# I don't know jack



## Richard T (3 Sep 2011)

Just how many planes are there between 9" and 22" long? And between 2" and 2 - 1/2" width of iron? 
Apart from using the Stanley/Record code of #5, #5 -1/2 and #6, they are variously "jack", "fore" and "panel". 
They obviously vary a lot in length and width but are they all for basically the same purpose? 

I understand this purpose to be (do feel free to jump in, or on ...) first plane used on the road to flatness (hence "fore" I guess) as they have a more curved iron than any other bench plane apart from a scrub and have the length to basically flatten though not so much as a jointer. 

Assuming this is the case, is there a common mouth gap; which I assume should be quite a bit wider than a smoother though not so much as a scrub? And a common optimum iron angle? (For a standard BD I mean) For eg: Is 45 degrees better for this purpose than the English preferred 47 - 1/2 for a smoother? 

And what about width ... I don't think I have ever seen or heard of a plane of this type with a 2" iron other than a Stanley or Record #5 - certainly no old or new infills which are commonly 2 - 1/2" . Is the narrower iron just about ease of push or (apologies to Jacob in advance) are the Stanley thinner irons not up to the extra width? 

Anyway, enough questions. It's breakfast time.


----------



## Scouse (3 Sep 2011)

Lordy, I didn't think blue touch paper got lit until bonfire night!

Personally, I had always thought that a 5 was a jack plane, I use it for initial stock prep, but I know some who use it as a smoother, 5 1/2 the same but with a bit of extra heft. I've never had a no.6, simply because I'd go to a jointer, no.8 in my case, but 7 if you want something lighter. I don't really know what I would use a 6 for, and I don't know anyone with one to find out!

I've never needed to measure a mouth gap but it can, of course, be closed down on a Bailey plane if need be, and even easier with a BU.

But for the record (excuse the pun) mouth openings as follows
*Jointer*
LN no. 8 = 7mm
*Jack*
LN no.5 = 5 mm
Acorn no. 5 = 6mm
Record no. 5 1/2= 6mm
*Smoother*
LN no. 4 1/2 = 6mm
Woden no. 4= 5mm
Stanley no. 4 type 13 = 4.5mm
Stanley no. 4 type 13 = 5mm, neither of the vintage Stanleys appear to have had their mouths widened, yet a clear half mil. difference. 

Indeed, non of the old planes appear to have had any mouth surgery, and non of this variation had I ever been conscious of.

At the risk of being shot down in flames and thrown in a padded cell with Jacob, I kinda think it's academic. I like the stability of my Lie Nielsen thick blades, but I don't really have a problem with my Record 5 1/2 or Stanley no.4, or Acorn no.5 for that matter, all with thin blades, and if these were all that I had, they'd be what I'd use. Just the tool for the job in hand. (there's a Paramo Planemaster in the post too... maybe that padded cell will come in useful...)

Just me, just saying... think I'll have a large brandy for breakfast!


----------



## Richard T (3 Sep 2011)

Thanks Scouse, that's the phrase I was searching for - initial stock prep. 

I'm interested in getting an idea of mouth width for said purpose as when I get around to making one I'd like to get it right. Also there may be the possibility of using old Sheffield irons that are tapered and maybe the slight increase in mouth width over years of sharpening wouldn't be so much of a problem as with a smoother. Why they made 'em tapered in the first place I dunno - is it a wedge aiding thing?


----------



## AndyT (3 Sep 2011)

Richard T":1q82w5le said:


> Why they made 'em tapered in the first place I dunno - is it a wedge aiding thing?



I think it must be to help with wedging, as that makes sense. A tapered iron and a wooden wedge will work like a pair of ' folding wedges' so that the harder the iron is pushed back into the plane body, the better the wedging. But thinking a bit more, a parallel iron with a tapered back iron will behave the same way.
I do know that parallel irons were dearer - the 1925 Melhuish catalogue from the Toolemera website shows that for a 2" iron the price was 8d for an ordinary cast steel tapered one but 10d for the parallel option.

So my assumption is that the higher price was worth it to avoid opening up the mouth as the iron wore down, and that the price was higher because the parallel irons would have had an extra process (grinding). 

So why did the default process make a tapered shape? Is there something in the forging and welding process that would naturally tend towards a taper?


----------



## Alf (3 Sep 2011)

I assumed laminating the steel would naturally lead to a thicker iron at the business end - but that's based on zero actual knowledge of the process.

As to the 2" wide iron in jack planes, wooden jacks used to be offered with them, so it's not peculiarity of the Bailey variety.


----------



## Jacob (3 Sep 2011)

AndyT":24ydrs9n said:


> ........
> 
> So why did the default process make a tapered shape? Is there something in the forging and welding process that would naturally tend towards a taper?


Guessing:
Parallel faces harder to achieve with hand processes and pointless anyway. Would make a big plane much heavier. Also they are usually laminated with harder steel on the face. This, and the thickness, are only needed at the edge end so there would be no point in building up the other end to the same thickness. And the wedging action better. Saves metal.


----------



## Vann (3 Sep 2011)

I thought the more 'initial' the stock preparation, the narrower the plane iron. Hence scrub plane 1 1/2" iron; then move on to the jack with 2" iron; then the fore with 2 3/8" iron. Each with decreasing camber.

But then I also don't know jack...unless you mean my cousin Jack (homer) :roll:  

I'm intending to prepare some stock from hand sawn boards one day. ...one day (now where's that dammed tuit).

Oh, and just to make me a contender for a place in that padded cell, I too have measured the mouths of my planes. With one exception, all my pre-1960 Records have mouths in the 4.40-4.75mm range. My WS No.4 is 5.70mm and my Record-Marples is 6.25mm. I measured these after I bought a Clifton iron, and decided I didn't want to file the mouth of a plane to fit it. I've since bought a Clifton and an L-N. They have mouths of 6.45mm & 5.85mm respectively - as you might expect for planes with such thick irons. 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Jacob (3 Sep 2011)

Vann":3k1m2zd4 said:


> ..scrub plane 1 1/2" iron...


Ignore scrub planes. These are for very rough stuff - not for just sawn boards where a normal jack is the plane for the job. Scrub planes are for the woods - log cabin land, virtually unknown in Britain until reintroduced by Lee Nelson.


----------



## Richard T (4 Sep 2011)

Vann wrote: "jack with 2" iron; then the fore with 2 3/8" iron. Each with decreasing camber."

Aha! This is what I was getting at. So jack is narrower than fore .... what about panel? Would that be 2 - 1/2"? With a further decreased camber? 

Jacob, I think you're right about the scrub - for rough split stock rather than sawn, or badly warped stuff. Also for green wood. I see it as a controlled adze or gouge which bridges the gap between the green wood tools and the dry flat world. 

It also has a hugely wide, open mouth which made me wonder if a jack, fore etc may have decreasing mouth widths also; matching the camber and therefore aggressiveness of cut?


----------



## Paul Chapman (4 Sep 2011)

Richard T":1qvd3tni said:


> Jacob, I think you're right about the scrub - for rough split stock rather than sawn, or badly warped stuff. Also for green wood. I see it as a controlled adze or gouge which bridges the gap between the green wood tools and the dry flat world.



Chris Schwarz has done a lot of research and written quite a bit about the scrub plane, its origins and purpose. He concludes that its main use is for reducing boards in their width rather than thickness, particularly in situations where you are using hand tools and it's quicker and easier than using a saw. That's primarily how I use mine these days and I've found that Chris' conclusions all make sense.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (4 Sep 2011)

Paul Chapman":3mjldskw said:


> Richard T":3mjldskw said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob, I think you're right about the scrub - for rough split stock rather than sawn, or badly warped stuff. Also for green wood. I see it as a controlled adze or gouge which bridges the gap between the green wood tools and the dry flat world.
> ...


I've read it too (here).
I think it's a bit confused: 
_"One answer might be in Stanley’s 1923 catalog.  It states that the scrub is for “planing down to a rough dimension any board that is too wide to conveniently rip with a hand saw….”  So the scrub plane was perhaps designed instead to work on the narrow edges of boards",_
But no board is too wide to conveniently rip with a hand saw. 
Maybe it meant _too thick_, which makes more sense. You'd use a scrub plane like an axe or an adze , for hacking off the waste on the edge of a _thick_ board. Or just use an axe, in the usual way. A carpenter's axe is a standard item in a joiner's kit. Particularly useful for edge trimming as you can use it one handed (holding the board upright with the other hand). Also for dozens of other little jobs, foremost being the making of wall plugs. Much more used and useful than a scrub plane.


