expect uniform opinions. They're extremely simple devices, and a simple wooden "Old Witches' Tooth" arguably ticks off all of the critical boxes in terms of functionality. Beyond that we're mostly talking about refinements and usability features/improvements, and those are inherently subjective. Drilling down to a more specific example, the tilted handles on the Veritas router plane are a highly polarizing design element. I know several people who would never consider that plane because the handles just don't work for how they hold and push a router plane, and at least as many others who love it.


----------



## D_W (2 Feb 2018)

Silly_Billy":jdmwm18z said:


> D_W":jdmwm18z said:
> 
> 
> > For all I know, D_W, you could be the Theresa May



I could be a lot of things! I like pushing planes and making them, though. Not saying I do it well compared to a master, but I can do it passably and spot people who write a book every time they make a mediocre project. 

And that's not limited to woodworking. Seems that the most prolific writers are enthusiastic and otherwise fairly mediocre at their topic (Chris Schwarz is no Tage Frid and certainly no George Wilson).


----------



## Cheshirechappie (2 Feb 2018)

Chris Schwarz may well be no Tage Frid, but he is a damn good publisher, who has brought the words of writers like Andre Roubo, Charles Hayward, the anonymous author of 'Doormaking and Window-Making' among others to a wider audience.

Those writers, for the most part, had all forgotten more about wood and tools than most of us will ever know.

For that, Schwarz deserves credit, not snarky side-swipes.


----------



## G S Haydon (2 Feb 2018)

Tasky":13cz6q8h said:


> AndyT":13cz6q8h said:
> 
> 
> > I don't want to get sidetracked into a discussion about what people call things - that's linguistics not woodworking - and I am well aware that usage is fluid, over time and countries.
> ...



If you find reading interesting ,look up "Schrupphobel" or other European names for a scrub plane. As with most things there was a wooden version before Stanley made a metal version. There is less of a tradition in the UK for a "Schrupphobel". Perhaps Stanley saw a market for the "Scrub" in America where there was a diverse amount of trades from various European countries who fancied a metal version of a "Schrupphobel".


----------



## D_W (2 Feb 2018)

I've always given him credit for publishing things other people wrote. That's what he's good at. I'm sure I could find a dozen instances on various forms, and I have books that other people wrote that he's published and quite like them. Books that he wrote himself, I've had a couple and they're pretty worthless. They do generate a lot of discussion, but I'm not really looking for wide audience but low quality. It's sort of like saying that Chris Grobin has really brought music to a wide audience. Good for him. It hurts my ears and makes me long for recordings of a young Pavarotti. 

Publisher is not to be confused with expert woodworker, and when he's reminded that he's not that great of a woodworker (he had a severe overreaction when his sawing skills were criticized on Underhill's program), he doesn't take it well. I don't love it when his fanboys revolt when they're faced with that truth, and I've seen a couple of times where people come out of the woodwork and register on sawmill creek to harrass George Wilson, who is a living master to say the absolute least, just because they couldn't tell a playdoh egg from sculpture.


----------



## knockknock (3 Feb 2018)

D_W":1k963jdc said:


> just because they couldn't tell a playdoh egg from sculpture.


Your comment reminds me of the Cloud Gate chrome bean :mrgreen:


----------



## Cheshirechappie (3 Feb 2018)

D_W":fzfnqwxa said:


> I've always given him credit for publishing things other people wrote. That's what he's good at. I'm sure I could find a dozen instances on various forms, and I have books that other people wrote that he's published and quite like them. Books that he wrote himself, I've had a couple and they're pretty worthless. They do generate a lot of discussion, but I'm not really looking for wide audience but low quality. It's sort of like saying that Chris Grobin has really brought music to a wide audience. Good for him. It hurts my ears and makes me long for recordings of a young Pavarotti.
> 
> Publisher is not to be confused with expert woodworker, and when he's reminded that he's not that great of a woodworker (he had a severe overreaction when his sawing skills were criticized on Underhill's program), he doesn't take it well. I don't love it when his fanboys revolt when they're faced with that truth, and I've seen a couple of times where people come out of the woodwork and register on sawmill creek to harrass George Wilson, who is a living master to say the absolute least, just because they couldn't tell a playdoh egg from sculpture.



Chris has written books on benches, toolchests, campaign furniture, staked furniture and probably others. For those books, he's built the furniture, benches or toolchests he illustrates, and from reading his blog, he's also furnished his house and built quite a few items for others. In the course of doing all that, he's sawn a lot of wood, and his methods seem to work well enough for him.

Maybe he's more concerned about the end result that the minutiae of the process of getting there. He's found his way to saw his wood to length, and then get on with joining it together to make what he needs to. He's found a way to keep his tools sharp, and doesn't bother that there may be a gazillion minor variations, or different brands of oilstone.

You do your thing in your own time and with your own money, for your own satisfaction. You like trying every last variation of a particular process - which blade steel works best for you, which minor variation of plane design suits you best. That's fine - carry on. It's your hobby. But don't be too quick to sneer at others doing woodwork a slightly different way. Their end goal might be a bit different, but just as valid, and it might also be of interest to others.


----------



## Jacob (3 Feb 2018)

You can do almost everything with a jack plane - 5 1/2 generally preferred.
Next most essential is a block. My favourite is a Stanley 220 - the old sort with a wooden button, the later ones are too heavy for a one handed plane.
Hardly anything else needed until you get to rebate and moulding planes. But if you have jointers etc by all means use them but don't imagine they are essential
Scrub plane I've concluded is very specialist and not for general woodwork, which is why they are not common. They are just for scrubbing up very rough stuff such as old reclaimed timbers. The narrow blade and deep camber means the cut goes deep into cleaner wood below, without having to cut through all the grit etc embedded in the surface, just a bit of it. Ditto with reclaimed painted or varnished timber - this will blunt a shallow cutting blade very quickly but a scrub will cut through the paint layers and work mostly in the clean wood underneath.


----------



## Silly_Billy (3 Feb 2018)

Jacob":2p6a022c said:


> You can do almost everything with a jack plane - 5 1/2 generally preferred.


What makes a 5 1/2 better than a 5? Now I'm confused (again) ...



Workshop Heaven":2p6a022c said:


> In many ways it is better to think of the 5-1/2 as a short try plane or panel plane, rather than a broad jack plane. It takes a broad, shallow shaving, so if you work with reasonably straight or pre-machined material it will deal with small corrections on wide surfaces very efficiently.
> 
> Conversely, if you work with timber that starts off like a propeller blade, the narrower No.5 honed with a steep camber and used across the grain (the traditional function of a jack plane) might be more suitable.


----------



## Jacob (3 Feb 2018)

Yep it is confusing! 
A 5 1/2 will take "a broad shallow shaving" if you want it too - and if you grind the blade with no camber. But no camber makes a plane difficult to work with and is best avoided except for special purposes
To make it generally useful it needs a good camber.

A 5 is good for smaller work. Basically, size of plane roughly corresponds to the size of workpiece, if you have the planes.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Feb 2018)

Jacob":1r7kgf14 said:


> You can do almost everything with a jack plane - 5 1/2 generally preferred.
> Next most essential is a block.



