# David charlesworth, cambered blade with a back bevel?



## ali27 (10 Aug 2014)

Guys, I have enjoyed DC's video ''Furniture-Making Techniques'' a lot. There is one thing
I don't understand. 

For really though wood, DC sharpens his plane blade with a 25 degree back bevel. This part I understand. DC
uses a slight camber on his blades, using pressure at the sides to create it. So far easy to understand. 

Then DC removes the wire edge(hones the back bevel), but uses only centre pressure. That seems odd to me.
The middle of the blade(both on the beveled and the flat/back side) is touching the waterstones first. So 
by using only centre pressure, more of the middle is removed than on the sides, since the middle is
touching first and only by abrading the middle can one start honing the sides. I think DC is changing
the geometry of the blade this way. What do you guys think?

When there is no back bevel, the flat face is touching the stone evenly and there is no problem, but with
a back bevel the middle of the edge is touching the stone first and the edges last. This issue might not be
a problem with a tiny back bevel that is removed with the ruler trick. However the steeper the angle of the
backbevel, the more it becomes a problem(if my thinking is correct).

Have I got it wrong?

Ali


----------



## Corneel (10 Aug 2014)

DC has converted to using the chipbreaker instead of backbevels to tame tearout prone woods. So your info is old . Backbevels are a royal pain anyway.


----------



## Karl (10 Aug 2014)

Corneel":2nmfpguj said:


> DC has converted to using the chipbreaker instead of backbevels to tame tearout prone woods. So your info is old . Backbevels are a royal pain anyway.



That's interesting - any further info? 

I always found back bevels to be very useful way of dealing with tearout. It did necessitate keeping a spare blade though.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## David C (10 Aug 2014)

Ali,

I usually keep a very slight camber on the bevel side, but a straight bevel on the back bevel side. That is why centre pressure works for the back bevel side.

Does this answer your dilemma?

Corneel, 

I have not converted exclusively to the C/B method. I now explain and demonstrate both methods to my students.

Struggling to understand why you would think back bevels are a pain? I found them very useful over a number of years, as do many luthiers.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## woodbrains (10 Aug 2014)

Karl":3dhqfy2c said:


> Corneel":3dhqfy2c said:
> 
> 
> > DC has converted to using the chipbreaker instead of backbevels to tame tearout prone woods. So your info is old . Backbevels are a royal pain anyway.
> ...



Hello,

Used smothers are so cheap to buy, a whole dedicated plane is the best course. I got a very nice, early Record 4 1/2 for £10, one's that needs a bit of a clean up, can be had for less. Simple solution and any (ill) perceived trouble with back bevels disappear, opening up a whole world of plane versatility.

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (10 Aug 2014)

Not sure that back bevels are really necessary when taming tough boards:

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodw ... ipbreakers

The plane with a high-angle frog and bevel down configuration along with a closely set and honed chipbreaker was the "winner."

A plain bevel down smoother (frog bedded at 45*) was able to plane, tearout-free, all but the last test board which was pulled out of the trash bin.


----------



## Corneel (10 Aug 2014)

David C":22wp0kgw said:


> Corneel,
> 
> I have not converted exclusively to the C/B method. I now explain and demonstrate both methods to my students.
> 
> ...



For me personally, maintaning the backbevel is just too much bother. It's not easy to do freehand, hard to get that exact 15 degrees. So I'd have to use a jig, but that means "endless" going back and forth. Set the jig for the bevel first, sharpen and hone the bevel. Then set it again, now for the backbevel. Hone that one. I always like to go back and forth a few times between the back and the bevel with ever less pressure. that becomes intollerable when you need to reset the blade in the jig each time. Then after a while I might not want the backbevel anymore on that particular blade, so that means an extended grinding session.

When I get some really irksome wood, I have an old German reform smoother with 49 degree bedding angle and a double iron. It's hard to find a piece of wood that can't be planed with that one.


----------



## David C (10 Aug 2014)

Back bevels are a readily available way of simulating high angle frogs and, high angle planes.

Brian Burns excellent pamphlet on this subject used to be available from the Japan Woodworker. I hope it still is.

Back bevels on machine planer blades are also an old and effective way of dealing with interlocked grain, tropical timbers.

best wishes,
David


----------



## ali27 (10 Aug 2014)

David C":9rjde2h0 said:


> Ali,
> 
> I usually keep a very slight camber on the bevel side, but a straight bevel on the back bevel side. That is why centre pressure works for the back bevel side.
> 
> ...



I understand what you are saying David. Do you agree that when you put a camber(no matter how slight it is) on the beveled side and then sharpenthe back bevel only using centre pressure, you are removing more material from the middle of the blade as that part is touching the stone first?

Would it not be more correct(to keep the camber precise and not alter the geometry) to use the same technique on the back flat face as you did on the beveled side? Obviously the back bevel is much smaller than the beveled face so far less strokes are needed. So maybe(for the flat face) 1 stroke centre pressure, one left side, one side right side and one stroke for the edges ?

Now obviously you are having very good results with the technique you are using sir, the proof is in the pudding. But I keep
wondering if there could be a slight improvement by using the camber sharpening technique on the flat back face as well.

Ali


----------



## CStanford (10 Aug 2014)

Corneel":323h8t0o said:


> David C":323h8t0o said:
> 
> 
> > Corneel,
> ...



There seems to be little reason to monkey with the cutter, where there is more opportunity for something to go awry, when working the mild steel of the capiron gives the same effect.

Back bevels require maintenance at every honing, and no matter how 'easy,' therein lies its tediousness. Once the capiron is honed and tuned it's done, never needing to be touched again.

Otherwise, we have the 'poor' conflicted woodworker who already owns thousands of dollars worth of equipment and suddenly draws the line at owning a high-angle smoother? Laughable, from where I'm sitting.


----------



## woodbrains (10 Aug 2014)

CStanford":3mea43il said:


> Corneel":3mea43il said:
> 
> 
> > David C":3mea43il said:
> ...



Hello,

So the bit about a used plane for a tenner, is lost on you, then?

Cap iron settings work, so do back bevels, it is all good fun to try and learn. It is only the can't be bothered, who seem to not like the bak bevel. Some can and do and find them beneficial.

Mike.


----------



## David C (10 Aug 2014)

Ali,

You should try your improvements.

I keep the back bevel straight (and very narrow) to keep the number of sharpening stages down. It goes like this.

1. Get wire edge in center of blade and apply same number of strokes to rest of camber. Four more finger positions. 800 stone.
2. Turn blade over and get wire edge, (straight bevel). 1,200 stone.
3. Polish this bevel.
4 Turn over and polish camber. All polishing done on 8,000 stone. 

I would be surprised if this takes much more than 4 minutes. Perhaps I will check when I have some time.

David


----------



## CStanford (10 Aug 2014)

> Hello,
> 
> So the bit about a used plane for a tenner, is lost on you, then?
> 
> ...



I would simply point you back to the Schwarz article to which I linked and I think it is an important one because others were involved in the testing, it was not a lone effort with the results left to one person's (skewed?) judgment. Otherwise, I'm doubtful that economizing on the last plane to touch the wood by simulating a high angle plane, for those whose investment is already measured in the thousands of pounds, is logically consistent. And it could be moot anyway based on the Schwarz, et al. tests.

Woodworking is not a cheap hobby unfortunately. Wood has to be bought and it can't be picked up 'for a tenner,' or at least not very much of it.

Those truly on a budget, though, can be heartened by the fact that a standard 45* bedded plane with a close and tuned capiron was able to handle a variety of problematic woods:

"...then Deneb [Puchalski of Lie-Nielsen], Dave Jeske of Blue Spruce Toolworks and I [Chris Schwarz] put the planes to use on a variety of woods. We tried reverse-grain cherry. It was no challenge for any of the planes. Then curly bird’s-eye maple, planed against the grain. Again, no problem. Ancient fossilized purpleheart. Nope. No difference. Then a board that we were told was unplanable: big furry, roey mahogany.

Again, all the planes handled the wood with no real problems."


End quote.


----------



## Corneel (11 Aug 2014)

The beaty of the capiron is its adjustability. With just a screwdriver you can get all the tearout reduction you want and need, untill you get into scraper teritory. I can see how the backbevel is a quick solution when you first meet a difficult piece of wood and don't have a properly prepared capiron yet. But not as a permanent solution. If you want to work with high cutting angles it's much smarter to buy a high angle or bevel up plane.


----------



## David C (11 Aug 2014)

The fact that there are other ways of dealing with tearout, in no way diminishes the usefulness of the back bevel. 

Whose skewed judgment here, has nothing whatever to do with the original question? 

David Charlesworth


----------



## woodbrains (11 Aug 2014)

Hello,

I have been setting capirons as close as I can, for over 25 years, it did not take some Japanese engineers for _me_ to have the epiphany, as it seems to have taken for some here. I have been playing with back bevels for over 10, long before I ever heard of Chris Schwartz, or any of the others. None of this is new territory to me. I do have a great woodworking kit, collected over decades, but I do not have thousands of pounds worth of planes, so having a dedicated smoother with a back bevel, for the princely sum of a tenner, s not something I think is anachronistic, or extravagant. If the OP wants to experiment with back bevels, then let us help him to do so. 