----------



## woodbrains (4 Sep 2011)

Hello,

Scrub planes were absolutely used for furniture making and definitely used for stock prep to rough thickness. Don't forget, in the days when these planes were at their most used, timber for furniture was riven or pit sawn and needed a lot of stock removel to get it close enough for the jack, fore and panel to get it to a finish. For hand tool enthusiasts, they are still useful for use on the sawn timber we get nowadays, where we may still need to remove up to 1/8 inch per side to get the material flat and true. I dunno who Chris Schwartz is, but he is misguided about the scrub being used only for bringing stock to width. A trip to the Shaker villages to inspect their furniture revealed the tell tale scallops left by the scrub on the underside of the bottoms of drawers and case bottoms etc. where it would have been wasting of time to bring these any smoother. incidentally, the scrub was also known as the bismarck plane in England (at least), though I don't know if this was regional (as tool names often were).

I don't think English plane irons were laminated on the backs. This is the Japanese way of making plane irons/cisels. In British plane irons, the tool steel was a thick chunk going as far back as just before the slot for the cap iron. The remainder was low carbon steel and even wrought iron (hence the term plane irons rather than blades/cutters) , this was to save good tool steel. Logically, the saving is continued if this portion of the blade was made out of thinner steel stock, which I would guess is the reason for the tapered irons. If you look at an old plane iron you will clearly see the forge weld going across the width of the iron just below the hole at the bottom of the slot.

Mike.


----------



## AndyT (4 Sep 2011)

Interesting!

Jacob, I agree that the Stanley catalogue makes no sense if you are thinking of a board which you need to reduce in width; and yes, the scrub can be used (as could a jack, or a drawknife, or an axe) to quickly take a half inch or so off the edge of a board.

But my reading of their catalogue is that it is talking about making a deep rip - cutting a thick board into two thinner ones. 

So, a "board that is too wide to conveniently rip with a hand saw…." would be one broader than about 8 - 10" (depending on the skill and stamina of the woodworker). Imagine you have a board 2" thick and 12" wide. You need a board 1 1/2" thick. Instead of deep ripping it, leaving a slim offcut less than 1/2" thick, you plane that 1/2" off with the scrub.


----------



## Paul Chapman (4 Sep 2011)

Well, whatever all the theories are, I actually use my scrub plane and find it most useful when reducing boards in their width. For reducing thickness I find the toothed blade far more effective in that you get fast stock removal, no tear out and it makes subsequent cleaning up far easier







Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (4 Sep 2011)

AndyT":yxnwjymf said:


> ....But my reading of their catalogue is that it is talking about making a deep rip - cutting a thick board into two thinner ones. .....


Oh right that makes more sense - _too wide to rip_ should be read as _too deep to thickness_, and Schwarz has misunderstood it.


----------



## Paul Chapman (4 Sep 2011)

Jacob":2avrewyi said:


> Schwarz has misunderstood it.



I don't think he misunderstood it at all. But whether he did or whether he didn't matters little - manufacturers catalogues are there to illustrate what they make and to encourage you to buy their products, they are not definitive works on the best use of tools.

I found his article quite interesting. I had already concluded for myself before seeing his article that the scrub plane was more useful for reducing a board in width rather than thickness. For most people it doesn't really matter because most on here seem to use planer/thicknessers and probably have little use for some of the more specialist planes. However, as one who uses hand tools almost exclusively, I have had to find the most effective way of using some planes so just thought others might be interested.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## woodbrains (4 Sep 2011)

Paul Chapman":n7xm8neh said:


> Well, whatever all the theories are, I actually use my scrub plane and find it most useful when reducing boards in their width. For reducing thickness I find the toothed blade far more effective in that you get fast stock removal, no tear out and it makes subsequent cleaning up far easier
> 
> 
> 
> Paul



Hello,

Using the scrob for truing rough stock isn't a 'theory', it is it's purpose. You may or may not choose to use one, but that doesn't change the fact. A toothed blade in a plane is a useful tool, but in terms of the stock removal for which the scrub is intentended, a toothed blade cannot be regarded as fast. A scrub can remove stock with shavings like potato peel. Reduction in tearout isn't too much of a priority, since it's function is rapid stock removal over and above surface finish. However, since they are used at an angle to grain direction, tearout is never horrendous and can be dealt with with the jack (perhaps fitted with a toothed blade for ornery wood) and further refined with the fore, panel and smoother (in that order, maybe omitting the smoother if the finish with the panel is fine).

Mike.


----------



## Sawyer (4 Sep 2011)

Re scrub planes though, note _Modern Cabinet Work_, by Wells & Hooper, 1922.
'Bismarck or roughing plane; a single iron for taking off the dirt and first rough surface of boards'. Same tool; different name (perhaps 'scrub' is a US name?).
Mind you, Ellis in _Modern Practical Joinery_, 1902 makes no mention of this, noting the jack as the first plane to use.
I suppose a very coarse plane is good for getting off the abrasive dirt before the jack comes into action. Anybody know the grinding angle(s) for scrub planes? Perhaps steeper to give a stronger, more grit resistant edge and thus save some sharpening time on the jack iron?


----------



## Sawyer (4 Sep 2011)

> I had already concluded for myself before seeing his article that the scrub plane was more useful for reducing a board in width rather than thickness.



Assuming we're talking hand tools, not machines, anything more than 1/4 inch and it would be out with the rip saw for me. Less than that, the jack will cope easily and quickly.


----------



## Sawyer (4 Sep 2011)

> Also for green wood. I see it as a controlled adze or gouge which bridges the gap between the green wood tools and the dry flat world.



Don't underestimate the adze though: with practice, it's _very_ controlled.
I don't own a scrub plane, but for very heavy stock removal, I sometimes use an adze prior the the jack, or even the overhand planer. On a similar note, Jacob, I totally agree about the joiner's axe. Even with machinery, it comes in useful with surprising regularity.


----------



## Richard T (4 Sep 2011)

So......

Jacks, fores and panels .... mouths don't need to be/can't be as narrow as smoothers?


----------



## woodbrains (4 Sep 2011)

Hi,

Mouths would become progressively tighter, the closer to a finish you go. A panel plane might have a mouth as tight as a smoother, if this is the last plane you want to finish with. The only real difference between a long, wide plane for truing edges (jointer/trying plane) and the same for smoothing wide boards (panel plane) is in the use it is to be put and may only involve a slightly different mouth setting. Alan Peters used a number 7 for much of his work to a finish and arguably the same plane was both a panel and a try.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (4 Sep 2011)

woodbrains":23q5b53n said:


> Hi,
> 
> Mouths would become progressively tighter, the closer to a finish you go. A panel plane might have a mouth as tight as a smoother, if this is the last plane you want to finish with. The only real difference between a long, wide plane for truing edges (jointer/trying plane) and the same for smoothing wide boards (panel plane) is in the use it is to be put and may only involve a slightly different mouth setting. Alan Peters used a number 7 for much of his work to a finish and arguably the same plane was both a panel and a try.
> 
> Mike.


It's a bit of a myth IMHO. The advantages are dubious and by no means certain. Closing the mouth on an ordinary Stanley/Bailey is counter productive as the back of the blade loses support from the mouth, where it most needs it. The bedrock design didn't catch on much because the advantage, such as it is, wasn't thought worth the money.
I don't entirely believe that A Peters used a no7 so much. Why would he? It's a big joinery plane, not for furniture.
Woodwork seems to be full of funny little myths and legends!


----------



## Vann (4 Sep 2011)

woodbrains":amwk7ewf said:


> I don't think English plane irons were laminated on the backs. This is the Japanese way of making plane irons/cisels. In British plane irons, the tool steel was a thick chunk going as far back as just before the slot for the cap iron. The remainder was low carbon steel and even wrought iron (hence the term plane irons rather than blades/cutters)...


Hi Mike. I don't know quite what period you're looking at, but British plane irons certainly were laminated at some point. I have laminated irons in my workshop from _FG Pearson & Co., W Marples & Sons_ and _Alex Mathieson & Son _(no planes to go with them though #-o ).



Richard T":amwk7ewf said:


> ...Jacks, fores and panels .... mouths don't need to be/can't be as narrow as smoothers?


coarser cut = wider mouth; narrower cut = finer mouth.

Here are some suggested mouth widths(*) I found when first researching this topic:-
scrub: 1/2";
jack: source #1 - 1/8", source #2 - 1/16" to 1/8"
fore: #1 0.01", #2 - 1/32" to 1/16";
smoothing: #1 - 002" to 004". #2 - 003";

I'm sorry I didn't record who the sources were #-o , nor their recommendations for panel planes and jointers.