This is the problem with broad questions like this one. As I said above, I haven't used a blockplane for ten minutes in three decades. This of course doesn't decry your comment, but neither does your comment (nor mine  ) necessarily apply to anyone else. I rarely use No.4 and virtually never a No.5 (though I have them) - but I appreciate there are others who use those two 95% of the time.
Horses for courses.


----------



## El Barto (3 Feb 2018)

Yikes a few unnecessarily bitter comments towards Chris Schwarz here. He really is a divisive character in woodworking isn’t he.

I like him as a publisher, writer and woodworker. He’s proven to be an invaluable resource to me and countless others I suppose.

I always find it funny and quite telling that those truly helpful people on the internet aren’t the ones lowering themselves to making back handed or snide remarks about others. They just get on with it. :-k 

Know what I mean?


----------



## Beau (3 Feb 2018)

5 1/2 and block plane for me. Also use a compass plane a surprising amount. Own a no4 but never use it.


----------



## Ttrees (3 Feb 2018)

The 5 1/2 is a completely different animal than the 5 
I recently got a 5, and assigned it to the metalwork shed for planing plywood or the odd bit of softwood.
I use one of my 5 1/2's as a smoother with the cap iron set, the other with a small camber for stock removal.
I used to have a bigger camber on one plane for this, but I've surfaced all my inventory face and edge on most, so
dont need a large camber anymore...
Maybe if I got a nice tree slab I might consider using a 5 again with a large camber, but I think I will take some advice 
here instead, and get a woody for the job.

I like Chris as he pursues to find more forgotten techniques and such, but I was saddened when I saw him take a 
HAMMER to an old no. 3 :shock: to prove a point ..
It looked usable to me, but maybe it was a lemon?

I wonder if he would do it now, after this (re)cap iron revelation


----------



## profchris (3 Feb 2018)

Silly_Billy":2qc42kxr said:


> I’m enjoying reading Chris Schwarz’s _Hand Plane Essentials_, in which he recommends four hand planes:
> 1. Fore plane - albeit he suggests using a No. 5 for this - which doesn’t have to be perfectly flat
> 2. Jointer plane, which does have to be well tuned
> 3. Smoother, which also has to be highly tuned
> ...



Back to the original question, the wide range of answers is because people are doing different kinds of work and so need different kinds of planes.

I'd say that, whatever you're doing, you definitely need a medium-sized 'un. Quite what that means depends - I made a lot of ukuleles using a No 3, but I'm now working on some guitars and the No 3 is a bit small so I'm using a No 4. Someone making big tables might go No 5 1/2.

That might be all you need if it has an adjustable mouth and you've got a few blades, so you can remove excess material, smooth and deal with end grain.

If you need to join long pieces then a long 'un would be handy, though not essential. For a ukulele a long piece is maybe 12 inches, so I could get away with the No 3 (and have), but I still find a few uses for my No 7.

If you do a lot of small scale end grain work as I do you need a little 'un, probably a block plane (though my Quangsheng No 1, which I thought was an indulgence, turns out to be really useful here).

And then there is oddball stuff - I have one of those cheap 3 inch long brass and rosewood things via eBay which sees a lot of use on the innards of an instrument. Mouldings and so on need specialist kit. I find a woodie scrub, not too aggressive, really useful because I don't have a thickness sander. And on you go.

In the end you'll probably buy all of these. If you really want advice I'd say try every job with what you have in hand and see how you get on. You'll soon tell if the size/style of the plane doesn't suit that kind of work, and that will tell you what you want to buy next.

Or, if you have lots of money, buy it all now and gloat over it!


----------



## D_W (3 Feb 2018)

El Barto":2a84ctop said:


> Yikes a few unnecessarily bitter comments towards Chris Schwarz here. He really is a divisive character in woodworking isn’t he.
> 
> I like him as a publisher, writer and woodworker. He’s proven to be an invaluable resource to me and countless others I suppose.
> 
> ...



Yes, the folks like me not selling anything, giving stuff away and not holding back legitimate comments about who is who (vs. those in the tool show circuit, who will not provide their accurate opinion about anyone else in the same club) - we're not truly helpful. Here's a simple point. When you need a book published because it's out in low volume and overpriced on the used market, Chris is your guy. When you need advice about tools, he's not your guy unless you like changing opinions and his lack of competence (who else would make a two part bench top under the guise that it's easier to make for someone using hand tools and then say they couldn't manage to cut the ends off? Who else would clench nails over in a huge mess like a three year-old? There are endless displays of incompetence).

If you like the "funny guy" for hand tools, look to Roy. He's nowhere close to the class of a George Wilson, etc, in ability, but he is still very good and his presentation is great. 

If you like woodworking lite, though, feel free to put people like me on ignore. I'm not offended by that.


----------



## Andy Kev. (5 Feb 2018)

I suspect that all the replies to the question in this thread will be a reflection of how people work and that will itself dictate which selection of planes works best for them. So there will be lots of "right" answers and probably hardly any wrong ones. So here's my twopennerth:

a. A low angle jack plane. This is far and away the one I use most and it is about as wide as a 5 1/2. It took me a while to realise that the blade really does have to have a light camber on it. It also works perfectly well as a smoother.

b. A 7 or an 8. A long plane is surely the best thing for getting a long board finally flat. On anything over 2 feet long this one follows the LAJ. It needs two blades, one lightly cambered and one straight, the latter being solely used for the jointing of edges.

c. A low angled block plane. I don't use it often but when it's needed there is no substitute.

In the light of the above I've come to the view that a dedicated smoother is an absolute luxury. That said, there's no harm in a bit of luxury and I treated myself to a Clifton 4 1/2 which is only ever used for final smoothing, a job which it does immaculately.

Obviously at some point one will need a plough plane and a router plane but I assume that that is an uncontroversial statement.

The order of acquisition of the above is another matter. I would say get the LAJ and block from the outset and once you feel you really know how to use the LAJ, then get the 7 or 8. The only other plane which I added to the list was an old No 5 to which I added a modern blade which I cambered heavily and that is used for quick removal of heavy shavings more or less in the manner of a scrub plane.


----------



## Oskar Sedell (5 Feb 2018)

D_W":3bhnbjmp said:


> A jack plane is far better (and at least as fast - and faster once the follow-on work is considered) than a scrub plane for thicknessing lumber.



Hi David, I want to understand your opinion on jack vs. scrub. Please forgive me if I take your quote above out of context, this is not my intention. 

For clarity, I talk about the british style Jack or fore plane vs. the continental wooden scrub, without cap iron. I surely agree that rough dimensioning with controlled or limited tearout is great. I do this myself for show surfaces. What about back sides, or otherwise hidden surfaces where terminal, catastrophic tearout does not matter. Might a scrub be faster or more effective here?

The top of an old high cupboard at home shows exactly this. A deeply scalloped surface with even deeper tearout, all hidden from sight by the crown moulding. But I bet the work went really fast.

What is the role of shape and ergonomics (sole length, grip, etc. )?


----------



## Tasky (5 Feb 2018)

Andy Kev.":3gl43tii said:


> Obviously at some point one will need a plough plane and a router plane but I assume that that is an uncontroversial statement.