Naysayers are a right royal pain to learning. Planes, total waste of time! There is all that sharpening and effort pushing, and you need hundreds of them all collecting dust on the shelf, and rusting. And they all cost hundreds of dollars each and take ages to learn to use. everything is made from veneered mdf anyway. Just get a random orbit sander and save thousands, stop wasting your time and get into the 21st century! See what I mean! :lol: 

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (11 Aug 2014)

No indeed my response doesn't directly answer the question at all. I try to give Ali a wider perspective. He seems to be bent on going through all the deadends of extreme sharpening from the last few decades and trying to theorise everything without trying to listen to simple practical advise. 

To answer the question about back beveling a cambered blade: just look at it and continue until you are happy. 

Btw, another disadvantage of backbevels, it becomes hard to feel the wire edge, making sharpeninh harder.


----------



## CStanford (11 Aug 2014)

Corneel":312ak7zm said:


> The beaty of the capiron is its adjustability. With just a screwdriver you can get all the tearout reduction you want and need, untill you get into scraper teritory. I can see how the backbevel is a quick solution when you first meet a difficult piece of wood and don't have a properly prepared capiron yet. But not as a permanent solution. If you want to work with high cutting angles it's much smarter to buy a high angle or bevel up plane.



Well said.


----------



## CStanford (11 Aug 2014)

woodbrains":19gekr0r said:


> Hello,
> 
> I have been setting capirons as close as I can, for over 25 years, it did not take some Japanese engineers for _me_ to have the epiphany, as it seems to have taken for some here. I have been playing with back bevels for over 10, long before I ever heard of Chris Schwartz, or any of the others. None of this is new territory to me. I do have a great woodworking kit, collected over decades, but I do not have thousands of pounds worth of planes, so having a dedicated smoother with a back bevel, for the princely sum of a tenner, s not something I think is anachronistic, or extravagant. If the OP wants to experiment with back bevels, then let us help him to do so.
> 
> ...



Sam Allen was a proponent in the 1970s of using a block plane honed at a higher angle for local tearout. And this is an old instrument maker's 'trick' anyway - going way back before the 1970s for sure. Allen even had an angle equivalency chart for low angle blocks and regular angle blocks in one of his books (from the 1980s if I'm not mistaken). For the cost of a replacement iron for a common block plane, high angle planing was and still is available for anybody who needs it. 

Back beveling would be third on my list (FWIW) as a way to access high angle planing. The OP can obviously proceed with his experimentation, but he should know other options are available and are likely even more effective and this is the most important point.

Anybody regularly working highly figured or gnarly tropical woods (which implies an ongoing high cost of materials anyway) would be foolish not to simply buy a high angle bevel down plane (my choice) or a bevel-up plane of some ilk. Premium dollars are being spent on highly figured and expensive tropical wood, but there's no room in the budget for a plane that makes it all easier? Really?

We've seen from the Schwarz article that a high angle plane with a tuned and honed capiron is a potent one-two punch and handled everything he and his cohorts threw at it.


----------



## David C (11 Aug 2014)

Corneel,

I understand that you think chipbreaker use is superior, however the wire edges are perfectly easy to feel (if you know where to feel) and sharpening is not "harder". It just involves one extra stage.

These attempts to undermine an excellent technique, which deals beautifully with the most difficult refractory, interlocked exotics are misleading and unhelpful. I really don't understand what you are trying to achieve?

Both methods work and people will no doubt choose the one which works best for them.

David Charlesworth


----------



## CStanford (11 Aug 2014)

It is one means of accessing high angle planing that unfortunately requires maintenance at every honing unlike other methods of dealing with difficult stock that do not.

I don't believe anybody is trying to undermine anything as much as put it in its proper place, give it additional color, and put it into perspective.


----------



## Corneel (11 Aug 2014)

Well you'recertainly entitled to your opinion, just like me I guess. The easiest way to sharpen a blade is freehand and a flat back. Second comes the jig, which gets a bit old after a while. But having to use the jig on both sides gets old real fast. And when you don't want the backbevel anymore it needs a lof of grinding. So the capiron tecnnique is "better" because it doesn't need all the extra steps. I've got nothing against high cutting angles. When you think you need it better to buy a dedicated plane. 

And your fingers must be more sensitive then mine. Feeling the wireedge without a backbevel is hard enough.


----------



## David C (11 Aug 2014)

Well, silly me.

I clearly don't understand the following words and phrases;

"disadvantage, sharpening harder, backbevels are a royal pain, endless going back and forth, not a permanent solution, hard to feel the wire edge making sharpening harder".

One spare blade.........

David


----------



## CStanford (11 Aug 2014)

It's probably best at this point to let Ali back bevel to his heart's content, get tired of it, and move on to a more stable and permanent solution for taming unruly boards. 

He'll figure it out for himself sooner or later as I suspect most do.


----------



## woodbrains (11 Aug 2014)

Hello,

There Is no doubt that a closely set capiron is an excellent way of controlling tearout in ornery timber. BUT it is not the only way and preferences are decided on based on a lot of different criteria. Having a single iron plane, for a start, will certainly preclude a close cap iron effect! Just for starters, a super sharp blade is the first desirable thng, but I cannot beleive how many here moan at, "not needing it that sharp, didnt in my granddad's day whaa, whaa!" Well we can now and it demonsterably helps. A very fine mouth goes a long way to controlling tear out. Some people do not want to set the frog forward to close the mouth, I understand the reasoning, if you only have one smoother and don't want to limit the plane to super fine shavings. But some have a few smothers and can dedicate one to a super fine mouth. Or others argue ALL smoothers should have a superfine mouth, because only superfine shavings are removed with them. It is arguable that all plane irons should have a back bevel, at least a ruler trick back bevel, since honing only on the bevel might not remove enough material to get past the wear bevel on the back. It is a valid and logical point of view, not necessarily mine. But a back bevel really isn't hard to, in the scheme of things, lets face it. Knives are sharpened on 2 planes, as are axes and other things, so that argument is moot. If you want to do it, no sweat. Lots of different ways, all work, dependant on the users predilection. Advice on different ways is helpful but continually poo-pooing others methods is a bore.

Mike.


----------



## David C (11 Aug 2014)

"a more stable and permanent solution"

There is a phrase to conjure with. 

Poo would be a nice description.


----------



## CStanford (11 Aug 2014)

David C":3v7rc0ho said:


> "a more stable and permanent solution"
> 
> There is a phrase to conjure with.
> 
> Poo would be a nice description.



It's unfortunate that you've become so wedded to the back bevel. 

Inexplicable would be a nice description.

You have a hammer, don't you David, and everything that confronts you is a nail. Back bevels to remove 'wear,' back bevels to hone away the burr, back bevels for difficult stock... I'm sure there must be more.

Obssesed, come to mind.


----------



## CStanford (11 Aug 2014)

woodbrains":1d4glp1r said:


> Hello,
> 
> There Is no doubt that a closely set capiron is an excellent way of controlling tearout in ornery timber. BUT it is not the only way and preferences are decided on based on a lot of different criteria. Having a single iron plane, for a start, will certainly preclude a close cap iron effect! Just for starters, a super sharp blade is the first desirable thng, but I cannot beleive how many here moan at, "not needing it that sharp, didnt in my granddad's day whaa, whaa!" Well we can now and it demonsterably helps. A very fine mouth goes a long way to controlling tear out. Some people do not want to set the frog forward to close the mouth, I understand the reasoning, if you only have one smoother and don't want to limit the plane to super fine shavings. But some have a few smothers and can dedicate one to a super fine mouth. Or others argue ALL smoothers should have a superfine mouth, because only superfine shavings are removed with them. It is arguable that all plane irons should have a back bevel, at least a ruler trick back bevel, since honing only on the bevel might not remove enough material to get past the wear bevel on the back. It is a valid and logical point of view, not necessarily mine. But a back bevel really isn't hard to, in the scheme of things, lets face it. Knives are sharpened on 2 planes, as are axes and other things, so that argument is moot. If you want to do it, no sweat. Lots of different ways, all work, dependant on the users predilection. Advice on different ways is helpful but continually poo-pooing others methods is a bore.
> 
> Mike.



How many smoothing planes do you own and regularly use Mike?


----------



## woodbrains (11 Aug 2014)

Hello,

Three 4 1/2's, two 4's, a 3 and a few more shop made ones with Hock 'Krenov' double irons. A BU jack that is more of a super smoother. That I own personally. About twice as many again that I maintain for school.

Mike.


----------



## bobbybirds (11 Aug 2014)

Man I really wish people could learn that you can give an opinion and make a contribution without trying to tear someone else down at the same time. It feels like some people just get annoyed when they feel their opinion is not as valued as someone elses and it makes them feel invalidated, and they then find it easier to attack others to make their point than to play respectfully. Schoolyard bullies comes to mind...


----------



## iNewbie (11 Aug 2014)

CStanford":x6pn595y said:


> David C":x6pn595y said:
> 
> 
> > "a more stable and permanent solution"
> ...



Sheesh. If it ain't Derek its David. Its like a hobby for 'ya. :mrgreen:


----------



## woodbrains (11 Aug 2014)

CStanford":k0ugdtf9 said:


> Back bevels to remove 'wear,' back bevels to hone away the burr, back bevels for difficult stock... I'm sure there must be more.
> 
> Obssesed, come to mind.



Hello,

A simple back bevel does all this and more? I would call such a simple device a panacea, not a pain. Cannot for the life of me see the objection to it.