(*) I suppose there's room for confusion here - this time I'm referring to the mouth opening in front of the iron. In my previous post it was total mouth opening as manufactured.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Paul Chapman (4 Sep 2011)

Jacob":2gfzrnmg said:


> I don't entirely believe that A Peters used a no7 so much. Why would he? It's a big joinery plane, not for furniture.
> Woodwork seems to be full of funny little myths and legends!



Well, in his book he wrote:

"No. 7 jointer used for practically every hand planing operation, however short the timber. I keep three spare irons and only sharpen when all are dull."

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (4 Sep 2011)

Paul Chapman":22a0f8o6 said:


> Jacob":22a0f8o6 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't entirely believe that A Peters used a no7 so much. Why would he? It's a big joinery plane, not for furniture.
> ...


He said it, but did he do it? Might just have been his bright idea for the week? We all have them and then discretely let them fall by the wayside.


----------



## woodbrains (4 Sep 2011)

Jacob":3of81y8f said:


> woodbrains":3of81y8f said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



Jacob, you have just justified retro fitting planes with thicker irons and two piece cap irons, even though you continually bemoan anyone who even suggests that doing so SIGNIFICANTLY improves plane performance. A fine mouth radically improves a plane's ability to cope with tearout and this is well documented, not just a faddy theory. The whole principal of the pressure increase at the planes mouth preventing the shaving from splitting ahead of the cut depends on this. The finer the mouth the closer to the shaving the pressure is maintained and therefore limits the tearout. I have said this before, but some of the finest Japanese planes had no clearance at the mouth at all, relying on the backward pressure agaist the blade to open a tiny mouth. This is serious evidence that fine mouths are a desirable thing. And perhaps Angelina Jolie as well.

Why would Alan Peters lie? I've a friend who has worked with peters on several occasions, would you like me to ask him?

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (4 Sep 2011)

woodbrains":2f7ea74z said:


> ....
> Jacob, you have just justified retro fitting planes with thicker irons and two piece cap irons, even though you continually bemoan anyone who even suggests that doing so SIGNIFICANTLY improves plane performance. A fine mouth radically improves a plane's ability to cope with tearout and this is well documented, not just a faddy theory.


I have yet to prove this for myself. Many bits of nonsense are well documented e.g. DT bevels at 6 or 8 to 1. But the question needs answering - how come so much brilliant work was done by so many people over such a long period, without closed mouth planes or retro fitted blades?


> Why would Alan Peters lie? I've a friend who has worked with peters on several occasions, would you like me to ask him?
> 
> Mike.


Yes that'd be interesting. Not lying - more a passing remark perhaps?


----------



## Paul Chapman (4 Sep 2011)

Jacob":2lygsga2 said:


> He said it, but did he do it? Might just have been his bright idea for the week? We all have them and then discretely let them fall by the wayside.



I can't believe you just wrote that, Jacob. Disgraceful.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## woodbrains (4 Sep 2011)

Vann":2w23kyv8 said:


> woodbrains":2w23kyv8 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think English plane irons were laminated on the backs. This is the Japanese way of making plane irons/cisels. In British plane irons, the tool steel was a thick chunk going as far back as just before the slot for the cap iron. The remainder was low carbon steel and even wrought iron (hence the term plane irons rather than blades/cutters)...
> ...



I'm sure you are right, it probably has a lot to do with the period we are talking about, and I've no idea of the vintage of those I had. I suppose it may have had a lot to do with the actual cost of the irons and regional differences, which we cannot tell now. I do distinctly remember the forge weld across the iron and no tell tale demarcation of the two steels across the cutting edge on my examples. Either way, the heavier front joined to a thinner end would account for the blades taper, which indicates a manufacturing expedient rather than a benefit to the operation of the plane in use.

One thing I am puzzled at though, laminating plane irons the Japanese way was because the cutting side was so darned hard as to be brittle beyond reasonable use and had to be supported with something more resilliant (soft and malliable). British tool steel was never made that hard in plane irons, was it?

Mike.


----------



## Richard T (4 Sep 2011)

Vann wrote: " Here are some suggested mouth widths(*) I found when first researching this topic:-
scrub: 1/2";
jack: source #1 - 1/8", source #2 - 1/16" to 1/8"
fore: #1 0.01", #2 - 1/32" to 1/16";
smoothing: #1 - 002" to 004". #2 - 003"; "


Thanks Vann, that's exactly what I wanted to know. =D>


----------



## woodbrains (4 Sep 2011)

Jacob":1m8hk92n said:


> woodbrains":1m8hk92n said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Jacob, who said their plane irons were thin and plane mouths wide. Blades were very thick, cap irons similarly and plane mouths were fine; they almost certainly were in craftsman made wooden planes and definately were in ye olde Norris, Spiers, Matthiesion etc. You have to remember, Leonard Baily designed his planes primarily to be cheap and for American house builders and joiners, specifically. Although the early examples were well made in themselves, and much superior over the later examples, they were still inferior to the aformentioned British cabinetmaking planes. As with everything, cost drove the good makers out of business and all we were left with were the joiners tools. All we have been trying to do is make the intrinsically inferior planes we have been left with into cabinetmakers instruments somewhere in the region of the fine cabinet planes of old. Replacing the blades with thicker ones and two piece cap irons is really only us putting back in our planes that, which they already had as standard.

Mike.


----------



## Crooked Tree (4 Sep 2011)

Where do chip breakers/cap irons sit in all this? I notice that some of the really fancy planes seem to have thick blades and no chip breaker. However, some old woodies also have thick (tapered) blades but do have the chip breaker. 

Been planing some elm (Bailey pattern plane, frog a little forwards but mouth not as tight as possible) and thus far the sharper the blade and the finer the cut the better (unsurprisingly). Frog all the way forwards seems to be a pain when I want to take thicker shavings and have to adjust it again to let shavings through, so I have just been sharpening again and reducing the cut to deal with more difficult grain. Tried with the chip breaker further back on a newly sharpened blade earlier and it seemed to produce more tearout, in accordance with theory.


----------



## condeesteso (4 Sep 2011)

I know this is supposed to be about jacks, but woodbrains re the scrub - totally agree. Plenty of evidence of the scrub being the last cut on the underside of fine furniture of old. It was certainly used extensively to rough flatten and reduce thickness.
But re English blades laminated - I'm pretty sure my Record crucible cast is laminated?? - sure looks it on the bevel.
And finally, I cannot believe Chris Schwarz thinks a scrub was used to reduce width only - I'm sure he knows better than that :wink:


----------



## custard (4 Sep 2011)

At what point does a well cambered jack plane become a scrub? Or maybe it's about having a cap iron or not?

In any event, I use (what I call) a scrub regularly to clean the grit from boards that have been on the ground before introducing them to my expensive planer thicknesser blades. I used to use a wire brush but concluded it just drove the grit deeper into the grain. Likewise I've a pretty aggressively cambered jack (about 8" radius) that I'll use for the underside of windsor seats or sometimes even for the back of cabinets if I think a slightly agricultural look appropriate.


----------



## woodbrains (4 Sep 2011)

Crooked Tree":219we2dd said:


> Where do chip breakers/cap irons sit in all this? I notice that some of the really fancy planes seem to have thick blades and no chip breaker. However, some old woodies also have thick (tapered) blades but do have the chip breaker.
> 
> Been planing some elm (Bailey pattern plane, frog a little forwards but mouth not as tight as possible) and thus far the sharper the blade and the finer the cut the better (unsurprisingly). Frog all the way forwards seems to be a pain when I want to take thicker shavings and have to adjust it again to let shavings through, so I have just been sharpening again and reducing the cut to deal with more difficult grain. Tried with the chip breaker further back on a newly sharpened blade earlier and it seemed to produce more tearout, in accordance with theory.



Hi,

Chip breakers, or should I say cap irons since this is the English name for the thing and rightly so, as I have read that the cap iron is also a British invention. It also became a convenient way of adding adjusters so seemed to become more universal. However, single irons are still useful, but definately require the mouth to be set finely and a very sharp blade, if tearout is to be tamed.

Mike.


----------



## woodbrains (4 Sep 2011)

custard":br43j197 said:


> At what point does a well cambered jack plane become a scrub? Or maybe it's about having a cap iron or not?
> 
> In any event, I use (what I call) a scrub regularly to clean the grit from boards that have been on the ground before introducing them to my expensive planer thicknesser blades. I used to use a wire brush but concluded it just drove the grit deeper into the grain. Likewise I've a pretty aggressively cambered jack (about 8" radius) that I'll use for the underside of windsor seats or sometimes even for the back of cabinets if I think a slightly agricultural look appropriate.