I assume that, whatever your opinion, someone else will argue that you don't need whatever it is and can do all that (and more) with just a No.4 morticing chisel and 20 years practice. 

If it works for you, do it. 
Just yesterday I made a pair of recesses, one with a router, one with a chisel... just because I felt like doing it.


----------



## D_W (5 Feb 2018)

I can't think of a situation where a scrub plane is actually faster than a jack plane with a fair amount of camber. The stanley issue is easy to explain away given the construction site stock narrowing explanation. 

I have a plane set up like the euro scrub planes, and it's pleasant to use cross grain on panels, but not much else (the caveat with blown out far-side edges still exists. I don't know that it's faster than the English jack plane, but it might be easier to use cross grain on narrower wood. Without knowing someone who has read continental european texts (in german, etc), it's hard to tell. 

the other thing you'll notice about them is that they're two-handed planes if you want to do heavy work, and the horn is handy, but they can be rough on you (shoulders and elbows) in heavy work.


----------



## D_W (5 Feb 2018)

Cheshirechappie":27hh7xqb said:


> Chris has written books on benches, toolchests, campaign furniture, staked furniture and probably others. For those books, he's built the furniture, benches or toolchests he illustrates, and from reading his blog, he's also furnished his house and built quite a few items for others. In the course of doing all that, he's sawn a lot of wood, and his methods seem to work well enough for him.
> 
> Maybe he's more concerned about the end result that the minutiae of the process of getting there. He's found his way to saw his wood to length, and then get on with joining it together to make what he needs to. He's found a way to keep his tools sharp, and doesn't bother that there may be a gazillion minor variations, or different brands of oilstone.
> 
> You do your thing in your own time and with your own money, for your own satisfaction. You like trying every last variation of a particular process - which blade steel works best for you, which minor variation of plane design suits you best. That's fine - carry on. It's your hobby. But don't be too quick to sneer at others doing woodwork a slightly different way. Their end goal might be a bit different, but just as valid, and it might also be of interest to others.



So, I say he does sloppy work and is awkward with the tools, and is good at publishing books, and what you take from that is that I think he doesn't use the right tools or process? How much clearer could it be - he's a mediocre woodworker, his books that are written by someone else (with more knowledge) and published by him are great, and his books (tool chests and workbenches) are sort of low-level fare. I think I might have the workbench book somewhere, but I can't be sure. I never had the urge to get it out when I was forced to build another bench. 

In case it's not clear, there is a world of literature and ideas by people who are really good at woodworking (or carving, or toolmaking, etc). I'd prefer to exhaust qualified sources that don't change their minds or push tools. There are lots of those qualified sources, but I guess they don't come with news updates about "woodworking in america" must buy items, or "proof" to readers that buying a capable $10 chisel is "false economy" vs. buying lie nielsen tools. When you're incompetent, all kinds of spoon fed foolishness seems like a great idea. 

He has sold a lot of tools, though, and has a semi-religious following. You're right, there are a lot of people who seem to be more into the fluff than the details, but good work takes details. Not jamming saws, not clenching nails in random directions, not flip flopping about cap irons or recommending $550 dovetail saws. It's the lite version, but if you like it, that's fine. 

I'd prefer 10 minutes with klausz or frid, or nicholson to hours with CS. But when Chris publishes other peoples' work, I will buy it if I like it. He does that well.

Let me give you an example of what talking to a professional will do for you vs. reading about workbenches or other nonsense that you can figure out on your own (or making tool chests to sit static in your shop): Last night, I was discussing a plane that I'm making - with George Wilson. I am *extremely* lucky to be able to talk to George. I said something about figuring out how to hand file plane soles and sides to flat and square within a 1 1/2 thousandth feeler and a good reference. Steel infill planes do not hand lap well, because the steel is a lot more resistant to abrasion from paper (more gummy). I was pleased with myself for finding a fast-cutting file that can flex so that I can file areas on a plane sole without filing over the edges. George said "take any file, drill holes in it with a tile bit and fix it to a bar or a board and put a piece of cardboard under the file before you tighten it. 

That's better than my idea, I suspect, and I'm going to use it. George is an expert toolmaker (and instrument maker, and diemaker, and a million other things). If he wrote books, he'd have no suggestion other than mailing the plane to a machine shop. You're not likely to find him traveling around instructing people on how to cut dovetails or what they should buy. He can talk to you about how you can do fine work, where your designs need improvement, etc. Chris can show you how to make a mediocre version of something for your shop that you don't really need. 

But he does have a lot of fans in the "YMMV" crowd.


----------



## Jacob (5 Feb 2018)

D_W":26za0w57 said:


> I can't think of a situation where a scrub plane is actually faster than a jack plane with a fair amount of camber. .....


If you use a scrub for its intended purpose (IMHO) it will be much faster than a jack and can do stuff which a jack could not begin to touch.
Clue to scrub's intended purpose is in the name; 'scrub'. 
It is ideal for scrubbing up difficult and dirty surfaces such as old timbers with grit, other rubbish, paint etc. It cuts deep into the clean wood underneath and lifts off the grot in the shavings, where a wider blade with a shallow camber would have to cut _through_ it and rapidly become blunt. Try planing old painted timber with a normal jack - it's not easy.
The scrub does it by having a very rounded camber and a narrow blade - ripping a deep but narrow trough very easily (fastest across the grain at 45º ish but will work at any angle).
It'd also double up, for bench work or on trestles , for work you might do with an adze or side axe (or a chain saw!).
It's a very minority use, hence the steel scrub was virtually unknown in the UK (until LN cashed in with their expensive version) and fairly uncommon in USA.
I'd never heard of them at all for a long time - perhaps because they were called "Bismarck" planes here as they copied the European style with a horn front handle. The wooden ones are also rare here and I've only ever seen one on ebay which wasn't an ECE or similar import. I bought it as part of a job lot of an old cabinet makers working tool set - he probably made it himself as it's made of offcuts of some very decorative looking oak.


----------



## Tasky (5 Feb 2018)

Jacob":3qzwfzwc said:


> The scrub does it by having a very rounded camber and a narrow blade - ripping a deep but narrow trough very easily.
> It'd also double up, for bench work or on trestles , for work you'd do with an adze or side axe.
> It's a very minority use, hence the steel scrub was virtually unknown in the UK (until LN cashed in with their expensive version) and fairly uncommon in USA.


I think there's further confusion because Scrub planes take off large amounts of wood, so anything that does this 'must' be a Scrub plane... even if it's just a really good Jack. Most times I've seen it, it's people using a modded #4 or #5 to "scrub off" lots of wood, with only Richard Maguire using a wooden one for the same purpose. 
It's always been small-ish benchwork, though, never large bits of wood.


----------



## D_W (5 Feb 2018)

Jacob":2cryt5ti said:


> D_W":2cryt5ti said:
> 
> 
> > I can't think of a situation where a scrub plane is actually faster than a jack plane with a fair amount of camber. .....
> ...



It sounds like you have a jack set with a flatter camber than someone would if they were dimensioning rough wood by hand. It's not a relevant comparison. If the jack plane isn't removing a similar volume of wood (even if it is a bit flatter), then your jack is set up too shallow.


----------



## Jacob (5 Feb 2018)

Tasky":2ni7qbg5 said:


> [.......
> It's always been small-ish benchwork, though, never large bits of wood.