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (11 Aug 2014)

There are certainly a few people who think it's a panacea but of course it's not. It's just somebody's pet thing, no different than the other person's pet manufacturer. Unfortunately way overhyped, and actual efficacy always less sensational (new steels, new tools, you name it) than it's made out to be. And all of it in the end does more a disservice when the inevitable disappointment and expectation gaps arise. Difficult crafts like woodworking are almost always like that.


----------



## bugbear (12 Aug 2014)

CStanford":3g5u4o34 said:


> There are certainly a few people who think it's a panacea but of course it's not.



It's just a way to get higher effective pitch in a plane. No big deal, but quite useful when applied appropriately.

BugBear


----------



## David C (12 Aug 2014)

Charles,

You have now been told by of four people that they find back bevels useful. You choose to ignore these facts.

I and others, are fed up with the nasty, repetetive, condescending invective that you specialize in.

How many USA forums have you been banned from?

With a bit of luck you will be banned from this one soon.


----------



## MickCheese (12 Aug 2014)

bobbybirds":1jc3xr50 said:


> Man I really wish people could learn that you can give an opinion and make a contribution without trying to tear someone else down at the same time. It feels like some people just get annoyed when they feel their opinion is not as valued as someone elses and it makes them feel invalidated, and they then find it easier to attack others to make their point than to play respectfully. Schoolyard bullies comes to mind...



This is a contribution is worth reading again, play nicely! :wink: 

Mick


----------



## CStanford (12 Aug 2014)

David C":13c4zuga said:


> Charles,
> 
> You have now been told by of four people that they find back bevels useful. You choose to ignore these facts.
> 
> ...



As I mentioned in a previous post it is one way to access high angle planing, but would be at least third down on my list of ways to do so for the reasons I mentioned and for those mentioned by Corneel as well. I think that we both perceive it as a bit gimped up * in the long run *but that's obviously our opinion. That it is your preferred way is quite clear and that you disagree is clear as well. 

Cases have been made. What's the big deal and all the upset and talk of banning all about? Should we all just hold hands and sing Kumbaya every time you post?


----------



## Paul Chapman (12 Aug 2014)

Give it a rest - this is all getting very tedious.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## ali27 (12 Aug 2014)

So the assertion made is that bringing the chip breaker very close to the edge negates the
need for a back bevel. How true is this? From experience it does help with planing certain
harder woods, but what about really hard nasty woods?



CStanford":xfeehsd6 said:


> David C":xfeehsd6 said:
> 
> 
> > Charles,
> ...



I want to see that  

Ali


----------



## bugbear (12 Aug 2014)

ali27":8kzgbq0p said:


> So the assertion made is that bringing the chip breaker very close to the edge negates the
> need for a back bevel. How true is this? From experience it does help with planing certain
> harder woods, but what about really hard nasty woods?



Corneel has posted some good material on this.

BugBear


----------



## Racers (12 Aug 2014)

It also works on soft nasty wood, I had very good results on burr silver birch setting the chip breaker very close, just the merest sliver of reflected light from the iron.
Long crinkly shavings is what you are after, if you don't get them set the chip breaker closer.

Pete


----------



## CStanford (12 Aug 2014)

bugbear":2xkr8wre said:


> ali27":2xkr8wre said:
> 
> 
> > So the assertion made is that bringing the chip breaker very close to the edge negates the
> ...



In case Ali missed it earlier:

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodw ... ipbreakers


----------



## woodbrains (12 Aug 2014)

Hello,

But I don't think the OP is using a cap iron, (perhaps no more than a depth adjuster anyway) as I suggested earlier single irons will not benefit from the cap iron effect. He wants help with back bevels!

The best plane I ever used for ornery stuff had a fine mouth and a high(ish) EP. If I went to a world of no cap irons I would not be unhappy with back bevels to acheive the same. I use every method available, cap irons set close, scraper planes, card scrapers, whatever the wood dictates and the mood takes. I like beans and they are nutritious, but don't eat them every day. A varied taste and a diversity of techniques is nothing to be frightened of! 

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (12 Aug 2014)

Ian Kirby, back bevels:

http://www.woodworkersjournal.com/Main/ ... -7598.aspx

I found this bit from the article to be informative:

"As metallurgy advanced, larger manufacturers, such as Stanley in the USA and Record in the UK, replaced this method with a powder metallurgy process. Using this technology, a sintered material is applied to the bottom portion of the blade on the flat back side. In a controlled atmosphere at high temperature, the metal powders coalesce to form the hard, solid pad needed to make a cutting edge. It does a first-rate job, but the pad is relatively thin. When using this type of blade, you must keep the back-sharpened bevel very small. I don't see this as a constraint, because it should be kept small no matter the type of blade. Four to six strokes on a 4,000-grit stone is all it takes."


Matthew from Workshop Heaven:

http://woodworkingmasterclasses.com/dis ... ack-bevel/

I have to say that Matthew's set up is reminiscent of a Mondrian painting.

Perhaps (?) DC has a video he'd be willing to link for the benefit of the OP.


----------



## ali27 (13 Aug 2014)

CStanford":2mbrz937 said:


> bugbear":2mbrz937 said:
> 
> 
> > ali27":2mbrz937 said:
> ...



Very interesting. Thanks.



> ...............
> 
> And it left a typical planed surface – it didn’t look like it had been scraped.



So the closed set chip breaker results in a better surface than when it is planed with a high EP?

Ali


----------



## CStanford (13 Aug 2014)

Yes, though nothing is ever a perfect solution. You need more than one arrow in your quiver.

Also consider focusing on your scraper set up and technique. Properly done, a surface won't look scraped and will be indistinguishable from the surface left by a plane. Scraping is another way of presenting a high angle cutting implement to a piece of wood. It's not sexy and you can't build a cottage industry around it but it is quite effective when, like all things woodworking, judiciously and deftly executed.


----------



## matthewwh (13 Aug 2014)

I'm not sure whether to chip in or just sit back with a bag of popcorn.

I've been using a spare iron with a back bevel for years, an extra iron is about £20 new, less if you get an old one (you don't need an immaculate back on it). Just swapping the irons out seems a much cheaper and faster solution than faffing about changing frogs.

Back bevels increase the pitch of the iron, as do high angle planes. Close set cap irons achieve a similar result although perhaps closer to emulating the hook of a scraper. The objective is the same, and it can be achieved by either/any route.

For me, setting the cap iron within a 64th of the edge is a fiddly task that interrupts my working rhythm and risks damage to the edge if you slip. Others clearly get on well with it - great!

Going back to the original question, the camber on a smoother is so slight that you can get all of it in a flat 1/2mm back bevel. Yes, in theory it will alter the camber a tiny bit, but not significantly. Take a test shaving and if the cut is too narrow - hone the centre of the blade until it takes a broader cut.


----------



## CStanford (13 Aug 2014)

Once a capiron is properly tuned it never need be touched again. Their mild steel make them easy and quick to tune as well.

A back bevel requires maintenance at every single honing.

As mentioned, a steady diet of difficult stock seems to imply a York or middle pitch plane whose iron, of course, COULD be back-beveled if the need arises. Apparently Chrish Schwarz, Deneb Puchalski of Lie-Nielsen, and the gentleman from Blue Spruce found what might be considered the 'sweetspot' in the combination of a high pitched plane with a close capiron, no back bevel though there's certainly no law that says you can't back bevel the iron of a high pitched plane if push absolutely came to shove.

I'm not sure why obviously well equipped operations have drawn the line at buying in a higher pitched plane. Norris, et al. seemed to find a ready market for them 'back in the day.' I guess we've become more enlightened than those old masters who were their customers.

Read the Schwarz link if you have a moment.

Lie-Nielsen can supply the planes; ten bucks extra nets a 55*, middle pitch plane:

High Angle Frogs

Until now, all Stanley-type bench plane irons were bedded at 45°, or Common Pitch. But the famous English Smoothers like Norris are usually 50° (York Pitch) or 55° (Middle Pitch). The higher angles make smoothing difficult wood easier. Our unique High Angle Frogs (HAF) quickly convert our No. 3 through No. 7 Bench Planes to York Pitch or Middle Pitch. Will not fit other makes of planes. May be ordered separately or installed in the tool (the 50° HAF for no additional charge, the 55° HAF for $10 more).


----------



## woodbrains (13 Aug 2014)

CStanford":19azsdcq said:


> Yes, though nothing is ever a perfect solution. You need more than one arrow in your quiver.
> .




Hello,

Precisely! 

Mike.


----------



## bugbear (13 Aug 2014)

CStanford":htyn4ewb said:


> Lie-Nielsen can supply the planes; ten bucks extra nets a 55*, middle pitch plane:
> 
> High Angle Frogs




Good to hear the answer is to buy a new tool from LN.  

BugBear


----------



## Corneel (13 Aug 2014)

In the last few years I've done quite a bit of research to the effects of chipbreakers. For me the first objective was that every plane I have, posesses a chipbreaker and I didn't really know how to use it. I did see some effect but wasn't immediately impressed. Back then I used backbevels and also a ROS quite often. Even with simple stuff like Ash or sof Maple. High angle planes weren't in my repertoire because they are quite inavailable on the antique market. The Kato video really opened my eyes to see how close the capiron should really be to the edge. 

This very close setting does several things. It allows to forget about a tight mouth. In a Baley plane you get the best support when the frog is pulled back. It also support the edge right where you need it, just behind the edge. And of course it works just as well to prevent tearout as a high cutting angle up to 60-65 degrees or so. Above that you start to scrape. A very nice thing is its adjustability. So in somewhat less demanding woodyou can pull it back a bit to get a smoother surface with less force. That's about smoothers. In jack planes the capiron can't be set quite as close but it is still effective at a larger distance with thick shavings not entirelly avoiding tearout but certainly helping to reduce the depth and serousness of the tearout. Single iron jack planes can really tear up the wood. 