Hi,

As I said earlier, sometimes the same plane put to another use can give it a differnt name. A jack with a curvature on the iron and used to remove rough stock would be a scrub alright. The cap iron would be useless for its intended purpose and only serve as a means of facilitating adjustment, so in to all intents and purposes, the plane would be single ironed. Scrubs might have even more radical radii on their irons, as much as 3 inches. This would be down to personal taste and the severity of the work involved, though.

Mike.


----------



## Modernist (4 Sep 2011)

Jacob":3h9t4tra said:


> Paul Chapman":3h9t4tra said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":3h9t4tra said:
> ...



He did use it, as did all the acolytes of Edward Barnsley including the many students of the 1940's at Loughborough where Barnsley was in charge. I own the No7 that my father bought for that very reason. I can't remember the exact connection but there was one between Alan Peters and Barnsley.


----------



## Jacob (4 Sep 2011)

custard":8m8328ey said:


> .... I use (what I call) a scrub regularly to clean the grit from boards that have been on the ground before introducing them to my expensive planer thicknesser blades...


Or you can use your planer thicknesser to "scrub". Not ideal, but if you have some gritty, painted etc boards then it's better to do a deep cut into clean wood and lift off the rubbish, rather than trying to trim it off with shallow cuts.


----------



## andy king (4 Sep 2011)

Jacob":25ydfp90 said:


> Or you can use your planer thicknesser to "scrub". Not ideal, but if you have some gritty, painted etc boards then it's better to do a deep cut into clean wood and lift off the rubbish, rather than trying to trim it off with shallow cuts.



The theory is good, but in reality the upstroke of the knife means it still exits into the debris on the surface of the stock as it runs through, so the knifes can still get damaged.

cheers,
Andy


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2011)

andy king":34f0d0io said:


> Jacob":34f0d0io said:
> 
> 
> > Or you can use your planer thicknesser to "scrub". Not ideal, but if you have some gritty, painted etc boards then it's better to do a deep cut into clean wood and lift off the rubbish, rather than trying to trim it off with shallow cuts.
> ...


Not a theory - it works. 
e.g. If you try to plane old painted wood just taking a light skim _along_ the surface you end up with blunt blades. If you do the same but deep _most of the cut is in clean wood _so the blades last longer.
This is the same with a hand plane and the whole principle behind the scrub plane when it comes to cleaning up bad surfaces - a narrow but deep cut.
Ditto with embedded grit for example - most of it gets lifted off untouched by the cutting edges, although some will inevitably be hit by the blade. Which is why you'd set aside a manky old plane for "scrubbing" .
NB it's an American term, but the principle remains the same!

But the best "scrubber" of course is the band saw, which will take off the whole of the defective surface without touching it at all. M42 blades even better - will cut through hidden nails which you can then extract with a parrot's beak.


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2011)

Modernist":3gx5d49g said:


> Jacob":3gx5d49g said:
> 
> 
> > Paul Chapman":3gx5d49g said:
> ...


OK, but why? I don't think there is an answer. It  seems slightly bonkers having everybody struggling away with over-sized planes, on a whim.


----------



## andy king (5 Sep 2011)

Jacob, I didn't dispute the fact it works, I said the knifes still strike debris as you've conceded?
EDIT: Given the choice, i'd brush the surface off with a stiff brush, a wire one if neccessary to remove any easily spottable debris, then give it a fast whizz over with a hand plane - scrub, jack, smoother, whatever, then stick it through the P/T (assuming the OP has one - we're a bit off topic!) but damaging machine irons is costly both in regrinding and down time if you are unlucky enough to miss the odd speck of grit and serrate or chip the edges.

cheers 
Andy


----------



## bugbear (5 Sep 2011)

custard":2uqitjt2 said:


> At what point does a well cambered jack plane become a scrub? Or maybe it's about having a cap iron or not?



Ah - a good and unanswerable question.

post109161.html?hilit=scrub#p109161

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (5 Sep 2011)

Sawyer":2znm9wu3 said:


> Re scrub planes though, note _Modern Cabinet Work_, by Wells & Hooper, 1922.
> 'Bismarck or roughing plane; a single iron for taking off the dirt and first rough surface of boards'. Same tool; different name (perhaps 'scrub' is a US name?).
> Mind you, Ellis in _Modern Practical Joinery_, 1902 makes no mention of this, noting the jack as the first plane to use.



Context - Ellis assumes extensive use of power tools, which makes a scrub (roughing plane, Bismark) pointless. I think he mentions them in the tool glossary though.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2011)

woodbrains":suz36c2e said:


> ........... You have to remember, Leonard Baily designed his planes primarily to be cheap and for American house builders and joiners, specifically.


I wouldn't have thought so - everybody (including cabinet makers) was using woodies. Steel planes came along as expensive and superior , whoever they were used by. Even when I was at school the Record planes were kept in a cupboard only for use by the top class doing woodwork and cabinet making for GCE. We had to make do with old woodies


> Although the early examples were well made in themselves, and much superior over the later examples, they were still inferior to the aformentioned British cabinetmaking planes.


I think of these (infills) not so much as steel planes but more as modified (ironclad) woodies. They never quite made the technological leap


> As with everything, cost drove the good makers out of business and all we were left with were the joiners tools.


Cost drove out the _expensive_ makers I agree. So be it, you can buy an infill now if you want, they aren't that pricey, but nobody seems to think they are worth it (except collectors).
Anyway what's wrong with joiners' tools? Furniture makers are joiners too, though some have aspirations. :lol:


----------



## Paul Chapman (5 Sep 2011)

Jacob":1s4aidxn said:


> Even when I was at school the Record planes were kept in a cupboard only for use by the top class doing woodwork and cabinet making for GCE. We had to make do with old woodies



When was that, Jacob? Down South metal planes were in common use in schools in the 1950s - they certainly were in my school. Probably a bit slow to catch on in your part of the World.......  

Cheers  :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2011)

Paul Chapman":34lftaji said:


> Jacob":34lftaji said:
> 
> 
> > Even when I was at school the Record planes were kept in a cupboard only for use by the top class doing woodwork and cabinet making for GCE. We had to make do with old woodies
> ...


55 to 62 ish. Midlands. Wooden planes were the norm. You'd have to save up for a steel one!
AFAIR you could have a go with with a steel one if you were lagging behind with your project i.e taking more than two terms to make an egg rack or somesuch nonsense.


----------



## Paul Chapman (5 Sep 2011)

Jacob":p3i7wuu5 said:


> Paul Chapman":p3i7wuu5 said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":p3i7wuu5 said:
> ...



As well as metal planes being common in schools down here in the 1950s, I came across many joiners and carpenters at that time as there was lots of building and repair work going on as a result of war damage, and I don't remember seeing any of them using wooden planes - they were all using Records and Stanleys.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Harbo (5 Sep 2011)

I got my O level in woodwork in 1960 and never handled a wooden plane at school - that was in Yorkshire (Leeds)?
They were all Records.

Rod


----------



## Modernist (5 Sep 2011)

> As well as metal planes being common in schools down here in the 1950s, I came across many joiners and carpenters at that time as there was lots of building and repair work going on as a result of war damage, and I don't remember seeing any of them using wooden planes - they were all using Records and Stanleys.



But similar joiners in Germany an much of Europe would be using Woodies today!


----------



## Sawyer (5 Sep 2011)

> But the question needs answering - how come so much brilliant work was done by so many people over such a long period, without closed mouth planes or retro fitted blades?



A good point, over which I have often pondered whilst reading about flattening soles to x thou and checking with feeler gauges &c. &c. No Lie-Neilsons, Cliftons or Veritas in the days of Chippendale.
Wooden planes could never be accurate to the sort of tolerances we seek nowadays - yet look at what they produced!


----------



## Harbo (5 Sep 2011)

Yes but how long did they take and what other tools did they use - scrapers etc.
You are forgetting they probably used the best tools available at the time - the Egyptians did great things with stone and bronze tools?

Rod


----------



## Sawyer (5 Sep 2011)

bugbear":11x0zzwd said:


> Sawyer":11x0zzwd said:
> 
> 
> > Re scrub planes though, note _Modern Cabinet Work_, by Wells & Hooper, 1922.
> ...




Writing two decades later, Wells & Hooper envisaged use of machinery too and have a chapter devoted to it. I can't find any reference to Bismarck or roughing planes in Ellis though. 
Perhaps 'Bismarck' implies that these planes are a continental idea and indeed, Wells & Hooper's illustration does look continental in style. Arguably, the European influence has been stronger in cabinet making than it has in joinery, which may explain why one book mentions this type of plane, whilst the other does not?
It also shows what this very forum demonstrates every day: different woodworkers use different means to the same end.


----------



## Sawyer (5 Sep 2011)

> Yes but how long did they take and what other tools did they use - scrapers etc.