I've used one to clean up the face of an old reclaimed joist prior to using a jack plane or machining it. The scrub is very fast, takes off all the rubbish, may get a nick or two from old nails (if you missed a couple when removing them first!) but still works, if there aren't too many nails. You can then see where the nails are and take them out with a parrot beak.
You could grind a jack to have a similar blade profile but it would be a bit pointless - the little light woody versions are much easier to use.
I wouldn't know this if I hadn't bought an ECE scrub and used it a lot and compared it to using a jack. They are excellent for this one purpose, but no use as a general purpose plane.


----------



## D_W (5 Feb 2018)

I have an older functional equivalent to your ece scrub, and have had a couple of metal scrubs. 

You're more or less talking about construction use. However, all of those things were done for a long time with a jack plane (in England and the US) without anyone ever thinking they needed a scrub plane. 

The items that you described as complicating the work (dirty lumber, nails, etc) would've existed when people were using jack planes. Not sure a joist would've been planed, though. 

Curious if the draw for construction work is the size of the plane or the ability for it to do quick work in wood that's not flat, whereas a 17 inch long jack plane would span some sections. Thinking about narrowing a door, I would do it with a jack plane and try plane, and not a scrub, but i'm not carrying those two to a site, either.


----------



## Jacob (5 Feb 2018)

> however, all of those things were done for a long time with a jack plane (in England and the US) without anyone ever thinking they needed a scrub plane.


Probably why there aren't many of them about - nobody needed them very much.

Never used one on site but come to think a scrub could be very handy for scribing e.g. the outer edges of a door frame if a bit too tight and the plane marks to be out of sight when fixed.
But never on a door itself - it would have to be in a very bad way to need hacking at with a scrub plane!

Modifying a jack to use as a scrub - not easy to grind a 2 1/2" blade down to 1 1/4" wide with 1 1/4" radius camber, and a waste of a good plane!


----------



## D_W (5 Feb 2018)

knockknock":3gijdi0f said:


> D_W":3gijdi0f said:
> 
> 
> > just because they couldn't tell a playdoh egg from sculpture.
> ...



That's interesting. First wonder seeing something like that is how the surface was refined to a gloss, and it looks like it was literally ground, sanded and polished into shininess. 

The other interesting thing from the article is that it appears China has made something similar, and people want "legal action" to be taken. It's an interesting sculpture (if you'd go so far to call it as that), but I think kidney beans and mercury might sue the guy who made it if he can sue china for making something similar.


----------



## patrickjchase (5 Feb 2018)

D_W":kuvcbtl8 said:


> Let me give you an example of what talking to a professional will do for you vs. reading about workbenches or other nonsense that you can figure out on your own (or making tool chests to sit static in your shop): Last night, I was discussing a plane that I'm making - with George Wilson. I am *extremely* lucky to be able to talk to George. I said something about figuring out how to hand file plane soles and sides to flat and square within a 1 1/2 thousandth feeler and a good reference. Steel infill planes do not hand lap well, because the steel is a lot more resistant to abrasion from paper (more gummy). I was pleased with myself for finding a fast-cutting file that can flex so that I can file areas on a plane sole without filing over the edges. George said "take any file, drill holes in it with a tile bit and fix it to a bar or a board and put a piece of cardboard under the file before you tighten it.



Tangential to the discussion, but "hand" pattern files were traditionally made with thickness taper such that they were flat on one face and bellied on the other, precisely to enable that use without any fixtures or contraptions. The Vallorbe Valtitans at a minimum are still made that way, though they're expensive at $20/file and up. If I have some spare moments I'll take a picture of one of mine in profile. 

Nicholson's old "Filosophy" book deals with this on pp. 8-9 and 31, though they don't specify that only one face should be convex. https://ia801302.us.archive.org/30/...osophy1928/Nicholson File Philosophy 1928.pdf
If you're stuck with a mass-manufactured "straight" file then George's solution obviously works. One of the old file makers (Nicholson?) used to sell a fixture like that with predrilled files, so it has a long tradition.

George Wilson is obviously a wood- and metal-working God. I know that everybody on his usual forum of choice has their fingers crossed for him to make a speedy recovery and return to posting.


----------



## Racers (5 Feb 2018)

D_W":1tk4g603 said:


> Racers":1tk4g603 said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't live without a block plane.
> ...



My love of a chamfer means my block plane gets a lot of use, I just count the strokes and job done.

Pete


----------



## patrickjchase (5 Feb 2018)

Jacob":w2qyuc4a said:


> If you use a scrub for its intended purpose (IMHO) it will be much faster than a jack and can do stuff which a jack could not begin to touch.
> Clue to scrub's intended purpose is in the name; 'scrub'.
> It is ideal for scrubbing up difficult and dirty surfaces such as old timbers with grit, other rubbish, paint etc. It cuts deep into the clean wood underneath and lifts off the grot in the shavings, where a wider blade with a shallow camber would have to cut _through_ it and rapidly become blunt.



Why must a Jack have "shallow camber"? You can (and many of us do) easily put similar camber on a Jack as on a Scrub, thereby negating your entire argument. English Fore and Jack planes were traditionally ground with what 18th century texts have described as a "thumb's nail profile" IIRC. Admittedly you can't fully extend such an iron such that it cuts all the way across, but that's not a practical limitation.

That's really David's point: There is nothing that a scrub can do that a Jack can't *if that Jack is properly configured for roughing*. At the same time the Jack has many useful features (most notably a cap iron) that the Scrub doesn't. As I said in a previous post this is a case where the Continental and English traditions evolved different solutions to similar problems, and IMO the English tradition ended with the better answer.


----------



## StraightOffTheArk (5 Feb 2018)

The January 1937 edition of The Woodworker describes a 'roughing or scrub' plane and its use in pretty much the same terms as Jacob - it's advantages being that it is 'handy' and dedicated to being used in situations where you might worry about damaging other planes, I suspect that the latter quality (limiting damage to this one plane) is the most important, both in those and more modern times. Also, in my limited understanding, its short length is considered an advantage compared to a Jack, as it allows you to concentrate on removing material without being hindered by keeping the surface flat. 

Cheers,

Carl


----------



## D_W (5 Feb 2018)

patrickjchase":z24riao6 said:


> Tangential to the discussion, but "hand" pattern files were traditionally made with thickness taper such that they were flat on one face and bellied on the other, precisely to enable that use without any fixtures or contraptions. The Vallorbe Valtitans at a minimum are still made that way, though they're expensive at $20/file and up. If I have some spare moments I'll take a picture of one of mine in profile.
> 
> Nicholson's old "Filosophy" book deals with this on pp. 8-9 and 31, though they don't specify that only one face should be convex. https://ia801302.us.archive.org/30/...osophy1928/Nicholson File Philosophy 1928.pdf
> If you're stuck with a mass-manufactured "straight" file then George's solution obviously works. One of the old file makers (Nicholson?) used to sell a fixture like that with predrilled files, so it has a long tradition.
> ...