Overall I am pretty happy how it works in my simple Stanleys and woodies. You do need to prepare the capiron carefully (once). LikeI wrote before, for really rotten stuff like some curly interlocked Meranti I had a while ago, I have an Ulmia york pitch plane with capiron.


----------



## CStanford (13 Aug 2014)

bugbear":38zxr7ev said:


> CStanford":38zxr7ev said:
> 
> 
> > Lie-Nielsen can supply the planes; ten bucks extra nets a 55*, middle pitch plane:
> ...




Well, there are certainly less joyous occasions than unwrapping a package from those fellows.


----------



## CStanford (13 Aug 2014)

Corneel":155ntax0 said:


> In the last few years I've done quite a bit of research to the effects of chipbreakers. For me the first objective was that every plane I have, posesses a chipbreaker and I didn't really know how to use it. I did see some effect but wasn't immediately impressed. Back then I used backbevels and also a ROS quite often. Even with simple stuff like Ash or sof Maple. High angle planes weren't in my repertoire because they are quite inavailable on the antique market. The Kato video really opened my eyes to see how close the capiron should really be to the edge.
> 
> This very close setting does several things. It allows to forget about a tight mouth. In a Baley plane you get the best support when the frog is pulled back. It also support the edge right where you need it, just behind the edge. And of course it works just as well to prevent tearout as a high cutting angle up to 60-65 degrees or so. Above that you start to scrape. A very nice thing is its adjustability. So in somewhat less demanding woodyou can pull it back a bit to get a smoother surface with less force. That's about smoothers. In jack planes the capiron can't be set quite as close but it is still effective at a larger distance with thick shavings not entirelly avoiding tearout but certainly helping to reduce the depth and serousness of the tearout. Single iron jack planes can really tear up the wood.
> 
> Overall I am pretty happy how it works in my simple Stanleys and woodies. You do need to prepare the capiron carefully (once). Like I wrote before, for really rotten stuff like some curly interlocked Meranti I had a while ago, I have an Ulmia york pitch plane with capiron.



The higher the bedding angle the more a cutter acts as its own chipbreaker (up to and including a scraper). Setting a capiron close, and one that has a fairly steep and honed leading edge (see Graham Blackburn) forces the chip into the same orientation as it would have coming off a more steeply pitched iron. Set a cap iron close on a York or middle pitch plane and as Scwharz 'discovered' you have an unbeatable combination. None of this is really new, of course.

If you've ever honed a capiron to make a close fit to the back of the cutter you likely will have created a burr on the leading edge. If you chased this burr by tilting the capiron up on the stone you likely created the steep wall you need. If you left the burr there you probably got really, really lousy performance if the capiron was set very close, or at least until the shavings wore it away the performance was sub-par.

Oherwise, Schwarz proved the beauty and efficacy of Norris and other double-ironed planes with a pitch higher than 45* -- a proper smoother, not the late-Friday-afternoon-before-a-holiday-dodge being presented as a permanent solution.


----------



## MIGNAL (13 Aug 2014)

The first time I was aware of the chipbreaker effect was in the early '80's or perhaps the very late '70's. I had read it in either a book or an article somewhere. Probably known about as soon as chipbreakers themselves came about. I wouldn't say it was forgotten but it does seem as though many averted their gaze to tight mouths, waterstones and thicker blades.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Aug 2014)

I seem to have had an unusual education. I was taught to grind the irons and hone them with a slight camber, exactly what a chip breaker did and how close to set it and how to adjust the frog for a tight mouth (and when and why) at school, c.1968.  

Dennis K. take a bow if you're reading this. At least one person remembers what you taught! =D>


----------



## CStanford (13 Aug 2014)

You are fortunate indeed.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Aug 2014)

I like to think so.


----------



## CStanford (13 Aug 2014)

phil.p":1aly0f4g said:


> I like to think so.



Seems like I've read a post by a recognizable name (not Mignal, above) saying the chipbreaker information had essentially been lost on British woodworking. Good to see this wasn't the case, it seemed implausible anyway.


----------



## Corneel (14 Aug 2014)

My pet theory is that it was mostly the Internet community that lost the knowledge about the capiron. And because there were very few old time professional handtool workers left, it became a bit obscure. While at the same time the Internet community shouted with loud voices how stupid the capiron was.


----------



## MIGNAL (14 Aug 2014)

Corneel":2370wqz3 said:


> My pet theory is that it was mostly the Internet community that lost the knowledge about the capiron. And because there were very few old time professional handtool workers left, it became a bit obscure. While at the same time the Internet community shouted with loud voices how stupid the capiron was.




I strongly suspect that other darker forces were afoot. It had long fallen into disuse, yet was known by the cognoscenti. A kind of secret society, the woodworkers illuminati, who were hell bent on bringing about a new LV/LN woodworking order. 
Whenever those celebrity woodworkers met, or passed each other in the street, curious eye movements and peculiar hand signals were performed. 
Fortunately a counter revolution slowly began to emerge. Ably abetted by the glorious might of St. Jacob. A movement to rediscover long lost adaptions and techniques for the greater good of all woodworkers the world over. 
Amen.


----------



## Jacob (14 Aug 2014)

matthewwh":2k0cih6x said:


> ....
> Going back to the original question, the camber on a smoother is so slight that you can get all of it in a flat 1/2mm back bevel. .....


If you freehand the back bevel the same as the front bevel (but at a different angle of course) there is absolutely no problem. It's very easy whatever the degree of camber. Honing jigs and ruler tricks just make things harder.


----------



## David C (14 Aug 2014)

Reversing some of Jacob's nonsense, gets us nearer to the truth.

The ruler trick makes things significantly easier and better.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Jacob (14 Aug 2014)

Yebbut how to do "the ruler trick" with a cambered blade? Impossible unless you have virtually no camber, as Matthew describes. Easy freehand without the ruler, straight or cambered, and has been done that way since time immoral.


----------



## CStanford (14 Aug 2014)

If one has determined that their access pathway to higher effective angle planing will be done via back bevels there is no real reason these can't be done freehand on a cutter with no camber or as much camber as one's judgment determines is necessary for the job. The size and 'growth' of the back bevel can be managed by simply honing the back flat every now and then and then sprucing up the BB afterwards.

Otherwise, if the assertion is that the effectiveness of these things lives or dies on controlling the last half-angstrom of metal removal (whether this is easily done with a ruler or not) then maybe there's a better solution overall.

I've used a back bevel. The gates of heaven didn't open up for me. The results were OK, but nothing to write to Mom about. Anybody out there similarly situated or has it become politically incorrect to admit it?


----------



## Paul Chapman (14 Aug 2014)

CStanford":2d1b3np7 said:


> The results were OK, but nothing to write to Mom about.



Well, at least your mother was spared this never-ending diatribe. Pity we can't be.........

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## pedder (14 Aug 2014)

MIGNAL":3axy4jz7 said:


> I strongly suspect that other darker forces were afoot.



I think the forces have been darker. Even schwarz.

:lol:


----------



## woodbrains (14 Aug 2014)

Hello,

Cambering a back bevel on a smoother is unnecessary. Many smoothing plane irons are too cambered anyway. Keeping the back bevel flat helps reduce/control the camber to something more useful. Smoothing plane shavings are, by nature, the thinnest of any of our planes. Too much camber reduces the cutter's width too much, so should be almost imperceptible, so only preventing track marks, with as wide a cut ar possible.

Mike.


----------



## ali27 (14 Aug 2014)

I think the point I started this thread with is valid. If you have a camber and you have a back bevel,
then only using centre pressure whilst honing the back alters the geometry. How much depends
on how much the radius of the camber is and how big the back bevel is. 

DC comments that the camber is very small, so there is no problem, but is that still true when you sharpen 
the back at 25 degrees? 

DC is having very good results, so it works very well. Maybe it would work even better if he created
a small camber at the back as well. Perhaps it would only give 1 percent more performance which
isn't worth it.

Ali


----------



## CStanford (14 Aug 2014)

David is right, the camber should be small on your smoother in most instances and shouldn't be a big deal at all if you freehand your back bevel.

A *relatively* heavily cambered smoother implies something other than finishing passes in my view. There are no absolutes of course.


----------



## CStanford (14 Aug 2014)

Paul Chapman":2lxi5u20 said:


> CStanford":2lxi5u20 said:
> 
> 
> > The results were OK, but nothing to write to Mom about.
> ...



'Tis isn't it?

I remain perplexed as to why so many appear to have developed an allergy to high-pitched smoothing planes. Thank goodness for Norris this wasn't always the case.


----------



## woodbrains (14 Aug 2014)

CStanford":37bs23jj said:


> Paul Chapman":37bs23jj said:
> 
> 
> > CStanford":37bs23jj said:
> ...



Hello,

I don't think it is an allergy as such, just a lack of availability. Norris planes etc, are rare and expensive and only LN have really produced a viable substitute. Back bevels are a way of inexpensively emulating high EP planes without actually having one. I suspect if we could get hold of them more readily, they would be more popular. At some point, I might splash out on a middle pitch LN smoother, but until then, I will play with back bevels, cap iron effects and scrapers!