Time-wise; a very interesting question, which could occupy many a happy hour immersed in history books. Tool-wise; nothing which we don't still have access to, should we choose to use them.



> You are forgetting they probably used the best tools available at the time - the Egyptians did great things with stone and bronze tools?


And I take my hat off to 'em  
Not forgetting this at all; rather, expressing admiration. Less advanced tools than we have, yet they still managed some amazing work.


----------



## woodbloke (5 Sep 2011)

Jacob":3lrnw4vb said:


> 55 to 62 ish. Midlands. Wooden planes were the norm



...that'll be 1855 to 62 then Jacob? :lol: :lol: - Rob...couldn't resist!


----------



## daver828 (5 Sep 2011)

Interesting thread, I've learned quite a bit from reading all the responses.

Please excuse a beginner from across "the pond" responding. And it seems that the mention of Chris Schwartz has caused some amount of hairs to rise on the back of necks. In watching his DVD "Course, Medium, and Fine", Chris discusses the use of various planes in these three catagories and discusses the width of the opening of the mouth as depending on what stage of work you were doing. Thus, depending on the thickness of the shaving you intend to produce one could adjust (in the case of Stanley type planes) the mouth accordingly. IIRC he discussed the thickness of the shaving of the smoother as being 1/1000" or less with the mouth being only slightly wider than that, around 1.5/1000". And the medium tool, usually the fore or jointer in Chris' discussion was suggested as a shaving of the 3 to 5/1000" variety with the mouth adjusted only slightly wider. With the rough tool, I don't quite remember the specific number, but seemingly in keeping with that discussion, I would imagine a shaving of 6 to 10/1000" to be within the goal of the shaving thickness and the width of the mouth would have far less importance in reducing tearout, etc.

My assumption, though "assumptions are the mother of all @#$%-ups", is that the rest of the question, "Why are there so many other planes within these ranges?" can be answered in terms of size of the work being produced and person preferences. Thus, someone making boxes might use and #3 or #2 comfortably as a smoother. While someone else working on a highboy might well use a #7 as his/her smoother as Alan Peter's did. As far as the personal preferences aspect, the size of the tote, weight of the plane, etc etc etc will play into the decision as well.

Just some thoughts.


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2011)

daver828":25vlhgp1 said:


> I.. it seems that the mention of Chris Schwartz has caused some amount of hairs to rise on the back of necks.


No not at all. He's a bit of a genius, but also a loose cannon. He gets things brilliantly right, then slightly wrong. But that's fine by me. I just bought his "Anarchist's Toolbox " book


> ...."Why are there so many other planes within these ranges?" can be answered in terms of size of the work being produced and person preferences. Thus, someone making boxes might use and #3 or #2 comfortably as a smoother. While someone else working on a highboy might well use a #7 as his/her smoother as Alan Peter's did. ....


Agree with that. Size is the issue. The other answer is of course that if somebody markets them somebody else will buy them Nobody needs more than three of these, but which three is another question. As is the cheaper alternative of old Stanley/Record


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2011)

woodbloke":1ccfxfsw said:


> Jacob":1ccfxfsw said:
> 
> 
> > 55 to 62 ish. Midlands. Wooden planes were the norm
> ...


167 next birthday! It's the beer and fags what keeps me so young.
NB new world members reading this; "fags" means "cigarettes" in Britain; Park Drive, Old Holborn, etc


----------



## bugbear (6 Sep 2011)

Jacob":3vc4h2ar said:


> ...the cheaper alternative of old Stanley/Record



Whitmore and Acorn perfectly good, well made, etc.

NB can be used for professional purposes.

:lol: :lol: :lol: 

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (6 Sep 2011)

Harbo":edqm5bx1 said:


> Yes but how long did they take and what other tools did they use - scrapers etc.
> 
> 
> Rod



To answer the 'how long did they take' question, the best evidence is in a handful of surviving trade price books. These listed the standard price of various pieces of furniture, with a menu of extras (fancy veneers, carving, etc). (Exactly like the motor trade uses now, to price up your new clutch or timing chain replacement etc.) Working backwards from a weekly wage, it is possible to deduce how long a maker would have had for each job. 
There's a thread on Woodcentral with some links and examples here and a price book on Google books here.


----------



## bugbear (6 Sep 2011)

Paul Chapman":1cvlx23o said:


> As well as metal planes being common in schools down here in the 1950s, I came across many joiners and carpenters at that time as there was lots of building and repair work going on as a result of war damage, and I don't remember seeing any of them using wooden planes - they were all using Records and Stanleys.
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> 
> Paul



I have catalogues for 1964 still showing wooden planes (both bench and joint cutting) available from multiple manufacturers. I don't know how well sales were going though.

BugBear


----------



## GazPal (6 Sep 2011)

AndyT":2xdvzgn9 said:


> Harbo":2xdvzgn9 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes but how long did they take and what other tools did they use - scrapers etc.
> ...



Set timescales (Minute values) for hand tool related tasks have changed little - if any - since early Victorian times. Reverse calculations relative to the pricing of furniture samples relies upon knowing the actual degree of retail mark-up. This element alone provides quite surprising detail in terms of realising old timers had similar target timescales to those of us involved in the same work and using the same working practices.

I studied this element of QS during my Guilds craft supplimentary studies coursework back in the 70's and had a few "old" Victorian books covering the topic, but unfortunately lost the books during a housefire in 1990 and can't recall the titles or authors.

-----------------------

Wooden planes were still being marketed in catalogues back in the 70's


----------



## AndyT (6 Sep 2011)

bugbear":2m6kwbtq said:


> I have catalogues for 1964 still showing wooden planes (both bench and joint cutting) available from multiple manufacturers. I don't know how well sales were going though.
> 
> BugBear



Slowly I suspect - as so many of us have proved, they are near enough everlasting!

Just to add to the reminiscences, when I did woodwork at school in the early 70s, each boy had his own 14" wooden jack, which was the 'razee' pattern, and probably by Emir. Only when you had got to the final stages of your work would you be allowed a metal smoothing plane out of the cupboard.


----------



## bugbear (6 Sep 2011)

AndyT":22c4z6ej said:


> bugbear":22c4z6ej said:
> 
> 
> > I have catalogues for 1964 still showing wooden planes (both bench and joint cutting) available from multiple manufacturers. I don't know how well sales were going though.
> ...



Sounds familiar...

The famous Arts & Crafts photo from Peter Walls workshop shows wooden jack planes and jointers, but a infill panel and smoother.

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (6 Sep 2011)

bugbear":wa86bnhh said:


> Sounds familiar...
> 
> The famous Arts & Crafts photo from Peter Walls workshop shows wooden jack planes and jointers, but a infill panel and smoother.
> 
> BugBear



Do you mean this one?







When I said 70s I meant 1970s! (oops sorry, we've had that joke...)


----------



## jimi43 (6 Sep 2011)

Jacob":3s11dtfb said:


> Cost drove out the expensive makers I agree. So be it, you can buy an infill now if you want, they aren't that pricey, but nobody seems to think they are worth it (except collectors).



And theorists who have probably never taken the time to understand them let alone used them but still seem to have an opinion! :roll: 

And where are these "cheap" infills then....apart from at bootfairs!

I guarantee...that ANY of the top infill made planes of today would knock spots of virtually every other plane available.

But I would be interested to understand why you think not Jacob.

Jim


----------



## Jacob (6 Sep 2011)

jimi43":1urv5baj said:


> .......
> I guarantee...that ANY of the top infill made planes of today would knock spots of virtually every other plane available.
> 
> But I would be interested to understand why you think not Jacob.
> ...


A guess. 
Based on the fact that over the years I've been hearing this sort of praise over and over again about one thing or another, and then the opposite - that XYZ is appalling rubbish etc etc. I think the truth usually tends to be somewhere in between, if not somewhere else altogether.
Also - if there really was some special magic about infill planes then I'm sure they would be being made in quantity and at lower cost. Simple stuff - they aren't rocket science after all.
Is there any particular reason why infills should perform as well as their fans claim they do?


----------



## jimi43 (6 Sep 2011)

Jacob":3k667016 said:


> jimi43":3k667016 said:
> 
> 
> > .......
> ...



As I suspected...... :mrgreen: 

I wouldn't try one though mate...I would hate to see a decent plane ruined by diesel stains... :wink: 

As with every object on the planet...there are good and bad examples...some cared for and some abused.

I will rephrase my original statement...a _*good *_infill will outperform virtually any other plane..how's that? 8) 

Jim


----------



## Jacob (6 Sep 2011)

jimi43":1jgfic54 said:


> .......there are ... bad examples...