I'm sure there are fixtures galore to manipulate files and like tools for bodywork (some of the vixens are pre-drilled to be affixed or bent into something). I'm partial to the Simonds Multi-Kut for fast draw filing, because they're (fairly large) interrupted tooth and cut easily and can be bent just with hand pressure. Sometime in the next couple of weeks, I should have a chance to try a few new things. 

And, they're cheap. A file per infill plane is probably accurate for consumption. The smaller expensive files that only do corners last a lot longer, but flat files get wasted fairly quickly (if you can call a whole bunch of metalwork on a 10 pound wood and metal object a "waste". No guilt grinding edges off of them, either, to make them to suit.


----------



## patrickjchase (5 Feb 2018)

D_W":1h7pfa2m said:


> And, they're cheap. A file per infill plane is probably accurate for consumption. The smaller expensive files that only do corners last a lot longer, but flat files get wasted fairly quickly (if you can call a whole bunch of metalwork on a 10 pound wood and metal object a "waste". No guilt grinding edges off of them, either, to make them to suit.



What material do you use for the soles of your infills?

I ask because the higher-end files (Valtitan, Corrinox, etc) have hard-chrome finishes that raise their surface hardness to ~Rc72. If the metals you're working are hard enough then they end up being (potentially a lot) more cost-effective than cheap files. They don't cut quite as cleanly as a really good carbon-steel file though.

For HCS the breakpoint is around Rc52 IMO: Below that plain files are cheaper, above that Valtitan/Corrinox wins. For other alloys with more carbides etc the situation is more complex.


----------



## D_W (5 Feb 2018)

Generally just annealed mild steel. Far (far far far) softer than 52. I don't even like to use O1 any longer because it machines more slowly (though the precision ground O1 is a much more accurate starting point if you're working by hand - I've learned to hammer the mild steel so that it's reasonably flat to start.). 

There's an online retailer in PA who sells the multikut files for $8 with a handle on them, which makes them cheap enough to grind if you want to safe edge them and just waste one, or in the current case, grind a 20 degree profile off of the edge of one to file a skew mouth. 

I do like the swiss files, but not for general hogging work.


----------



## Jacob (5 Feb 2018)

patrickjchase":2iicpp5w said:


> ......
> 
> Why must a Jack have "shallow camber"? You can (and many of us do) easily put similar camber on a Jack as on a Scrub,......


Scrub blades are narrow about 1 1/4", camber radius about the same i.e. diameter 2 1/2" = about the width of a jack plane blade. You could file that on a jack plane but it'd be very peculiar and useless for anything else but deep scrubbing. Waste of a good plane - and too heavy for scrubbing which involves a lot of fast action.

Just noticed the LV offering is a bit wider at 1 1/2" but lets face it it's an expensive marketing exercise, not a tool which anybody needs and would be less effective then the narrower ECE light woody


----------



## patrickjchase (5 Feb 2018)

Jacob":1xvmpan3 said:


> patrickjchase":1xvmpan3 said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



A 2.5" camber radius on a 2" wide Jack iron would extend back about 0.2" measured along the iron, i.e. the curved part would be 1/5" long from corners to tip. That's consistent with historical practice for traditional English Jack/Fore planes. As I said earlier, the texts describe a "thumb's nail profile". I also know of more than a few modern WWers who use such cambers in their Jacks (though I personally use ~5-6").

Your main limitations here seem to be lack of historical knowledge and a failure of imagination. Things that you keep insisting are "impossible" are/were actually common practice.


----------



## D_W (5 Feb 2018)

Jacob":2jutd5me said:


> patrickjchase":2jutd5me said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



I am not good at reading historical practice. I fiddle with something until I find easiest, but I never take a full width shaving with a jack plane. If the wood gets harder, my shaving gets narrower, which seems a sensible thing to do (because it makes the harder woods easier to work rather than trying to set up a plane to force a full width shaving). I'd guess the typical cherry jack plane shaving that I take is between 1 and 1 1/2 inches, depending on how easy the wood works (if it lets you work deeper, you do it). 

I've measured radius one time, and I can't remember what it was, because there's never been a point in time that I set a plane up based on whatever makes it work easily. 

I've also never gotten a plane from anyone else and had a decent jack profile on a jack or fore plane, but I have gotten a lot of those set up as smoothers because that's what people like to do to set up a plane -have a lot of smoothers. If the thickness planer wasn't so popular for the last 150 years, maybe more planes would show up used with a rank set. 

I'm sure Chris Schwarz has a suggestion (and I say that, because I remember at one point, he must've posted about the radii of various plane irons - it was an excited topic for a little bit - maybe excited because people had never used a jack plane). There are too many variables (let laziness be the guide) to rely on someones' written radius. They could be working cheap pine and you good quality cherry or them maple and you second growth not-so-great cherry. 

I keep two jacks under my bench. Mostly because the first one isn't pretty enough to sell and it's really a copy of a 2 1/2" iron mathieson closed handle 17" fore. The second jack, I seem to build about 4 or 5 a year either for having one begged away or for another reason that seems more suitable than me just selling a plane to someone to see if I can get money out of them and keep it for myself. Because of that, I get to set up a jack plane with new camber (the old irons are almost always straight, and if not, very close) - it's definitely not more than 5 minutes on the CBN wheel, and only the cap iron is needed to make sure that the profile - by eye - is relatively centered with the fit of the cap iron. Two corner facets grounded square, then round the whole thing, then cut the bevel. Praise Jesus and pass the CBN wheel. Haven't overheated one yet.

I hope the next person who gets one of my planes sets the camber to whatever they prefer.


----------



## custard (6 Feb 2018)

D_W":1jpjf572 said:


> I'd guess the typical cherry jack plane shaving that I take is between 1 and 1 1/2 inches, depending on how easy the wood works (if it lets you work deeper, you do it).



That's pretty much where I end up too,


----------



## Oskar Sedell (6 Feb 2018)

D_W":2b0jjut1 said:


> I can't think of a situation where a scrub plane is actually faster than a jack plane with a fair amount of camber. The stanley issue is easy to explain away given the construction site stock narrowing explanation.
> 
> I have a plane set up like the euro scrub planes, and it's pleasant to use cross grain on panels, but not much else (the caveat with blown out far-side edges still exists. I don't know that it's faster than the English jack plane, but it might be easier to use cross grain on narrower wood. Without knowing someone who has read continental european texts (in german, etc), it's hard to tell.
> 
> the other thing you'll notice about them is that they're two-handed planes if you want to do heavy work, and the horn is handy, but they can be rough on you (shoulders and elbows) in heavy work.



Thanks David!

one of the reasons I´m asking is that I have a very strong itch to build a birchwood horned plane, and I thought a scrub might be a good choice since I already have a good jack. I´m still at the point where making a new plane doesn´t necessarily mean making a doublet of any kind. 

Now I have to think if a narrow, single iron plane has to give way for a wider, double iron plane. Still horned and cambered for rank cuts.


----------



## Jacob (6 Feb 2018)

patrickjchase":c5pgkvad said:


> Jacob":c5pgkvad said:
> 
> 
> > patrickjchase":c5pgkvad said:
> ...