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (14 Aug 2014)

How about bevel up planes? I thought they were the chosen ones nowadays for high angle planing. And not too expensive.

And Norisses usually came with a 47.5 degree angle. Not really much different from 45.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Aug 2014)

Just like Jacob, I remember time immoral.


----------



## Jacob (14 Aug 2014)

CStanford":1rdzczfv said:


> ...
> A *relatively* heavily cambered smoother implies something other than finishing passes in my view. There are no absolutes of course.


An interesting experiment is to shine a bright torch over the surface of an old piece of woodwork. This can show up the plane or scraper marks (if not sanded or worn down by years of use). Often much more distinct than you'd expect. Then compare the backs of the same piece.


----------



## woodbrains (14 Aug 2014)

Corneel":26k8xbgw said:


> How about bevel up planes? I thought they were the chosen ones nowadays for high angle planing. And not too expensive.
> 
> And Norisses usually came with a 47.5 degree angle. Not really much different from 45.



Hello,

BU Planes are another solution, though LV ones are in the same pric as LN high angle frog planes. Norris planes at their best had microscopic mouthes to work in conjunction with the slightly higher angle. Very ornery stuff might not be totally tamed, but almost everything else would.

Regarding plane scallops on old woodwork. Unless modern woodworkers want to parody old hand work, smoothers should be cambered only very slightly. A 2 inch blade taking a fine shaving only needs a hair of a camber, or else only half of the blade actually gets used. There is a lot of good tool steel at the cutters edge that will never see any use, throughout the life of the blade, if cambered too much, not to mention inefficiency in planing each stroke.

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (14 Aug 2014)

Hello,

I don't think it is an allergy as such, just a lack of availability. Norris planes etc, are rare and expensive and only LN have really produced a viable substitute. Back bevels are a way of inexpensively emulating high EP planes without actually having one. I suspect if we could get hold of them more readily, they would be more popular. At some point, I might splash out on a middle pitch LN smoother, but until then, I will play with back bevels, cap iron effects and scrapers!

Mike.[/quote]

Good points all. Don't forget ECE Primus smoothers are bedded at 50* and have a very easily adjustable mouth.


----------



## CStanford (14 Aug 2014)

Jacob":ulh6niat said:


> CStanford":ulh6niat said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I paused for a moment and then realized that a 'torch' is called a flashlight over here... 

I agree with your observations, we see the same thing over here on a lot of pieces.


----------



## Corneel (15 Aug 2014)

A very tight mouth is the least effective measure against tearout. It needs to be on the range of 0.1 to 0.2 mm with absoutely no wear concavity in front of the mouth. Most Norris planes had wider mouths then that. But all of them had a capiron.


----------



## bugbear (15 Aug 2014)

Corneel":ontw8afk said:


> A very tight mouth is the least effective measure against tearout. It needs to be on the range of 0.1 to 0.2 mm with absoutely no wear concavity in front of the mouth. Most Norris planes had wider mouths then that. But all of them had a capiron.



... and great bedding, and thick blades...

BugBear


----------



## Corneel (15 Aug 2014)

Sure, but that doesn't help to prevent tearout.


----------



## CStanford (15 Aug 2014)

Mass seems to have something to do with it... maybe... sometimes the best smoother I have is my Record 08.

As an aside, do Japanese craftsmen back bevel their irons? If not, what are their strategies for resolving tear out?


----------



## woodbrains (15 Aug 2014)

CStanford":30efq65a said:


> Mass seems to have something to do with it... maybe... sometimes the best smoother I have is my Record 08.
> 
> As an aside, do Japanese craftsmen back bevel their irons? If not, what are their strategies for resolving tear out?



Hello,

I doubt Japanese back bevel their planes. The laminated irons would not like too much of a back bevel, the ura might even prevent this if it was close to the cutting edge. In contradiction to Corneel, tear out is reduced by microscopically fine mouthes and thick blades. A back bevel would also widen the mouth. Japanese wood is generally very compliant and in fact there is not a great deal of notable Japanese furniture, this is more assisiated with China. Japanese cratfsmen could request higher pitched planes from their plane makers if using hardwoods, (and saw makers for hardwoods too ) I don't think this was too common, though.

A thick blade will help to reduce tearout, due to less vibrations at the tip, (damping) though heavy cap irons and rock solid blade seating and indeed more massive planes all play their part to different degrees.

Fine mouthes do prevent tear out very effectively, and indeed is the primary solution to it in single iron planes. A super fine mouth is no more difficult to achieve than a super close cap iron setting, and in a smoother, once set, is set.

As I mentioned before, the best plane I ever encountered for taming tearout, was a Norris copy by Steve Knight. I think it was York pitch, so not super high EP, but its mouth was a couple of thou wide. It was also had a very thick iron and a lot of mass, hammer adjusted. It planed some extremely twisy elm without a modicum of tearout, when everything else pock marked the surface with 1/16 in divots. The only other thing that worked was a scraper plane. We had access to LN smoothers and any amount of Baileys, vinatge US Stanleys and shop made planes. There was even some ECE Primus that did not fare well at all. Some one eventually made an Ipe plane in the same vein as the Knight, with a fine mouth, and it was a very close second. It used a Hock Krenov iron, but not a particularly close cap iron setting. That elm was a pig.

Mike.
Mike.


----------



## CStanford (15 Aug 2014)

Thanks Mike.... I do agree with you about fine mouth settings. I did not abandon them in the Kato Kawai afterglow.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (15 Aug 2014)

Talk of pitch angles raises a question.

It's not uncommon to come across moulding planes with irons at cabinet pitch (60 degrees). They are by no means as common as those with irons at about 50 degrees or so, but they do crop up. Moulding planes, of course, don't have cap-irons and don't generally have micro-fine mouths, so the only way the planemaker has of controlling tearout when working more demanding cabinet timbers is increased EP.

Has anybody come across wooden smoothing planes (single or double iron) bedded at cabinet pitch? In theory, they should exist; but I can't recall meeting one. Did the cabinetmakers of old solve the problem of tearout on wild timbers by using a toothing plane to level the surface, and then finish it by scraping? Or did they have other approaches instead or as well? I know the infill plane addressed the problem to a great extent, but they didn't really come along until about the 1820s. What happened before then? They didn't have random orbital sanders...


----------



## MIGNAL (15 Aug 2014)

Toothed blade, scraper.


----------



## CStanford (15 Aug 2014)

Cheshirechappie":3u6ngiis said:


> Talk of pitch angles raises a question.
> 
> It's not uncommon to come across moulding planes with irons at cabinet pitch (60 degrees). They are by no means as common as those with irons at about 50 degrees or so, but they do crop up. Moulding planes, of course, don't have cap-irons and don't generally have micro-fine mouths, so the only way the planemaker has of controlling tearout when working more demanding cabinet timbers is increased EP.
> 
> Has anybody come across wooden smoothing planes (single or double iron) bedded at cabinet pitch? In theory, they should exist; but I can't recall meeting one. Did the cabinetmakers of old solve the problem of tearout on wild timbers by using a toothing plane to level the surface, and then finish it by scraping? Or did they have other approaches instead or as well? I know the infill plane addressed the problem to a great extent, but they didn't really come along until about the 1820s. What happened before then? They didn't have random orbital sanders...



I have a vague memory of a discussion about highly pitched smoothers on the old Fine Woodworking Knots forum. I believe Larry Williams was involved.


----------



## Corneel (16 Aug 2014)

Steve Elliott published an article from me on his website about the various methods to prevent teaout. I am on my phone now and can't give a link. The website is planetuning.infillplane.com. Look under the heading chipbreaking. The mouthsize proved to be the least effective way. It only worked at very tight settings of the mouth. At first I was testing with a plane with a miniscule concavity in the sole in front of the mouth, about half a thou deep. That completely eliminated the effectiveness of the tight mouth. Such a concavity is quite normal to find in used planes because it is the area where the sole wears most quickly. 

No idea why your Steve Knight plane was so perfect. I guess it is the combination of York pitch, super tight mouth(less then 0.1 mm) and a very fine shaving did the trick. 

A heavy blade alone doesn't do squat. My experience with wooden and infill planes all with very thick blades, show that i can get plenty of tearout if it isn't backed up by other measures. For example, take a Stanley with a wide mouth and the capiron far away from the edge and produce some tearout on a knotty piece of wood. Now grab a woodie with a 4.5 mm thick blade, also wide mouth and capiron far away from the edge. Do you really expect the latter to improve the situation?


----------



## woodbrains (16 Aug 2014)

Corneel":zva4s5g8 said:


> Steve Elliott published an article from me on his website about the various methods to prevent teaout. I am on my phone now and can't give a link. The website is planetuning.infillplane.com. Look under the heading chipbreaking. The mouthsize proved to be the least effective way. It only worked at very tight settings of the mouth. At first I was testing with a plane with a miniscule concavity in the sole in front of the mouth, about half a thou deep. That completely eliminated the effectiveness of the tight mouth. Such a concavity is quite normal to find in used planes because it is the area where the sole wears most quickly.
> 
> No idea why your Steve Knight plane was so perfect. I guess it is the combination of York pitch, super tight mouth(less then 0.1 mm) and a very fine shaving did the trick.
> 
> A heavy blade alone doesn't do squat. My experience with wooden and infill planes all with very thick blades, show that i can get plenty of tearout if it isn't backed up by other measures. For example, take a Stanley with a wide mouth and the capiron far away from the edge and produce some tearout on a knotty piece of wood. Now grab a woodie with a 4.5 mm thick blade, also wide mouth and capiron far away from the edge. Do you really expect the latter to improve the situation?