Surely not! :lol:


> I will rephrase my original statement...a _*good *_infill will outperform virtually any other plane..how's that? 8)
> 
> Jim


Yes a good plane will out perform a bad plane, by definition, but out perform all the others? Doubt it. Don't they have norris adjusters for a start, which don't work too well?

But why would an infill be so superior (not counting the bad examples :lol: )?


----------



## selly (6 Sep 2011)

Its still only planing some wood though boys...


----------



## jimi43 (6 Sep 2011)

Jacob":14c297n0 said:


> jimi43":14c297n0 said:
> 
> 
> > .......there are ... bad examples...
> ...



You misquoted me Jacob...a good infill plane will outperform virtually any other plane....not any other bad plane my friend.... :wink: 

I haven't tried Japanese Kana yet...but I think they may be condenders...and I'm interested to find out one day when I have the patience to tune one....but I digress...

I believe that the weight, the thickness of the iron and the general quality of the steel (vintage and new ones) contribute in harmony to make a rather nice little shaver....

Tuned Baileys may have the thicker irons if added and perform really well...but don't have the weight.

Veritas and other BU have the weight and the thick irons and may perform as well and in some cases...better and they are good contenders because of this.

As far as adjusters...I don't like the Norris adjusters I have tried either...and concur..they don't really work very well...but a hammer does...and once adjusted...I generally leave that plane like that.

I have adjusted my smoothers to a fine cut...the panel, a deeper cut. The shoulder a fine cut and the chariot a very fine cut. They all get adjusted rarely other than that and therefore the issue of adjuster quality is fairly moot...but a good tap either way will adjust the iron in and out fairly easily as woody users will tell you. On a lever-cap infill...you have the added advantage of slackening or tightening the iron and cap to ease this process.

I have got quite good at holding the iron sides with a slightly slackened lever cap...and am able to adjust it in and out quite accurately.....and then it is simply a case of re-tightening the lever cap.

Another advantage with the heavier bodies is that the action of planing becomes quite leisurely....you just push the plane and apply the weight where necessary...it doesn't really need force. Almost every user new to infills over compensate as one would with say a Bailey...and force the plane which results in a poor action. 

The infill will whoosh over the wood if finely tuned and set with little force at all.

I am not trying to be evangelistic about them Jacob...I just love them for what they are...their inherent beauty and the results that they give me. Mind you...I have tried them! :wink: 

Jim


----------



## jimi43 (6 Sep 2011)

selly":2n6qesaa said:


> Its still only planing some wood though boys...



I think you may be in the wrong forum...try the "General Woodworking" one.... :wink: 

Jim


----------



## Jacob (7 Sep 2011)

jimi43":2iug9vzg said:


> ..........
> I am not trying to be evangelistic about them Jacob...I just love them for what they are...their inherent beauty and the results that they give me. Mind you...I have tried them! :wink:
> 
> Jim


I'm sure they are very lovely etc but I just sense that they aren't the way to go for somebody who merely wants to plane wood, with a view to making things!


----------



## bugbear (7 Sep 2011)

Jacob":293q9067 said:


> Is there any particular reason why infills should perform as well as their fans claim they do?



I know you can use google when it suits you, Jacob, and this has been *extensively* discussed.

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (7 Sep 2011)

Jacob":1hdahffk said:


> I'm sure they are very lovely etc but I just sense that they aren't the way to go for somebody who merely wants to plane wood, with a view to making things!



Peter Waals appears to differ.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (7 Sep 2011)

bugbear":8j9rqu2r said:


> Jacob":8j9rqu2r said:
> 
> 
> > Is there any particular reason why infills should perform as well as their fans claim they do?
> ...


If you can't answer the question why bother posting a reply? 
If you do know where to find the answer why not post a link, instead of being feebly sarcastic as usual?


----------



## bugbear (7 Sep 2011)

Jacob":10a4v6nk said:


> bugbear":10a4v6nk said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":10a4v6nk said:
> ...



Because, Grim, I suspect your ignorance is feigned, your disdain of infills synthetic, and you're merely trolling.

BugBear


----------



## jimi43 (7 Sep 2011)

Jacob":a3tz1xew said:


> jimi43":a3tz1xew said:
> 
> 
> > ..........
> ...



I plane wood...I make things with infills as my planes of choice.....does that count?

The panel is my best jointer and the finish really does not require a smoother...

If smaller work is required...the smoothers I have each perform as good as each other and I can choose the one I use as at a whim...I'm afraid the two Bailey smoothers I have...are rather just collector pieces now.. :wink: 

I use my No.7 Bailey...simply because I haven't got a long infill jointer (yet!)....

My hand finished chariot vastly outperforms my No.60 1/2....both shoulder infills give results not achieveable with any other shoulder I have tried which means they are constant user planes....

So...in a number of words...no...they are not just beautiful display items...they are very useable beautiful tools...

Exhibit A...some of the tools I used in a project:






You may see a little Norris steel in this holder:






The sun was so nice that day that I planed "al fresco"....with a Workmate (Heaven forbid!)....and I was near a pond...but I was very very careful! :wink: 

But I simply don't care if you don't get it...I'm the one with the smile on my face very single time I use one...and the steel is so good...I have no need to cover them in diesel... :mrgreen: 

Jim


----------



## Richard T (7 Sep 2011)

Remember folks, this thread was started to discuss jacks, fores, panels and (I forgot) trys. Their dimensions, differences and uses; be they woodie, infill, Bailey or plastic. 

I have a pretty good idea that the merits and otherwise of different types of plane construction may have been discussed elsewhere .... :-"


----------



## woodbloke (7 Sep 2011)

jimi43":3oyw5em4 said:


> I guarantee...that ANY of the top infill made planes of today would knock spots of virtually every other plane available.
> 
> Jim


Jimi, you're skating on very thin ice there. I once had the pleasure of trying out a brand new S&S infill smoother belong to a well known forum member, where I tested it side by side against Veritas LA jack belong to the same individual where the wood planed was interlocked Indian Rosewood. There was no perceptable difference in the finish.
At a later date, I also tried out my LA BU smoother on some tricky Birds Eye Maple which it finished perfectly, so I'm left with the inevitable conclusion that although infils are very pleasant things to own and use, they perform no better than something costing hundreds of pounds less.
Don't get fooled into thinking that they're the Holy Grail...they're not! - Rob


----------



## jimi43 (7 Sep 2011)

woodbloke":2e92nxfg said:


> jimi43":2e92nxfg said:
> 
> 
> > I guarantee...that ANY of the top infill made planes of today would knock spots of virtually every other plane available.
> ...



I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous statement:



> Veritas and other BU have the weight and the thick irons and may perform as well and in some cases...better and they are good contenders because of this.



Sorry Richard...back to regular progamming! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: 

Jim


----------



## Jacob (7 Sep 2011)

OK then when I get a chance I'll have a go with one!
I've done this with other planes where wild enthusiasm is the rule of the day (and the opposite with supposedly rubbish tools) but the results definitely haven't always been as predicted.
There's a huge bias in favour of tools which simply look nice. This is self fulfilling as people have low expectations (and don't try so hard) with the ugly ones (poor little things!).
The main thing seems to be that infill are simple and solid - a bit like LN,LV BU planes, so if they work at all it's going to be easy to set them up. Bailey types take a good deal of fiddling to get them going well.


----------



## woodbloke (7 Sep 2011)

jimi43":tr4j6u27 said:


> I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous statement:
> [Jim


Makes a change to be called '_honourable'_ Jim...I suspect it's usually something quite different :lol: - Rob


----------



## custard (7 Sep 2011)

Jacob":2q9l6ixm said:


> There's a huge bias in favour of tools which simply look nice. This is self fulfilling as people have low expectations (and don't try so hard) with the ugly ones (poor little things!).



Agreed. 

There's more ceremony and reverence here than at the royal wedding!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnbxgzhvZyY

But it was ever thus, and demonstrations that simple, ugly tools can perform equally well won't change our drooling desire for polished gunmetal and naval brass!


----------



## Jacob (7 Sep 2011)

custard":1aaohkzp said:


> Jacob":1aaohkzp said:
> 
> 
> > There's a huge bias in favour of tools which simply look nice. This is self fulfilling as people have low expectations (and don't try so hard) with the ugly ones (poor little things!).
> ...


Strewth it's not even funny! I stopped watching pretty quickly when he started admiring the packaging ("attention to detail" etc) which in fact was not at all exceptional - perfectly bloody average IMHO.

Then I had another peek just in case I was missing anything. :roll: You don't get much for £17000!
One of them came without a poly bag! I call that lack of attention to detail. Lovely socks though.

Strange that such a saddo tooly geek hadn't even got the proper tool to open a parcel with i.e. a Mora craft knife, as everybody knows!