  
I think you need to work that out again! Try it with a pencil paper and compasses, you maths isn't up to much. (Just did that and the answer is nearer 3/8" - a very deep camber)
In fact I was talking about a 1 1/4 radius, even deeper camber (2 1/2"), but your maths is till way out.
My point is that the camber on the two scrub planes I own (one new ECE one old origin unknown) would be possible but pointless on a jack, or even a no 4. Only the central 1" or less of the blade would ever be usable.
A proper scrub is a very different plane from a modified jack
Or to look at it another way - look at your thumb nail - double that in size and you have a typical scrub plane width and profile (if it's anything like mine!).


----------



## swagman (6 Feb 2018)

Within the following article there is an online calculator (near the bottom of the page) that will give you the optimum radius of camber, based on the values of the irons width, desired depth of cut, and bed angle. BD application only. http://www.timberframe-tools.com/tools/ ... cambering/


----------



## Jacob (6 Feb 2018)

An ECE scrub looks much like a no 4






but it isn't if you look underneath






and it will do a very different cut (2 quick passes here)






resulting very quickly in this






which you can then smooth with a 4 or anything






scrub v 4 or jack, chalk n cheese!

PS I modified the mouth on the ECE to stop thick shavings from jamming


----------



## swagman (6 Feb 2018)

> The most obvious difference to note is the width of the iron. Scrub planes have much narrower irons than do fore planes. Subsequently the iron of a scrub has a greater camber and is a narrower plane all together.
> 
> In modern planes scrubs still lack a chip breaker - it's of no advantage for a scrub plane. However hat's not a conclusive detail, early planes were all single irons without a chip breaker.





> The easiest way to look at this is as follows. A scrub plane is a particular type of plane designed for one job. A fore plane is a bench plane in all aspects other than being tuned with a heavy camber and open mouth.
> 
> Here's the real difference though - Scrubs are of of Germanic / Dutch origin.
> 
> ...


http://www.woodworkingtalk.com/f11/choo ... ded-52942/



> Moxon writes more about the Fore Plane than any other plane,


 http://www.creoleproject.com/2014/04/ma ... moxon.html


----------



## Jacob (6 Feb 2018)

swagman":11faeq6o said:


> Within the following article there is an online calculator (near the bottom of the page) that will give you the optimum radius of camber, based on the values of the irons width, desired depth of cut, and bed angle. BD application only. http://www.timberframe-tools.com/tools/ ... cambering/


It will give you their optimum but it won't be mine and can safely be ignored. Don't waste your time just sharpen a deep camber and get on with it!

They refer to "The common scrub plane whether made by Stanley, Record, Lie Nielsen, Veritas". In fact non of these are common - the Stanley is rare, did Record even make one? the LN and LV are newcomers and just cashing in on fashions. 
The ECE seems to be the most common form - much like the "bismarck" referred to in the literature.
The only one I've seen in its natural habitat (collection of old cabinet makers tool from ebay) is this one
It has a much shallower camber than the ECE - which presumably the maker found suited him.


----------



## D_W (6 Feb 2018)

Oskar Sedell":rk1jq38v said:


> D_W":rk1jq38v said:
> 
> 
> > I can't think of a situation where a scrub plane is actually faster than a jack plane with a fair amount of camber. The stanley issue is easy to explain away given the construction site stock narrowing explanation.
> ...



build a plane that can be used as a jack or as a utility plane between jack and smoother (something with a mouth around 3/32 inch or so. You'll never mind having a little bit of extra width over the scrub type of narrow-soled plane.


----------



## D_W (6 Feb 2018)

custard":770hmtpv said:


> D_W":770hmtpv said:
> 
> 
> > I'd guess the typical cherry jack plane shaving that I take is between 1 and 1 1/2 inches, depending on how easy the wood works (if it lets you work deeper, you do it).
> ...



I go a bit steeper than that (none of my shavings would have waviness because they're thicker and cracking), but each of us is to determine the set that makes for the least effort. Narrower correlates to a little bit lazier and more dependent on the try plane to do follow-up work, but I wouldn't need to go as deep if I used a thickness planer. 

The prescribed tables are farce, except to introduce the concept to a beginner. If one doesn't work enough wood to find the "lazy" spot in the materials they use, then ...well, they're not working enough for it to matter. 

Once in a while, I still get a comment about these kinds of things through youtube or on a forum "Chris Schwarz has some blog posts on the cap iron, I think they might help you out". I see on Stewie's link that he had made a video that showed "the right" way to grind and hone irons. :roll:


----------



## D_W (6 Feb 2018)

Jacob":3k7miyo1 said:


> It has a much shallower camber than the ECE - which presumably the maker found suited him.



Precisely - whatever he was working must've worked well with that camber. If it didn't, he'd have changed it. 

I admire that you made your planes what you wanted them to be (but laziness would've gotten you there - why work harder than you have to with something just because someone else says you're not doing it the right way).


----------



## D_W (6 Feb 2018)

Speaking of the right way, I have a 2 7/16" wide 1/4" thick iron going into a skew infill shooting plane in a week or two. I need to taper it. I wonder what all of the gurus would say about tapering it. 

I also want it to be a bit hollow in its length. 

I'm sure the gurus have a tip for me (I already know how I'm going to do it, it's not rocket science and it doesn't involve drawing pictures or referring to something someone else said. I could go to a machinist's forum and have all of the armchair machinists and book writers tell me that you can't do it accurately by hand, but I'll have it done within a few thousandths of what I'm aiming for before they decide the right way to do something like that. Reminds me a little bit of Larry Williams, who suggested that I'd have to lay out $3K minimum to create a setup that would make useful tapered irons. ......what happened to hands, eyes and measuring tools. Jeez.).


----------



## patrickjchase (6 Feb 2018)

Jacob":3e8luke0 said:


> patrickjchase":3e8luke0 said:
> 
> 
> > A 2.5" camber radius on a 2" wide Jack iron would extend back about 0.2" measured along the iron, i.e. the curved part would be 1/5" long from corners to tip. That's consistent with historical practice for traditional English Jack/Fore planes. As I said earlier, the texts describe a "thumb's nail profile". I also know of more than a few modern WWers who use such cambers in their Jacks (though I personally use ~5-6").
> ...



Nope, my math is good. Try it with the calculator Stewie posted. 2" blade width, 2.5" camber radius. You'll get 0.15" depth of cut, 0.21" depth of camber (measured along the iron). Are you perhaps systematically confusing radius and diameter in your math? That's the only way I can obtain an error like yours.



Jacob":3e8luke0 said:


> In fact I was talking about a 1 1/4 radius, even deeper camber (2 1/2"), but your maths is till way out.



As noted above my math was/is good as confirmed by 3rd party tools (more than one). When I used radius there I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you'd mistyped, as 1.25" camber radius is "highly unusual". Your subsequent reply makes me almost certain that I was correct in doing so. Most scrubs including the ECE (I've used it) ship with about 3" camber radius. 

You can obviously contrive a configuration where a narrower blade becomes necessary, but be aware that that's not a common or productive way to go about roughing wood, now or historically.

By the way, you obviously don't practice what you preach. The picture of your ECE in another post obviously reveals a ~2.5" camber radius, or maybe larger. Why don't you just admit your mistyped and were wrong about the suitability of Jacks/Fores for roughing, and we can all just move along? It happens to everybody.