Hello,

No, a heavy blade will not tame tearout if no other methods have been employed, but it does help with keeping the system 'tight'. You can't just look at something in isolation, find it doesn't have a direct effect and then dismiss it as ineffectual. It is like taking a pinch salt out of a recipe, arguing it has no nutritional value and therefore plays no part in the outcome. That tiny addition makes everything else sing. Although I understand why the Kato experiments did not use a plane with a mouth, to study only the capiron effect, but this is not what happens in reality. I don't think the idea was to stop doing everything that we already do in its favour, exclusively. But carry on doing the other things, with some knowledge as to why a thing works and how to use the methods appropriately. Cap irons are indeed great, never thought any different, but they work in concert with everything else. Mass dampens out vibration, it is well remarked upon by many, how a more massive plane, more massive iron, heavier cap iron etc, help with difficult woods, but it won't do it by itself. The effect is there though, and it is not magic or a placebo effect.

It is also true that a concavity in the sole, just in front of the mouth will reduce the effectiveness of the mouth. It is why the enlightened flatten the plane soles, despite the constant background noise of thoses that argue against doing so. Japaneses plane users especially, take great pains in keeping the mouth area flat, even though other parts are deliberately hollowed. 

Mike.


----------



## woodbrains (16 Aug 2014)

Cheshirechappie":3rnoqjm8 said:


> Talk of pitch angles raises a question.
> 
> It's not uncommon to come across moulding planes with irons at cabinet pitch (60 degrees). They are by no means as common as those with irons at about 50 degrees or so, but they do crop up. Moulding planes, of course, don't have cap-irons and don't generally have micro-fine mouths, so the only way the planemaker has of controlling tearout when working more demanding cabinet timbers is increased EP.
> 
> Has anybody come across wooden smoothing planes (single or double iron) bedded at cabinet pitch? In theory, they should exist; but I can't recall meeting one. Did the cabinetmakers of old solve the problem of tearout on wild timbers by using a toothing plane to level the surface, and then finish it by scraping? Or did they have other approaches instead or as well? I know the infill plane addressed the problem to a great extent, but they didn't really come along until about the 1820s. What happened before then? They didn't have random orbital sanders...



Hello,

I don't have many old planes, so haven't come cross super high pitched woodie smoothers. It occurs to me, though, that before 1820. There was a lot more tractable woods available, so perhaps tearout was not as often encountered as with the gnarly stuff we encounter more often now. Fabulous Cuban mahogany was the staple. I'm not saying ornery stuff wasn't used at all, but not in such high proportions to make the problem too much to worry about, aside the usual scrapers., toothing planes etc. There were abrasives in those days, too. Also, most woods were finished with a stain to them, as opposed to the natural timber look we like today. Fillers and burn in wax were common under the shellac which we couldn't get away with on fine furniture in natural finish woods.

Mike.


----------



## MIGNAL (16 Aug 2014)

There are certainly clear examples of toothing plane marks on finished wood going back to the mid/early 17 th century. Usually on the internals, hidden away. On the outer show surface they were much more careful in scraping the tell tale toothed marks away. So they certainly had toothing planes and were using them to work difficult wood. Exotics were fairly abundant in Europe during the late 17 th century, although largely confined to artifacts for the rich and wealthy. 
Of course it doesn't mean to say that was the earliest date though. I suspect they were using toothed blades long before that.


----------



## Corneel (16 Aug 2014)

Of course you need a decent plane! Can't avoid tearout with wobbly, dull blade. It's just that these infill planes gained some mytical status while they have to obey the laws of nature too. I have an infill, replaced the wood parts and invested in a new parallel blade. Mouth quite tight at 0.3 mm like the ancient ones. York pitch. But it is very disapponting when I don't set the caporon close. With the cap further away it performs less then my Stanley #4 with the cap set very close. There is no magic in infill planes, they are just like other ones but very heavy. 

If you want to learn about planes you have to investigate every aspect seperatly. Otherwise you'll never learn anything. That is not say that I abhore tight mouths or infill planes, i know now what works, how it works and to what degree. The tight mouth is a bit difficult to achieve without metal working experience, promotes clogging and doesn't yield the same results as a high cutting angle or close set capiron. Sorry can't help it. But in combination with other methods it could be usefull.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Aug 2014)

ali27...are you still there?


----------



## Corneel (16 Aug 2014)

Cheshirechappie":g97y4cwj said:


> Talk of pitch angles raises a question.
> 
> It's not uncommon to come across moulding planes with irons at cabinet pitch (60 degrees). They are by no means as common as those with irons at about 50 degrees or so, but they do crop up. Moulding planes, of course, don't have cap-irons and don't generally have micro-fine mouths, so the only way the planemaker has of controlling tearout when working more demanding cabinet timbers is increased EP.
> 
> Has anybody come across wooden smoothing planes (single or double iron) bedded at cabinet pitch? In theory, they should exist; but I can't recall meeting one. Did the cabinetmakers of old solve the problem of tearout on wild timbers by using a toothing plane to level the surface, and then finish it by scraping? Or did they have other approaches instead or as well? I know the infill plane addressed the problem to a great extent, but they didn't really come along until about the 1820s. What happened before then? They didn't have random orbital sanders...



Before the introduction of the double iron plane they had indeed steeply pitched wooden planes. There is a nice picture in roubo, plate 13 if I am correct, of a 60 degree plane. Also in a German dictionarry from 1714 a "Steilhobel" of 65 degrees is mentioned. They also had toothing and scraper planes back then. Even bevel up planes but they are always mentioned in combination with mitering. 

The double iron plane put an end to all that, except the toothing plane which was used for veneering. Infill planes are really much later and they were double iron too.


----------



## ali27 (16 Aug 2014)

phil.p":1h7i88q5 said:


> ali27...are you still there?



Yes I am still here, but unfortunately it's ali31 nowadays.

Ali


----------



## AndyT (16 Aug 2014)

Re early bench planes at higher pitch: there are only a very small number of surviving examples of any early bench planes. The most likely explanation is that they were used until they were worn out. (In contrast to specialist moulding planes, which have survived because many owners had planes they did not often need, just as we might have odd sizes of drill bits that don't get blunt, because they are seldom used.)

But as Corneel says, they were available in higher pitches. There's an interesting example at the Museum of London which was found in excavations at Cutler Street. It may be as old as 1750. It has a double iron (loose not fixed) and is pitched at 50°. 

I hope Richard Arnold will chip in on this question as he does have some very early bench planes.

(And don't forget the Roman plane from Silchester - pitched at 65°!)


----------



## Corneel (16 Aug 2014)

Quite a few Dutch benchplanes from the 18th century survived. They are the nicely carved and dated ones. Probably survived because of their beauty. Simple ones didn't survive. All of them had single irons and 50 degree bedding. The Germans still have their reform smoothers with 49 degree bedding. 

But York pitch is not enough to make a real tear out buster. You need higher angles then that. And tight mouths in wooden planes are very problamatic. Hard to make, prone to clogging and short lived.


----------



## Corneel (17 Aug 2014)

AndyT":19iee9f0 said:


> But as Corneel says, they were available in higher pitches. There's an interesting example at the Museum of London which was found in excavations at Cutler Street. It may be as old as 1750. It has a double iron (loose not fixed) and is pitched at 50°.
> 
> )



Oops I read a bit too fast and almost missed the details of this one. That plane could very well be the missing link. It seems to be older then the Caruthers advertisement from Philadelphia from 1769. And it doesn 't have a capiron screw? It could definitely proove the origin of the double iron plane to be in England and how it took shape in the early years.


----------



## AndyT (17 Aug 2014)

Corneel":38l80sui said:


> AndyT":38l80sui said:
> 
> 
> > But as Corneel says, they were available in higher pitches. There's an interesting example at the Museum of London which was found in excavations at Cutler Street. It may be as old as 1750. It has a double iron (loose not fixed) and is pitched at 50°.
> ...




Indeed!

We discussed it a bit here

https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/post895747.html#p895747


----------



## Corneel (17 Aug 2014)

Well if you ever visit the museum again, take a picture!


----------



## David C (18 Aug 2014)

Ali31 must be a patient man.

I'm not sure if anyone attempted to answer his question after page two of this seven page thread?

Still we see that some advocate the ultra close set c/b with a steep front edge, a la KK, for defeating tearout.

Deneb has proposed a theory linking steep EP with KK set up.

Some stick stubbornly to high EP and back bevels for standard bench planes.

Wouldn't it be nice to see some definitive evidence?

best wishes,
David


----------



## woodbrains (18 Aug 2014)

Hello,

That sounds like you are asking someone to do extensive comparative testing! I think many here are referencing accumulated knowledge from years of working experience, but objective testing is time consuming and a bit dull. I would rather work wood to make something and gauge how well techniques work as I go and compared to past experiences that have already long since been finished.

David, have you not measured/photographic results from your writing. I just don't have the time to do a raft of testing at the minute, I've so many projects underway all at once. I would be interested if someone were o to the test, though.

Mike.


----------



## David C (18 Aug 2014)

Mike,

It would be exactly as you say, time consuming and dull !

Just musing,

Best wishes,
David


----------



## Jacob (18 Aug 2014)

David C":dv5c119b said:


> ....
> Wouldn't it be nice to see some definitive evidence?
> 
> best wishes,
> David


Isn't the lack of "definitive evidence" evidence in itself? Inferences, even conclusions, could be drawn.