----------



## Vann (7 Sep 2011)

Richard T":313eng8x said:


> Remember folks, this thread was started to discuss jacks, fores, panels and (I forgot) trys. Their dimensions, differences and uses; be they woodie, infill, Bailey or plastic.
> 
> I have a pretty good idea that the merits and otherwise of different types of plane construction may have been discussed elsewhere .... :-"


Looks like it fell on deaf ears Richard (...sigh...)

I've got a 7 and a 10 year old at home. Sometimes they just niggle at each other all day. Send them to their rooms, I say.

Cheers, Vann :roll: .


----------



## Sawyer (7 Sep 2011)

Jacob":2g2t6pgh said:


> OK then when I get a chance I'll have a go with one!
> I've done this with other planes where wild enthusiasm is the rule of the day (and the opposite with supposedly rubbish tools) but the results definitely haven't always been as predicted.
> There's a huge bias in favour of tools which simply look nice. This is self fulfilling as people have low expectations (and don't try so hard) with the ugly ones (poor little things!).
> The main thing seems to be that infill are simple and solid - a bit like LN,LV BU planes, so if they work at all it's going to be easy to set them up. Bailey types take a good deal of fiddling to get them going well.


Hmm. Holtey planes are works of art; maybe even the most beautiful planes ever made. Trouble is, looking so nice and costing so much almost makes them too good to use. No doubt they work superbly too (can't imagine I'll ever get to try one though  )
I have two, very unglamorous Footprint bench planes: a no. 4 and a 5. Carefully fettled, they work perfectly well and have given sterling service for 25 years. Despite sharing cupboard space with Cliftons & a Lie Nielson, the Footprints still get used constantly as they are so often, the ideal size and weight.
My posh planes work even better, it's true and I'd love to own a Holtey. But I'd be distraught if it got a scratch on it!
And if used for its proper purpose, amid the hurly-burly of the bench top - that would happen pretty soon.


----------



## Modernist (8 Sep 2011)

Jacob":3qogtq0r said:


> I don't entirely believe that A Peters used a no7 so much. Why would he? It's a big joinery plane, not for furniture.
> Woodwork seems to be full of funny little myths and legends!



I have researched this further and it seems that since they were all into A & C furniture this consisted largely of straight lines so straightness was the issue hence the No 7. After that it appears AP simply used it for everything "however short"


----------



## Jacob (8 Sep 2011)

Modernist":3koj3r71 said:


> Jacob":3koj3r71 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't entirely believe that A Peters used a no7 so much. Why would he? It's a big joinery plane, not for furniture.
> ...


Hmm dunno it doesn't look especially straight to me if you look at this lot
I've just bought "Good Citizens Furniture" - about the A&C collections at Cheltenham with lots of stuff from Morris to Makepeace. Straightness not an obvious feature compared to much otherwise ordinary stuff, though a long way from highly decorative trends elsewhere.
Big feature is that most (not all) of the well known characters are gentry in one way or another, including architects, drop out vicars etc. tending to strangeness but having public school education in common. Hence the "schools". The no 7 could just be a whim of self punishment/discipline, along with cold baths and sodomy.
I imagine 4ft tall apprentices each struggling with 2ft long planes because it's the school rule.

Getting a full blast of A&C can be a touch claustrophobic as the one thing I sense more than any other is the inclination to control, manipulate, make "creative", stamp identity, on every sodding detail. Sometimes it works but other times it looks repressed. Furniture Hitler would like. In this book it's the non-gentry Ambrose Heal who stands out for me as being modern with fresh clean lines, as compared to ploddy old Barnsley (ex Bedales school!), though it's a bit of a sweeping statement I admit.


----------



## Modernist (8 Sep 2011)

I agree, largely, A & C leaves me fairly tepid although it was a high point of wooden accuracy! I think it is often depressing stuff and it's main protagonists were well off enough not to need to make "commercial" pieces. As for octagons - I hate them in furniture design. The difficulty is you need to compare them with what was happening at the time. Then, as now, there was probably a sea of repro and/or rubbish, so it may have been a reaction against that.

Heal was clearly different, you can see it in our large hall cupboard. Clean lines and sound construction, but again, probably not cheap in it's day.

Anyway, as I said elsewhere, curves is where its at.


----------



## Jacob (8 Sep 2011)

Alan Peters wasn't gentry either and he did well to get as far away from A&C as he did - though not far enough IMHO!


----------



## Richard T (9 Sep 2011)

If no one has anything to say which is even vaguely related to this thread, I can only conclude that no one on this forum (with the exception of some - thanks folks.) has any idea about planes between 9 and 16" long; their dimensions, names or purpose. It's a disappointment to say the least. 
What is more disappointing is the continual rudeness of those who persist in ignoring the subject/question and just chunter on about anything at all. There are more than several chuntering - on threads for that. 
If you don't know what these planes are, or are for, just say so. I'll understand.

In the mean time. I fully intend to reply to every forthcoming thread with a completely unrelated subject ; cheese, the Yeti, Frankfurt , dust ....


----------



## Modernist (9 Sep 2011)

Richard T":2dve1ni7 said:


> If no one has anything to say which is even vaguely related to this thread, I can only conclude that no one on this forum (with the exception of some - thanks folks.) has any idea about planes between 9 and 16" long; their dimensions, names or purpose. It's a disappointment to say the least.
> What is more disappointing is the continual rudeness of those who persist in ignoring the subject/question and just chunter on about anything at all. There are more than several chuntering - on threads for that.
> If you don't know what these planes are, or are for, just say so. I'll understand.
> 
> In the mean time. I fully intend to reply to every forthcoming thread with a completely unrelated subject ; cheese, the Yeti, Frankfurt , dust ....




What,s not about plane length in the above or is it just te authors you object to?


----------



## Jacob (9 Sep 2011)

Richard T":2xuaz8w3 said:


> If no one has anything to say which is even vaguely related to this thread, I can only conclude that no one on this forum (with the exception of some - thanks folks.) has any idea about planes between 9 and 16" long; their dimensions, names or purpose. It's a disappointment to say the least.....


I'm not sure what your question is exactly. Yes there are planes between 9 and 22 inches long, yes they are loosely called _jack, fore, jointer, panel,_ yes they vary in width from 2 to 2 1/2".
They all have the same purpose (planing) but some sizes are vaguely preferred for some jobs rather than others. A jack will do for most things. Not sure why one is called a _panel_ plane. Which one I can't recaLL. No doubt someone has a dubious explanation! It depends on what you've got. Many would use a 5 1/2 as a jack, some a 5, others a 7. If you had the full range you'd be spoilt for choice and would probably end up using just two or three.
A longer plane helps to keep flat longer work, but is by no means essential; jack will do everything but where a 7 comes into it's own a 4 probably wouldn't do at all, and vice versa and so on. Though the A&C lot seem to have a flagellation tradition of using a 7 for everything, hence the diversion above.

Why 9" to 22" particularly? There are longer and shorter ones.

Just checked your OP _Just how many planes are there between 9" and 22" long_. The answer is probably many millions as they were made in all sizes in between. Individual makers would tend have their own specific range though this would not be fixed.


----------



## Richard T (9 Sep 2011)

Brian, I'm not sure what is or isn't about plane length above ... it's not immediately obvious - that's why I was asking the question (s) I guess. And no, it's certainly not the authors I object to.  There have been some very interesting and useful things turned up in the last 7 pages; just most of them, seemingly, not much to do with Jacks et al.

Thanks Jacob. I guess that we would usually differentiate between a jack and a try or fore by saying #5 or #5 - 1/2 though I have seen a #6 referred to as a fore and also referred to as mystifyingly pointless ... 
So what's left is panel. The posh makers seem to only offer "panel" planes with in this range of length and they seem to be the full 2 - 1/2". So can I conclude that this is the least camber and therefore more like a longer smoother?


----------



## Modernist (9 Sep 2011)

Richard T":2ynpfcz5 said:


> Brian, I'm not sure what is or isn't about plane length above ... it's not immediately obvious - that's why I was asking the question (s) I guess. And no, it's certainly not the authors I object to.  There have been some very interesting and useful things turned up in the last 7 pages; just most of them, seemingly, not much to do with Jacks et al.
> ?



Well I'm relieved it's not my de-odourant. I think the issue of the use of planes of different lengths for different purposes is interesting and the issue of the A & C brigade using a No 7 for everything is an oft repeated issue worth exploring in the current context. I do have some direct access to evidence on this one as my old man is one of the No 7 believers.


----------



## bugbear (9 Sep 2011)

Modernist":3b6w1f98 said:


> I agree, largely, A & C leaves me fairly tepid although it was a high point of wooden accuracy!