----------



## Jacob (6 Feb 2018)

You are confusing radius and diameter. 
https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/circle.html

Worried (dementia setting in?) I just carefully measured my ECE blade (the one in the snap) and it has a _radius_ of about 30mm. slightly less than 1 1/4". I set a compass at 30mm radius, drew a circle and dropped the blade on for a close fit.
This would give a _diameter _of less than 2 1/2" i.e. same radius would give a neat but very unusual complete semi circular camber in the end of a normal jack with 2 3/8" blade. (With a 30mm 'sagitta', to use bugbear's favourite word!)
This would work as a scrub but not be a very effective use of a plane - heavy and most of the blade un usable. Would it stay in situ under the cap iron?
Hence a jack or a smoother can't sensibly be adapted to emulate a scrub like the ECE, though they can of course be heavily cambered a little way in that direction.

The ECE is how it came, though it isn't as regular now as it was when new, I'm fairly slapdash with sharpening.

PS and of course the ECE removes wood much faster than you could possibly do with an adapted jack, but leaving a rough surface like an adze or gouge.
Which begs the question, how can this be, surely same amount of effort can only remove same amount of wood?
The answer is that the scrub shavings are thick, more like long chippings, like a ploughed field. A shallower cambered plane would have to slice through these shavings several times, with several times as much effort.
Or to put it another way - the finer the camber the more cuts you have to make to remove a given amount of wood. You could chop a tree down with a razor blade but it would take some time!


----------



## CStanford (7 Feb 2018)

=D> =D> =D>


----------



## Andy Kev. (7 Feb 2018)

Jacob":1qr1pq3l said:


> PS and of course the ECE removes wood much faster than you could possibly do with an adapted jack, but leaving a rough surface like an adze or gouge.
> Which begs the question, how can this be, surely same amount of effort can only remove same amount of wood?
> The answer is that the scrub shavings are thick, more like long chippings, like a ploughed field. A shallower cambered plane would have to slice through these shavings several times, with several times as much effort.
> Or to put it another way - the finer the camber the more cuts you have to make to remove a given amount of wood. You could chop a tree down with a razor blade but it would take some time!



Does not the above imply two planes for two jobs?

I ask this because yesterday I had to remove 3/16" of an inch of wood to get to a line. So I quickly took of roughly 1/8" with a heavily cambered No. 5 and then went down to the line with an LA Jack. I don't think I'd have trusted myself not to inadvertantly have crossed the line with a scrub plane that leaves an adze-like finish.

It sounds like there's a place for both of them in the tool box although personally I think I can get by without a scrub in the light of your Pictures.


----------



## CStanford (7 Feb 2018)

If the grain of your stock was reasonably compliant then that was probably a job for a scrub plane. If it were highly figured, plucky, or tended to tear out in deep chunks then even a heavily cambered jack might have been too aggressive. Point being: it depends. If you have more money than sense, tend to use twice as much wood and time as somebody else would to build the same project, regularly screw up workpieces only to happily make another, enjoy endless experimentation, etc., etc. then it all doesn't matter.


----------



## D_W (7 Feb 2018)

As for two planes - I don't regret keeping two jacks that I use fairly regularly, though they're not set that differently (compared to the extremes we're talking about). If the try plane is working well, the jacked surface doesn't need to be that fine, and you can get good with a rank set jack at coming up with a fairly even surface. 

If I used a metal plane, I'd just keep a separate iron, but switching irons in wooden planes isn't a great idea.

For you guys in the UK, I've seen a lot of nearly new jack planes sell for 10 or 15 quid on ebay (I just bought an essentially unused Mathieson jack from there for 25). That suggests that if you can find them on the ground, they're probably less than that, and of all of the planes that it's useful to have two of, the Jack is at the top of the list. Having two long planes or two smoothers doesn't save much (time), but two jacks could potentially be useful if you're bouncing back and forth between softwoods and hardwoods.


----------



## Jacob (7 Feb 2018)

I should add - I only bought the ECE scrub because I wanted to know what the fuss was about. 
Can't say I need it, nor would anyone else unless they are really into cleaning up manky old joists (as in photos above) or painted wood, for which they are excellent
They aren't much use for basic stock removal because of the roughness of the finish - rougher than hand rip-saw, axe, adze.
Not much use at all!
This is why there aren't many of them about.
The rear handle on the ECE is a bit small so I wear a rigger's glove. Could change the handle but it's not top o the list yet!


----------



## Tasky (7 Feb 2018)

So when people talk about 'scrubbing off' with, or using a widened-mouthed Stanley Bailey type plane of the usual variety as a Scrub plane, it's really just a Jack plane........??


----------



## Jacob (7 Feb 2018)

Tasky":1ms1eaad said:


> So when people talk about 'scrubbing off' with, or using a widened-mouthed Stanley Bailey type plane of the usual variety as a Scrub plane, it's really just a Jack plane........??


Yes.
They are very different.


----------



## StraightOffTheArk (7 Feb 2018)

Tasky":2ejt5p38 said:


> So when people talk about 'scrubbing off' with, or using a widened-mouthed Stanley Bailey type plane of the usual variety as a Scrub plane, it's really just a Jack plane........??


I think 'scrubbing off' is less prone to misinterpretation than 'jacking off'


----------



## D_W (7 Feb 2018)

Jacob":38t490m2 said:


> I should add - I only bought the ECE scrub because I wanted to know what the fuss was about.
> Can't say I need it, nor would anyone else unless they are really into cleaning up manky old joists (as in photos above) or painted wood, for which they are excellent
> They aren't much use for basic stock removal because of the roughness of the finish - rougher than hand rip-saw, axe, adze.
> Not much use at all!
> ...



Lots of the old planes (like the one you showed second) are missing the web-of-the-hand fixture entirely, and can be quite uncomfortable to use for a period of time. My converted plane looks slightly newer than your second picture, but similar in proportion and no web of the hand fixture. If you use it for a while, it will beat you up.


----------



## Oskar Sedell (8 Feb 2018)

D_W":u7hb4yc7 said:


> build a plane that can be used as a jack or as a utility plane between jack and smoother (something with a mouth around 3/32 inch or so. You'll never mind having a little bit of extra width over the scrub type of narrow-soled plane.




Sounds like a plan. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.


----------



## Tasky (8 Feb 2018)

Jacob":35cuo3oq said:


> Tasky":35cuo3oq said:
> 
> 
> > So when people talk about 'scrubbing off' with, or using a widened-mouthed Stanley Bailey type plane of the usual variety as a Scrub plane, it's really just a Jack plane........??
> ...



Yes, their idea of a Scrub is really a Jack... or No, they're two very different planes and these people ought to know the difference?


----------



## Jacob (8 Feb 2018)

Tasky":3gbrxvfz said:


> Jacob":3gbrxvfz said:
> 
> 
> > Tasky":3gbrxvfz said:
> ...


Basically you can't sensibly convert a jack to cut like an ECE scrub, because of the narrow blade and the tight radius.
Nobody is saying these people "ought" to know the difference - there's a lot of opinion going around!


----------



## D_W (8 Feb 2018)

If you really want to throw a wrench into it, I've seen quite a few rabbet planes that have been set up to do scrub work (well, maybe a few, not quite a few). 