----------



## Corneel (19 Aug 2014)

What kind of evidence are you looking for? What is the research question?


----------



## woodbrains (19 Aug 2014)

Jacob":1fzm5ir1 said:


> David C":1fzm5ir1 said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Hello,

There is plenty of evidence; cap irons, high EP's, fine mouthes, scraping etc. etc. all demonstrably work at taming tearout. You can't contend that just because there is no documented evidence all in one comparative study, that these things don't exist. You have an aazing knack of drawing entirely the wrong conclusion from what is right in front of you. You can't be telling us that you have never noticed certain plane settings make tearout better or worse than others. This is evidence! Or is your attitude to planing so indifferent, that a ROS is the panacea for you?

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (19 Aug 2014)

Ooh who rattled Woodbrain's cage? :lol: 
If you read what I said carefully you will see that I didn't come to any conclusion at all.
Actually I agree with you - there's plenty of anecdotal evidence from plane users. The problem is that attempts to isolate any one variable (e.g.specific angles) is difficult if not impossible, and probably pointless.
Like that depth-of-cut against force experiment in another thread - could easily take you to utterly incorrect conclusions and often does.


----------



## David C (19 Aug 2014)

Oh dear Mike. You have entirely misinterpreted my post, which is my fault as it is rather badly phrased.

I am interested in the relationship between high EPs and the KK method. In the Chris Schwarz article, the notion that EP plus c/b angle is equivalent to an EP of the same angle seems dubious to me.

David


----------



## Sgian Dubh (19 Aug 2014)

Okay, suffering here from brain farts of forgetfulness, and all these acronyms and letterisations are driving me to distraction. Could somebody be kind enough to spell out what the following mean:

* EP = ?
* KK method = ?
* c/b, also sometimes CB = cap iron, maybe, or are we for adopting the (alien to me at least) term chip breaker here?

Any others I've missed. Slainte.


----------



## Jacob (19 Aug 2014)

Sgian Dubh":te3lvi7d said:


> Okay, suffering here from brain farts of forgetfulness, and all these acronyms and letterisations are driving me to distraction. Could somebody be kind enough to spell out what the following mean:
> 
> * EP = ?
> * KK method = ?
> ...


Best not to ask. It'll only set them off again just when we were all finally dropping off to sleep.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (19 Aug 2014)

Jacob":n1do750p said:


> Best not to ask. It'll only set them off again just when we were all finally dropping off to sleep.


Too late. I've already asked, and I'm only just waking up to the subject of this thread, it being something I've probably never thought about much. That's the problem with being basically a simple sharp'n'go man myself all these years: nae finesse. Slainte.


----------



## Corneel (19 Aug 2014)

As far as I know, EP refers to effective pitch, the cutting angle. And KK refears to the video from the Japanese professors Kato and Kawai. They surely didn't invent the method of course, but did the best documentation of it so far.

I have been investigating this stuff a lot this year. I have actually setup a measuring jig with force transducers. I know it's geeky to the n-th degree, so I understand when it doesn't interest most people. But I was curious how high cutting angles compare to close set capirons. To be able to compare like for like I investigated first how they both perform in preventing tearout. This was published on Steve Elliotts site early this year: http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/cap_iron_study_by_kees_van_der.html.

I have been working hard on this project (quite a few technical challenges) and am almost finished with the second article. I am now in Thailand, so you'll all have to wait a bit. We're just back from three weeks in Myanmar, and I am bit worn out. Some of the best times in my life. I wish my stomach would agree though. As soon as I am back I'll also share some pictures of woodworking in Burma.


----------



## CStanford (19 Aug 2014)

When this 'stuff' all hit the internet I took a look at my cap irons. In the process of flattening the leading edge to fit gap-free against the flat back of the iron I had planed a wall at the edge of the cap iron. In flattening the cap iron a burr is produced at the leading edge. I always chased this burr back and forth, like one would do on a cutter, until it was gone. As a result, the leading edge of my cap irons are all sharp, easily sharp enough to cut flesh at a particular angle, and they all have a polished and steep area where I worked the burr back and forth when getting them to fit their mating iron.

I'd never really thought much about it. It didn't seem smart to me to leave a burr out there at the edge so I got rid of it.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (19 Aug 2014)

Corneel":7jfqq8nn said:


> As far as I know, EP refers to effective pitch, the cutting angle. And KK refears to the video from the Japanese professors Kato and Kawai. They surely didn't invent the method of course, but did the best documentation of it so far.


Ah. Got it. Thanks.



Corneel":7jfqq8nn said:


> I have been investigating this stuff a lot this year. I have actually setup a measuring jig with force transducers. I know it's geeky to the n-th degree, so I understand when it doesn't interest most people.


I suspect many people have geeky passions -they're frequently harmless, and can sometimes be very useful by adding to the sum of knowledge. Whilst the in-depth research and scrutiny into planes, historical examples of them, nit-picking comparisons between a Stanley No 4 from 1925 and one from 1926, tiddling with cap irons so that they're set back 0.0001 mm (sic) from the cutting edge, back bevels, ruler tricks, and other esoteric and arcane tricks to improve performance are not subjects of deep passion for me - I just want the darned thing to work pretty well, and when the plane doesn't do the job on really tricky grain there's always scrapers and sandpaper, my geeky(ish) passion is timber technology. Slainte.


----------



## David C (19 Aug 2014)

Richard,

I'm so glad you mentioned improved performance, cos that's what we get !

I must say I am extremely concerned that carcase construction is correct and that drawer fronts are not going to destroy a carcase, if the piece should get left in damp storage for a while. 

It's great fun looking for the results of rubbish construction as one goes about.

Best wishes,
David


----------



## Sgian Dubh (19 Aug 2014)

David C":3u3cqnp4 said:


> Richard,
> 
> I'm so glad you mentioned improved performance, cos that's what we get !
> 
> ...


David, I must admit I sometimes struggle a bit to see the validity of some of the suggested techniques to improve performance. Some I can't deny, such as back angling bevel down plane irons, but I've never done it because I'd either need two irons or I'd need to set up a (somewhat) time consuming system for being able to repeat the back angle. If I want a higher pitch I can always get a plane with the blade set at the higher pitch. Setting the cap iron super close (0.1 or 0.2 mm) I find is usually defeated by the slight additional bevel I knock off each corner of the iron, even though I generally slightly arc the cutting edge too. In this example I'd need to fashion the cap iron to suit the arc, plus corner bevels, of the iron. All the above is more faff than I want to bother with, which is not to say I don't believe the techniques work. 

My planes work well enough, even though I don't get very fussed about them and their set-up, and as I said before, there's always scrapers and abrasive paper, the latter either hand operated or machine driven. 

Oh yes, my timber tech manuscript is done, and on the hunt for a publisher, which is proving a bit of a challenge. If I can get it out there, maybe that'll help a bit with the drawer/ carcass thing you mentioned, and other woody topics. Slainte.


----------



## Jacob (19 Aug 2014)

David C":klp8mwn3 said:


> ......I must say I am extremely concerned that carcase construction is correct and that drawer fronts are not going to destroy a carcase, if the piece should get left in damp storage for a while.......


Why are you so concerned Dave? Is your house damp?
Are you going to expand on this oblique comment or just remain enigmatic? 
Is there another way to make drawers work even when damp, other than by simply making them loose in the first place? :shock:


----------



## Sgian Dubh (19 Aug 2014)

Jacob":nam60t92 said:


> Why are you so concerned Dave?


Jacob, I guess the comment was oblique or obscure to you because I suspect the comment was a sort of personal, slightly jokey, one between David and myself, him being aware of a long term research and academic writing exercise I've been working on. It's also something that we discussed when we met, and I've supplied him with a PDF version of a small section of the text that he could pass on to his students if he thought it might be useful to them. Slainte.


----------



## CStanford (19 Aug 2014)

Is there another way to make drawers work even when damp, other than by simply making them loose in the first place?

I was wondering the same thing.


----------



## AndyT (19 Aug 2014)

I wonder if the point under debate is the one we discussed a while back - about minimising exposed end grain on drawer fronts to reduce seasonal size changes?

https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/visual-reference-sources-dovetail-joints-t76661.html


----------



## Peter Sefton (19 Aug 2014)

Possibly more like choice of timber species and it's movement factors, and whether it's tangental or quarter sawn.
Then the construction factors come to play, traditional drawer sides, runners, kickers and slips or a centre muntin slip guide.
All these factors affect the running of a drawer over the seasons.
Peter


----------



## CStanford (19 Aug 2014)

Thin quartersawn material for sides whenever possible, but aesthetics and the design won't always allow for quartersawn fronts, thick varnish finish, etc.

If it's built during the dry season you have to allow scope for expansion.


----------



## J_SAMa (20 Aug 2014)

Re setting cap iron close to cambered edge: I set the cap iron so it protrudes past the iron on either side, exposing only the central part of the edge. Only the center is going to cut.
————————————————————————————————————————————————

http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/haspc.shtml
^According to that we should just buy infills and be done with it!!!

A few observations to be made:
a) Best non-infill plane, Muji HA had no *cap iron*.
b) It out performed a similarly pitched, *back beveled* LV plane.
c) It was in fact one of the lightest planes tested...
d) ...Which begs the question as to why infills are superior? It it were just the mass, LN and LV should be just as good.