I thought they were strongly against machine made (implicitly accurate), and obsessive about hand work, "mark of the maker" and so on?

The point about catering to "swinish luxury of the rich" has been made before, of course. Only the well off can afford nice hand made furniture, in any age.

Unless they're amateurs making their own, of course. Free time makes for cheap furniture.

BugBear


----------



## Scouse (9 Sep 2011)

I wonder if the confusion over different plane types is caused by the considerable overlap between plane types. What I mean is that a no.4 is what it is, and a number 5 is what it is because that's what Stanley or whoever said they were. 

I've seen no.5s used as rough stock prep tools, smoothers and jointers. I've seen no.8 used to produce a final smooth finish on long panels, so I think that although a plane may have a particular function, ie. a no.8 is long to allow it to ride over the undulations of a board and true the surface for jointing, it can still have other functions too, it's a jointer because it it long, but it is a number 8, or a seven or a six, because Stanley, or whoever, said so a hundred years ago.

The variation in mouth widths on the planes I measured, together with the fact that the mouths (that is frogs on BD and mouths on BU) are adjustable for width makes me think that maybe, and as I sit here looking at 20 planes I'm as guilty as anyone, we all fall victim to marketing hype.

After all Stanley, or whoever, want to sell planes, so if each plane gets a very specific function, the average consumer will think they must have each one to do each woodwork job, and a massive range from 1 to 8 including half, and in some cases quarter sizes, simply sells more planes.

It's a conspiracy, I tells ya... I'm off to make a foil hat.


----------



## Modernist (9 Sep 2011)

bugbear":308vwh6t said:


> Modernist":308vwh6t said:
> 
> 
> > I agree, largely, A & C leaves me fairly tepid although it was a high point of wooden accuracy!
> ...



Agreed except that they (Barnsley) took precision with hand tools to the then limit which, almost by definition, eliminates the "mark of the maker". Just to avoid being told off for being off message that is why they used the No 7. IMHO they took precision making too far as it overtook the aesthetics of the piece. It is also why they had a lot of drawers jamming as also illustrated at Cheltenham recently.


----------



## Richard T (9 Sep 2011)

I am guessing (again) that a movement that preached accuracy without machines would be likely to get obsessed with hand tool accuracy . An inverted 28" iron plane does look very much like a PT, though quieter. 
This ethos may work ok when finishing - working on wood already flat and tamed but how do this brigade go about producing the flat stock in the first place non mechanically? There must be some more aggressive/persuasive tools earlier on. Also for making the wooden things of work - lathes, shave horses, benches etc that don't have to be perfectly finished. 

For instance, if one assembles a new work bench top of jointed, long, thick slabs following the maxim of alternate rings up, rings down, so that if they cup and bow it will be even - and they do cup and bow badly; what's the tool for the job? Adze? Scrub? Jack? And if anyone would reach for a jack first surly it would have to be verging on the scrub - like to cope? 

Ellis - dead right. If you think of a job that there is apparently no plane for, a quick check will reveal that Stanley have made one or several for it at some time. I find it very interesting that the LNs and LVs are weeding through the vast back catalogue of forgotten ideas, resurrecting the ones they reckon might have a second chance, and how few are chosen.


----------



## Modernist (9 Sep 2011)

Richard T":12zqqnpk said:


> I am guessing (again) that a movement that preached accuracy without machines would be likely to get obsessed with hand tool accuracy . An inverted 28" iron plane does look very much like a PT, though quieter.
> This ethos may work ok when finishing - working on wood already flat and tamed but how do this brigade go about producing the flat stock in the first place non mechanically? There must be some more aggressive/persuasive tools earlier on. Also for making the wooden things of work - lathes, shave horses, benches etc that don't have to be perfectly finished.
> 
> For instance, if one assembles a new work bench top of jointed, long, thick slabs following the maxim of alternate rings up, rings down, so that if they cup and bow it will be even - and they do cup and bow badly; what's the tool for the job? Adze? Scrub? Jack? And if anyone would reach for a jack first surly it would have to be verging on the scrub - like to cope?
> ...



Scrub/Jack/7 or 8 possibly missing out the jack for flatness quickly


----------



## Paul Chapman (9 Sep 2011)

Richard T":330ld5pd said:


> For instance, if one assembles a new work bench top of jointed, long, thick slabs following the maxim of alternate rings up, rings down, so that if they cup and bow it will be even - and they do cup and bow badly; what's the tool for the job? Adze? Scrub? Jack? And if anyone would reach for a jack first surly it would have to be verging on the scrub - like to cope?



In that situation, I would use the #7, planing diagonally across the grain and then along it. The object is to get the (already previously planed) surface flat as quickly and easily as possible. Using an adze or scrub will simply cause more mess which will need cleaning up.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## bugbear (9 Sep 2011)

Scouse":1jjf5roz said:


> I wonder if the confusion over different plane types is caused by the considerable overlap between plane types. What I mean is that a no.4 is what it is, and a number 5 is what it is because that's what Stanley or whoever said they were.



If you're making jewellery boxes, a Stanley #5 is a JOINTER. 

BugBear


----------



## Scouse (9 Sep 2011)

bugbear":ljyws7ju said:


> If you're making jewellery boxes, a Stanley #5 is a JOINTER.



Indeed, my jointer of choice for small instrument tops is not the one to the rear...  







Incidentally, the small block plane has a mouth opening of 3mm.


----------



## Jacob (9 Sep 2011)

bugbear":2270ktgm said:


> ..... Only the well off can afford nice hand made furniture, in any age....


Absolutely untrue. 
Vast amounts of very ordinary furniture* (call it "vernacular" or whatever) was very well made and very attractive. This is a detail that Morris and the A&C movement seemed blind to, referring back instead to a mythical golden age. They missed a great historical truth IMHO, which was not quite so overlooked by other nations.

*PS and other everyday artifacts


----------



## GazPal (9 Sep 2011)

Jacob":2xg7d940 said:


> bugbear":2xg7d940 said:
> 
> 
> > ..... Only the well off can afford nice hand made furniture, in any age....
> ...




I agree. Perhaps without inlay and other forms of embelishment, but pre-industrial revolution furniture ranged between downright crudely made to extremely well crafted pieces illustrated the fact that highly skilled artisans crafted furniture for all social classes as a matter of course. The same stands true in the present. People who enjoy owning and using nice furniture are more than willing to save for such pieces if their disposable income allows.


----------



## Sawyer (12 Sep 2011)

> I think the issue of the use of planes of different lengths for different purposes is interesting and the issue of the A & C brigade using a No 7 for everything is an oft repeated issue worth exploring in the current context. I do have some direct access to evidence on this one as my old man is one of the No 7 believers.


Each to their own, I suppose, but I don't see the logic of the 'no. 7 for everything' which seems to make life harder than it need be (as Jacob has already suggested in rather colourful terms).
I have a Clifton no. 7: a brilliant tool, which has improved my edge-jointing markedly. Also, cumbrous in the extreme however, so only used when really needed. Woodwork is energetic enough without introducing unnecessary weight training.
The plane I reach for most often is the very versatile no. 5 jack: accurate enough to get most things as straight as they _need _to be; reasonable momentum, yet still light enough to be agile. Any necessary refinements of finish or accuracy can then be done with other planes (normally smoother, or jointer). Less effort (= less time, important when making a living) than using a no. 7 for everything.

I'm considering investing in a no. 6 fore plane, but can't decide if I really _need _it. The idea is to set the no. 5 a bit coarser with more camber and wider mouth, with the no. 6 set finer (but coarser than smoother or jointer) as a general purpose tool for bench joinery, &c.


----------



## János (12 Sep 2011)

Hello,

Interesting thread.
The scrub plane was/is an European continental pattern: a tool with 9 to 11 inches long stock, and a narrow 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 inches wide, chambered single iron. Most of them had an upright "horn type" front handle. They were/are used to initially plane and flatten split or roughsawn boards. 
They were mostly unheard of in Britain or the US until the XIXth century. In that century The German industry developed rapidly, and produced lots of tools and machinery for worldwide export. So the scrub was exported to the UK and US. The name "Bismarck" is a kind of nick name, I think... After the firs world war, the germans were not so popular amongst the members of British public, so the tool merchants changed the name to "scrub".
According to hand tool historians (Whelan, for example), the British and Americans used the jack for exactly the same purpose, as the continental artisans used their scrub planes.
A panel plane is a medium sized plane, in the range of the "common jack", but with wider blade (2 inches and up), and a straighter edge, and the iron is often double (breaker or cap iron mounted on top of the cutting iron). Historical/classic wooden jackplanes were seldom mounted with double irons.

Have a nice day,

János


----------