I recall a video of a guy on youtube several years ago scrubbing a gigantic slab with a rabbet plane, all in one shot. I was impressed. 

(the setup, of course, is key - the rabbet plane in question had significant camber).


----------



## D_W (8 Feb 2018)

Jacob is right about the narrowness, though (is that a word?) - if all desires for flatness go out the window and the only desire is to scuff a large cross grain shaving off of a piece of stock, the narrow scrub designs will follow the undulations on the wood a little bit better. 

The era where the jack plane was the only plane for that type of work probably didn't include a lot of architectural restoration work.


----------



## Tasky (8 Feb 2018)

Jacob":1rzwsyex said:


> Basically you can't sensibly convert a jack to cut like an ECE scrub, because of the narrow blade and the tight radius.
> Nobody is saying these people "ought" to know the difference - there's a lot of opinion going around!


Actually, just found a Paul Sellers video explaining basically what I'd understood the difference was...

"In times past, before Stanley Rule and Level cast their first all-metal scrub plane, the well used and worn-down wooden smoothing planes were kept as roughing planes for scrubbing off rough surfaces in preparation for more refined work. Longer planes such as jack planes and jointer planes followed to further level and straighten the work before the smoothing plane smoothed out the final surfaces. The roughing plane had many names including Hunter plane, Scud or Scudding plane; Scurf or Scurfing plane; Cow plane and I am sure others I haven’t heard of and was the forerunner to the original Stanley scrub plane we know today. The wooden roughing plane worked well for centuries but with Stanley’s new fangled all-metal planes came the necessity of metal scrub planes too. In this video I explain a little of the important history behind the development of the scrub plane and the transition from wooden planes to the all metal versions." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1r1LIk ... 8zn4pszI9A

So yeah, he suggests that for the 2-300 years before Stanley gave it an official name, it was an 'upcycled' smoothing plane. 
Interesting to note that he goes from Scrub to Jack to Smoothing, without even mentioning a Fore plane...?


----------



## CStanford (8 Feb 2018)

In this case, the Scandinavian and Germanic branches of the western tradition have it right with a narrow plane, wide open mouth and curved cutter. All of this predates Stanley by quite a serious amount of time I'm fairly sure. That said, I'm sure this will raise the hair on the reinventers of the wheel's collective necks and send them scurrying to digitized versions of old Stanley catalogs while sputtering "but, but....."


----------



## Jacob (8 Feb 2018)

Stanley were just cashing in on a much older tradition, not very successfully considering how rare they are. 
LN LV have reinvented it as a hybrid - not quite a scrub but definitely not a jack or smoother, and they are promoting it as necessary for "major stock removal, the first step when flattening rough stock by hand" which could help sales, but isn't what a scrub was originally for, in my opinion, based on my experience with the ECE.


----------



## D_W (8 Feb 2018)

Tasky":2032i1zl said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1r1LIk ... 8zn4pszI9A
> 
> So yeah, he suggests that for the 2-300 years before Stanley gave it an official name, it was an 'upcycled' smoothing plane.
> Interesting to note that he goes from Scrub to Jack to Smoothing, without even mentioning a Fore plane...?



Kind of curious that we don't see these planes sold used, because I've bought planes as old as about 1830 unused (as in, they should be out there in droves). 

Wouldn't be surprised if there were users with more than one jack, though. 

Just supposing what a very very coarse plane might have been used for before the era of architectural restoration, etc, I wouldn't be surprised to find that a shop kept a very rank set plane to rough green wood - but I'm no expert on any of that stuff. 

I just have a fairly good idea about what a lazy man who hand dimensions would want at his bench using decent dried lumber. those planes *are* found in droves, and the fact that few hand dimension makes them really cheap on your island continent. I saw a good shape jack plane on ebay a couple of days ago BIN with a full iron and no breaks for 10 quid. I also bought an almost unused Mathieson jack (17 inch, 2 1/8th iron - my favorite design) for the equivalent of about $35. Saw several 22 inch try planes in decent shape for 20 pounds, too. 

There's no great need to wonder which is better for what - trying them is a cheap proposition in most places. A lot cheaper than trying carving tools or shoulder planes. One can even try single iron planes if they like (if you can find them - that's not quite so easy), to see the difference between single and double and why the double eliminated quality single iron planes so fast. 

I get about one request a month to build someone a plane. I have done it once so far (because the person buying agreed to contribute the difference between my ask and my costs to a charity - for a plane I'd already made for myself and used) - it's odd to me that I can tell someone to buy one of these $20 planes, and they won't do it. If I tell them I'll make them a ready-use plane for a couple of hundred, they're onto that. Perhaps I should offer a white collar service here in the states - U buy, I fettle - for old wooden planes. $100 for an hour or two's worth of work (perhaps making a wedge or something of the sort), it goes to charity, and I don't need to build myself planes. 

And nobody pays $400 for a wooden plane that sits on a shelf until it shrinks tight to the iron.


----------



## D_W (8 Feb 2018)

The aforementioned rabbet scrub.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg0jUWJPweg


----------



## Jacob (8 Feb 2018)

That's a good idea! If you want to convert a plane into a scrub then a wide wooden rebate plane is the obvious choice. Lots of them about dead cheap in the UK at least, £5 or so. I see 1 1/4" and 1 7/8" on ebay at the mo.


----------



## patrickjchase (8 Feb 2018)

CStanford":2pi6da93 said:


> In this case, the Scandinavian and Germanic branches of the western tradition have it right with a narrow plane, wide open mouth and curved cutter. All of this predates Stanley by quite a serious amount of time I'm fairly sure. That said, I'm sure this will raise the hair on the reinventers of the wheel's collective necks and send them scurrying to digitized versions of old Stanley catalogs while sputtering "but, but....."



I said the same thing (about the scrub being a roughing plane from the German tradition, and Stanley's attempt at "retconning" its usage) many posts ago, so you'll get no argument here.

I'm not so sure about "right". The English Jack/Fore works perfectly well for the application as well, as do converted smoothers. As always there's more than one way to do it.

IIRC the Japanese tradition favored riving, which is arguably "best" of all when the wood is sufficiently straight grained. Does anybody know if they also evolved a roughing plane?


----------



## Bodgers (8 Feb 2018)

D_W":rtvhuizn said:


> The aforementioned rabbet scrub.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg0jUWJPweg


An ECE rabbit, no less...

"The plane I'm using is a scrub plane"...I'm not sure it is, but he's using it like one


----------



## CStanford (8 Feb 2018)

I'm no tool historian but from what I've seen the scrub evolved as a separate and distinct plane from jack, jointer, and smoother in the Scandinavian tradition. Of course, there's no absolute bright line between any of these planes since work and circumstances vary so much. That said, we shouldn't minimise (love that "s"!) the scrub's history and certainly not its effectiveness in certain circumstances.

I THINK Stanley advertised their scrub as a good tool for 'backing out' mouldings since by the time they offered one very few shops were hand prepping lumber to any degree. People like Larry Williams in the U.S. have taken this as virtually the Gospel even when presented with evidence to the contrary.

Speaking of "s's" I'm cooking a little weeknight casserole for the family and it's starting to get a nice bit of caramelisation on the top.


----------