Sam


----------



## woodbrains (20 Aug 2014)

David C":hzj0so55 said:


> Oh dear Mike. You have entirely misinterpreted my post, which is my fault as it is rather badly phrased.
> 
> I am interested in the relationship between high EPs and the KK method. In the Chris Schwarz article, the notion that EP plus c/b angle is equivalent to an EP of the same angle seems dubious to me.
> 
> David



Hello,

Sorry David, but I think it was me who was unclear! I was actually commenting on Jacob's complete 'non-statement' about there being no evidence, and your quote was just tagging along. I am also interested in whether a close set capiron does exactly the same as a hight EP or not and in fact pondered a similar question in another thread. I would also be interested to know why the planeed surface from a cap iron effect is better than that from a card scraper, which is essentially a device with a super close cap iron. ( It is still not as good as no strong cap iron effect and wood that does not tear out, but there is an acceptable compromise) And also, since planes do actually have soles in front of the cutter (KK test omission) what effect this has on the cap iron setting. i.e. wil a closer mouth allow a less close set cap iron for a similar result? If this is so, wouldn't this be a close equivalent to York pitched infills with fine mouths, which seem to work well?

Mike.


----------



## J_SAMa (20 Aug 2014)

Corneel, correct me if I'm wrong, but you dislike tight mouths because they tend to clog, right? Did you have wooden planes in mind when you made that statement? On my No. 4, I am perfectly happy with the combination of a 0.15 mm mouth and a cap iron micro-beveled at 40* and set 0.2 to 0.4 mm (estimated) away from the edge. The shavings just curl up between the aperture and the cross rib right behind the handle. I doubt that'll work well with a woodies's deeper, more cramped escapement.

So maybe we should just say a tight mouth works better for a Bailey than it does a woodie. 8)


----------



## bugbear (20 Aug 2014)

J_SAMa":27634khd said:


> Corneel, correct me if I'm wrong, but you dislike tight mouths because they tend to clog, right? Did you have wooden planes in mind when you made that statement? On my No. 4, I am perfectly happy with the combination of a 0.15 mm mouth and a cap iron micro-beveled at 40* and set 0.2 to 0.4 mm (estimated) away from the edge. The shavings just curl up between the aperture and the cross rib right behind the handle. I doubt that'll work well with a woodies's deeper, more cramped escapement.
> 
> So maybe we should just say a tight mouth works better for a Bailey than it does a woodie. 8)



Ah, as ever it's more complicated than that. H N T Gordon planes (made of wood) are sold with extremely tight mouths, and don't clog.

BugBear


----------



## Sgian Dubh (20 Aug 2014)

CStanford":3h7kx20t said:


> Thin quartersawn material for sides whenever possible.


It's not necessarily always a good match Charles, assuming there's a plan to mix this choice with tangentially sawn drawer fronts, although I realise you mentioned 1/4 sawn drawer fronts in your post. It's a good match when radially sawn European oak drawer sides are paired with tangentially sawn American mahogany fronts: the shrinkage factor of the radially sawn oak is very close to the shrinkage factor for American mahogany, i.e., both very slightly over 5% as they dry from green to 0% MC.

Switching the choice around wouldn't be ideal I'd say, and mahogany was often used for drawer sides in the past, i.e., 1/4 sawn mahogany sides with tangentially sawn European oak, where shrinkage factors are typically 3.7% for the former, and 8.9% for the latter.

However, having said all that I suggest the latter choice might only become a problem if the drawer is especially deep top to bottom, e.g., 250 mm (10") or more, and such depth, although somewhat rare is not unheard of.

As to the general topic of fitting drawers to openings, the so called 'piston fit' drawer I suggest really only has applications in smaller drawers, the sort of things you might find in jewellery cabinets or internal compartments of desks, and the like. For general carcasses such as chests of drawers and so on there's no point making them a really tight fit in the opening for all the reasons already mentioned in this thread - who wants drawers jammed solid in the summer and only usable in the winter and spring (here in the UK in most residences)? Slainte.


----------



## J_SAMa (20 Aug 2014)

bugbear":b3r8ycsc said:


> J_SAMa":b3r8ycsc said:
> 
> 
> > Corneel, correct me if I'm wrong, but you dislike tight mouths because they tend to clog, right? Did you have wooden planes in mind when you made that statement? On my No. 4, I am perfectly happy with the combination of a 0.15 mm mouth and a cap iron micro-beveled at 40* and set 0.2 to 0.4 mm (estimated) away from the edge. The shavings just curl up between the aperture and the cross rib right behind the handle. I doubt that'll work well with a woodies's deeper, more cramped escapement.
> ...



Let me rephrase that... Given a closely set cap iron, a Bailey clogs less than a woodie does.
HNT Gordon's planes are cap iron-less so clogging would be less pronounced it at all. Although the cabinet pitch would "break" the shavings much more than common pitch I doubt it does that as much as a cap iron.


----------



## Corneel (20 Aug 2014)

In woodies indeed, clogging is an issue, especially tge western ones with back leaning wear. In a Bailey plane another thing is important. You get the best support of the iron when you pull the frog back. So tight mouths and close set irons work probably best in a Bedrock. Indeed you should watch the front bevel of the capiron, don't make it too steep, 40 degrees like yours seems perfect.


----------



## CStanford (20 Aug 2014)

Sgian Dubh":3m7pbcie said:


> CStanford":3m7pbcie said:
> 
> 
> > Thin quartersawn material for sides whenever possible.
> ...



The real issue with drawer fit is on the guides and runners not the opening is it not? 

If the sides and backs are going to be thin, they need to be in as stable an iteration as can be found. For sure, the fit in the aperture should never run the risk of jamming but a too close fit is only one way a drawer can jam. If the side and back material twist and put the drawer box in twist it'll jam then as well. There's no real way to fix this once the drawer is glued up. One can always take an extra shaving or two off an untwisted drawer but one whose side(s) has (have) cast is a much tougher customer. This is one reason thin material is used for drawer sides in the first place - it's harder for them to exert their influence over a thicker drawer front. Using quartersawn material for the sides is further insurance that the box stays flat.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (20 Aug 2014)

CStanford":33ry7adf said:


> The real issue with drawer fit is on the guides and runners not the opening is it not?



On the whole I agree with you, although the squareness of the drawer box has a part to play too. The point I was making is that the height of the drawer box can change, and if the drawer box side material has significantly different shrinkage/expansion characteristics to the material used for the front, then there is some potential, albeit small in most cases, for problems, e.g., dovetails loosening through this differential shrinkage due to compression of wood, the slight possibility of a split developing in one or more of the parts, and even jamming of the drawer through expansion as the wood takes on moisture. This latter fault can be dealt with, as you say, by skimming a bit off the top edge of the relevant parts.

As to drawer side thickness, I take your point regarding thin drawer sides as opposed to thick drawer sides, and their potential ability to distort the assembly. I have seen slender drawer sides that have cupped over the years - decades and centuries usually, even 1/4 sawn oak drawer sides, but it's been rare, and I've seen decades and centuries old drawers that are no longer sound one way or another: actually I've seen poorly made drawers that are a crock of sh*t after just a few years, but that's a whole different story really. 

In my own drawer making efforts over the too may decades I've been in this line of work, I can't recall more than two or three occasions where I've sought out 1/4 sawn material for drawer sides. This means that I've just used whatever was to hand, although I have always ensured the parts I use(d) didn't or don't show obvious signs of stress, e.g., significant warp of one sort or another shortly after truing up. I seldom make drawer sides and backs thicker that 12 mm (~1/2"), and that's usually because their either very large drawers or being mounted on runners where a 10 mm (3/8") screw attaches the slide. Typically, my drawer sides are between 7 and 10 mm thick, usually with a slip at that sort of slimness. Over the years I can't recall there being problems such as the ones enumerated by you, e.g., twisting, casting, etc.

Overall then, I suspect the 1/4 sawn for drawer sides always 'directive' is a bit overblown, but not 'wrong' if the material for fronts is chosen to match side and rear parts, e.g., 1/4 sawn European oak is a good match with tangentially sawn American mahogany drawer fronts (as I mentioned in an earlier post), but not so good the other way around. Slainte.


----------



## CStanford (21 Aug 2014)

Good stuff. Thanks.

I have a lifetime's supply of quartersawn oak which is a long story for another day.


----------



## Peter Sefton (22 Aug 2014)

CStanford":2li00pfq said:


> Good stuff. Thanks.
> 
> I have a lifetime's supply of quartersawn oak which is a long story for another day.



We never see AM Quarter Sawn Oak in the UK, now I know why!


----------



## David C (22 Aug 2014)

There are ways, Peter.

For quartered drawer side material , I buy the widest possible, 3" thick stuff and then rip 10mm strips on the bandsaw. A technique I learned from Robert Ingham.

The 3" wide planks are almost inevariably tangential.

Best wishes,
David


----------



## CStanford (22 Aug 2014)

Peter Sefton":2ow16jdr said:


> CStanford":2ow16jdr said:
> 
> 
> > Good stuff. Thanks.
> ...



I own about 9,500 bd. ft (not a typo) of almost all quarter and rift sawn oak from 12/4 down to 4/4 (mostly white oak) that I bought in a 'shrewd' business deal -- I'm being very facetious about the shrewd part. It's really an albatross. It's in the warehouse of a lumber dealer I use and I swap a little for other species every now and then. Oak is ubiquitous around here (Southeastern U.S.) if you know where to look you can buy it very inexpensively.


----------

